this is where we talk about nate silver's 'most livable neighborhood in nyc' ranking

would = woulda

have lived in 1, 17, 18 and 20

i question the ranking of #2, frankly

i mean it's expensive, debris-strewn, and filled with fucking douchebags at night

yeah, even worse, w/ the 'livability calculator' (http://nymag.com/realestate/neighborhoods/2010/65355/) it's the #1 neighborhood for "Young, Single, and Cash-Strapped"

yeah when I saw that I thought, "LES must be cheaper than I imagined"

and Greenpoint kid-friendlier than I imagined

LES ranking is totally bizarre--i dont understand what figures hes looking at to say that its cheap.

i voted prospect heights btw due to it feeling like one of the few places that has some combination of an interesting nightlife without an overwhelming jerkoff factor

a lot of individual stats are straight up wtf - for example: jackson heights scores 32nd on food and LIC scores 14th.

i voted prospect heights btw

<3<3 u rock

i mean technically i live in crown heights i guess??? but i spend 90% of my time in the prosp

there also should have been some kind of adjacent-neighborhood halo effect taken into account. a friend of mine who used to live in bk heights was like "sure brooklyn heights has mostly shitty bars and restaurants, but all the stuff nearby in cobble hill basically functions as part of the neighborhood"

xpost I live in P Heights proper

where did you move to, max? we should go to Washington Commons or something. I was just there the other day

freddy's r.i.p.

jackson heights scores 32nd on food

yeah that's completely messed up, I've gone to Jax Heights for food and it's an hour-plus away!

im at franklin & bergen! we should do a washington/vanderbilt bar crawl

to me #3 and #31 are alike in so many ways and the fact that they so far apart makes me think silver's "science" is dubious at best

yeah I really like inwood and was surprised it didn't do better, but sunnyside really profited from being #1 on the diversity statistic (and the fact that nate really, really low-balled sunnyside rents...)

wow I used 'really' 4 times in that sentence

also this is splitting hairs cause they're #1 and #2 and basically the same neighborhood....but there's no way sunnyside is more 'diverse' than woodside

this is the most relevant fact imo
When I moved to New York from Chicago last April

haha idk I've been here even less time than that

(and most native new yorkers that I talk to seem sorta proud of the fact that they never leave their immediate surroundings)

not that I'm claiming to be an expert on anything...more that I don't think that your average person who's been here 10 years really would have done a better job

I've lived in Crown Heights but voted for Washington Heights cause that's where I live now and repping for my hood!

yo where's the creative capital at?

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

People sometimes say that Prospect Heights has OK nightlife. I live here, and like it for other reasons, but it doesn't. What do you have in mind? Soda Bar? The Vanderbilt? Washington Commons? er...

sure! i mean what do you mean by "OK nightlife"? all im looking for is a handful of bars with crowds that dont make me feel like committing suicide

when i lived in prospect heights, i liked washington commons. do not like franklin park usually. sepia is alright, was down the block from me. don't really like soda, or plan b. sharlene's has a trivia night we've been to a few times.

also, brooklyn museum's first saturdays are fun. (believe it or not.)

yeah im not a soda fan. franklin park is OK! and now has a good burger place attached. wash commons is good, i like woodwork so far. havent been to vanderbilt.

starlite lounge is fun but i guess thats crown heights

i mean i would 10000000% rather go out in p'spect heights than williamsburg or really anywhere in manhattan

I was forced to take G shuttle bus today; Greenpoint looks livable, but can I afford it? I'd love to pay less rent but I hate hate hate moving.

Also, Sunday Times pimping LIC in real-estate sec today.

also let's drink in P' Heights real soon huh?

trains were awful this weekend. we should do a p-heights fap some weekend soon tho.

i also was fucked by a shuttle bus today! noticed the G was fucked, took the L to the F without checking first & the F was also not running past jay street. took a shuttle bus and was half an hour late to meet a girl for scrabble. d'oh.

Dozens of trains fucked every weekend.

Bunch of bus stops in my nabe have notices of end-of-June service cuts - no overnight B67!

