Original argument here: https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/781334763370082308 … My mistake was getting distracted by the N-counting argument. The real point is the EV. 2/
-
-
seems easier to persuade them of that, rather than of their radical ignorance of EV of candidates
-
Sigh. Again, I was *specifically* critiquing the Nate Silver/SSC "you should vote even if the odds are 1/60M" argument.
-
Their argument: "there's $300 BILLION at stake!" and my critique is "you're a god-damned fool if you believe that."
-
agreed there. I started arguing with you bc of https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/788100278545321984 … Let us not speak of voting again
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.