this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
-7 points (26.7% liked)

politics

18883 readers
4362 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Founders Fund has their dick in everything in the valley. They’ve invested in basically the entire title screen of HBO’s Silicon Valley.

Fuck Thiel, but trying to associate Thiel’s politics with Silver’s Blog / Model is a big stretch.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But still, going from a "unbiased" pollster to a high-tech bookie is clearly a money grab. This article tells us very little, except "it's a close horse race!" That sounds exactly like what a bookie would say to get more money on the match.

His focus has changed. I wonder how Nate Silver himself would treat a formerly good pollster who recently started an online betting arm? I suspect he would downgrade their reliability due to conflict of interest.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

To be fair, he blew up because he took statistical modeling frameworks that were used for sports and gambling, and he applied them to elections.

He’s been using this language for years. He’s was a sport statistician and someone that made a living playing poker.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Thiel getting his money dick everywhere is not an accident. It's one he can exercise control on his peers or underlings.

Nate silver opted to join the above, so his opinions are now tainted by that association.

They may be accurate, but they now require extra scrutiny.