"meet a girl for scrabble"

easily decoded

avoided the g this weekend, but I love how the service advisories still often refer to forest hills - despite the fact that service past court square is officially 100% cut.

so is nate silver gay or what

― jordan s (J0rdan S.), Friday, October 31, 2008 2:10 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://out.com/Out100/slideshow.asp?slideshow_title=Out100&theID=270#Top

i'm going to delete my ilx login while playing a youtube of the smashmouth concert at the end of 'rat race'

there are no remaining questions left to be answered

wow!

for some reason I would have never guessed this

Oh Natepaws.

at first it seems kinda douchey otoh I don't really see the harm in nate silver making a buck however the hell he wants to, it's not like he's joining goldman sachs

hey he's the mind behind the 7th or 8th most accurate baseball statistical forecasting model.

still a better deal than the fuckin freakeconomics dude

re: meteorology
In a previous job experience I helped support a client-facing website that did aggregate data from weather sources to do some reporting. Clients did complain when the site claimed they received half an inch of rain and they got significantly more or less. It turns out most of that reporting was just data from the National Weather Service, who mostly had rain gauges at airports. As time went on, models extrapolating precipitation based on actual and cloud formation data have become more common.

At the time, there was a program where the weather data company would subsidize the installation of a mini weather station on the complainer’s property, which then got added to their reported data. A mess because it’s a fight about who owns the station, the data, etc.

So yeah, when it’s business critical, meteorological companies, like polling companies, will figure out how to make fudged numbers more closely reflect actual observed conditions

That reminds me of when my sister saw a forecast of 100% rain and I had to explain to her it meant a 100% chance of rain and not that it would rain all day and all night.

― pisspoor bung probe prog (Tom D.), Tuesday, 10 September 2024 11:01 (two hours ago) link

a meteorologist is actually not a bad comparison of what he's doing.

My comment more about the end users. US Pol threads filled with people in denial re: polls showing an incredibly close race. I get it, polls make me anxious too.

"Filled"

oh I know it's gonna be a close race that'll be determined by a sum total of like 80,000 across 3 or 4 states, all I'm saying is a model that gives Trump nearly a coinflip at winning the popular vote is probably not accurate

It turns out most of that reporting was just data from the National Weather Service, who mostly had rain gauges at airports.

This reminds me of when I lived on the east coast; the temperature in New Jersey would always be shown as significantly higher than the temperature in NYC, and I used to joke to my wife that this was because the weathermen had stuck one thermometer in the tarmac at Newark Airport, and left another resting under a tree in Central Park.

not far off!

I remember local tv stations would advertise things like SUPER DOPPLER to try to differentiate themselves from their peers. There were a handful of places that did have additional equipment, but 99% of the time tv meteorologists in this country would just eyeball the NWS data and maybe add some guesses, throw their own overlays over the NWS radar data, etc. Some of the larger networks or organizations contract with more specific providers. What was formerly just The Weather Channel is some mess that's now owned by IBM and they sell direct weather data, predictions, etc. Other providers (DTN comes to mind) would show up for specific slices of the market. I think at one point that one was "official weather service of the PGA" because golfers care so much about weather etc.

afaik Nate Silver and others are doing that kind of hand-waving over a bunch of independent sources in a similar way

That reminds me of when my sister saw a forecast of 100% rain and I had to explain to her it meant a 100% chance of rain and not that it would rain all day and all night.

Apparently this was the year when a bunch of people learned that the percentage is actually a geographical representation of HOW MUCH of the reporting area is expected to see rain at some point during the measurement period. So "45% chance of rain on Tuesday" means 45% of the territory will see some rain at some point on Tuesday.

Wild.

My spouse doesn't even bother going that far. If they even see the rain icon on the forecast their assumption is nothing but rain, despite how many times i've tried explaining that's not the case.

Yeah, this argument happens every year at this time in South Florida. When people hear "60 percent chance of rain," they think there's a 60 percent chance rain -- intense blinding rain, of course -- will fall on their neighborhood.

I have to re-learn that periodically, and I still don't really get it. Does 20% chance mean 20% of the land area has 100% chance?

xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_d7xzbGgWA

Apparently this was the year when a bunch of people learned that the percentage is actually a geographical representation of HOW MUCH of the reporting area is expected to see rain at some point during the measurement period. So "45% chance of rain on Tuesday" means 45% of the territory will see some rain at some point on Tuesday.

That's not what it means in the UK.

But you guys also spell color with a u

Must be one of those American Things.

Seriously though, has anyone told the National Weather Service?

https://www.weather.gov/lmk/pops

I have to re-learn that periodically, and I still don't really get it. Does 20% chance mean 20% of the land area has 100% chance?

It's a bit more complicated but it's that multiplied by a chance of precipitation happening at all. Source:
https://www.weather.gov/media/pah/WeatherEducation/pop.pdf

To summarize, the probability of precipitation is simply a statistical probability of 0.01" inch or
more of precipitation at a given area in the given forecast area in the time period specified. Using
a 40% probability of rain as an example, it does not mean (1) that 40% of the area will be
covered by precipitation at given time in the given forecast area or (2) that you will be seeing
precipitation 40% of the time in the given forecast area for the given forecast time period.
Let's look at an example of what the probability does mean. If a forecast for a given county says
that there is a 40% chance of rain this afternoon, then there is a 40% chance of rain at any point
in the county from noon to 6 p.m. local time.

