So here's the think about that: The 8% came true. It's why some people bet on the green 00 on Roulette. Small likelihood, big payoff. It doesn't mean the HRC percentage was, per se, wrong.
-
-
That's like saying we shouldn't have weather forecasts because it doesn't rain every time the forecast is for a 90% chance of rain.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t get this... if it’s not an all or nothing it is therefore useless? Isn’t this type of information better than guesses by journalists and pundits?
-
It is useless for impatient people who want a “Yes/No”, “On/Off simple dichotomy. And those mentalities are dangerous for probabilities. Definitely these estimations are better than gurus’ oracles. But still, hope for the best, be prepared for the worst.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Asking a general Twitter population to understand probability is a futile endeavor
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're supposed to be a lot smarter than this I thought.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I love your Atlantic articles but I am disappointed in this response. Probabilities are a way of quantifying uncertainty which is better than ping ponging around with every new poll.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what? no. that is not how statistics works.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They are, because it's not a dice roll. Voters can and will be influenced.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Literally none of them are going to be exact the question is how wrong are they? On average about 6% across all reputable polls. The results of 2016 were within that range.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