This point probability of precipitation is predetermined and arrived at by the forecaster by
multiplying two factors:
- Forecaster certainty that precipitation will form or move into the area X
- Areal coverage of precipitation that is expected

(and then moving the decimal point two places to the left)

Using this, here are two examples giving the same statistical result:
(1) If the forecaster was 80% certain that rain would develop but only expected to cover 50% of
the forecast area, then the forecast would read "a 40% chance of rain" for any given location.
(2) If the forecaster expected a widespread area of precipitation with 100% coverage to
approach, but he/she was only 40% certain that it would reach the forecast area, this would, as
well, result in a "40% chance of rain" at any given location in the forecast area

Weather forecasters need to get over themselves (100% chance)

some friends had a local news meteorology guy in their circle and we ran into him at some local outdoor fest and he dished on all the local gossip, the former coworker who got ousted during weird covid office shit, but the one thing he’d never claim to be was a weather forecaster. it’s just meteorology. they deliver forecasts, with some degree of certainty. it’s like a guy saying, whoa, a banker is not a debt holder. they just deal with loans and investment instruments. I just facilitate that stuff

pretty much everywhere...it's gonna be hot

Several years back I toured the NWS' Oxnard office which handles forecasting for the Los Angeles sprawl. It's medium-high level nerd stuff, but the tour is recommended if you think you might like it. I asked them what's the weirdest phone call they ever received (always ask this question!) and without hesitatiion they said it was the vampires -- straight-up "I am a vampire and I need to know about the sun's luminosity and local cloudcover over the next week" questions. It was noted that the NWS is happy to provide information to all folks both alive and undead and that the vampires were always poilte and very thankful for the forecasts

pretty much everywhere...it's gonna be hot

― Daniel_Rf, Wednesday, September 11, 2024 4:27 AM (eleven hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

then I don't need a jacket

just for the record:

https://i.imgur.com/Kh2EHIy.png

so much smarter than everyone else that he came out the other side

lol

remember when he looked down his nose at pundits who let their "conventional wisdom" distract them from provable data?

Back in the day, his writings were mostly just wonkish stat nerd detail about why his model did X or Y, and the tradeoffs versus having it do B or C, and that was sort of nice nerdy comfort-food reading. He's always been atrocious whenever he would let himself play pundit on political strategy, or opine in any way on the material and social worlds that shape or are affected by politics. Unfortunately he's now put those things front and center, and he still stinks at all of it, classic blinkered Beltway-media centrist nonsense.

You couldn't even really see the "Stature Gap" on the broadcast I watched. She actually looked weirdly taller than him because he kept hunching.

(open for context)

I believe the saying is "like a turd in a punch bowl, it not only disinclines you to drink any more but raises very disconcerting questions about what has already been consumed"

— Dan Davies (@dsquareddigest) September 12, 2024

No about-face on my mea culpa above or anything, but I'm still checking his projection, wanting her to do well; I think I now internally make my own adjustment to whatever Silver has. Harris has pulled back to almost even--47.6%--so that's good news.

turd in the punch bowl, indeed

"Polls and models become a vehicle for what psychologists call transference: basically, people displace all their anxieties about the election onto the forecasts and the people who design them."

Would definitely agree with that.

One case where the world's most annoying media critics Actually Have A Good Point for Once is that the handling of Trump hacked documents is extremely inconsistent with the handling of the Clinton hacked documents in 2016.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 23, 2024

He had a good post today on outliers.

Or if you don’t like the Silver Bulletin or 538 or RealClearPolitics averages, I’ll offer another alternative. Make your own average. Seriously, it’s not that hard. But I do have one stipulation: you have to publicly specify the rules ahead of time. I think you’ll find that when you’re forced to be consistent, to set standards that aren’t governed by your ad hoc sense of the vibes or by your partisan preferences, you’ll have a lot more sympathy for the polling aggregators — and you won’t be as surprised when one of the outliers turns out to be right.

damn the best take on outliers since malcolm gladwell

out lying in his field

https://i.imgur.com/xgyMAmG.jpeg

Straightforward question for anyone who still pays attention to Silver (but really don't want to get into yet another discussion of Silver himself):

Today, he has the "Electoral Collage Probability" at 50.2% for Trump and 49.5% for Harris; for "Predicted Electoral Votes," he has Harris at 273.6 and Trump at 264.4.

I get the idea of probability to win the EC, and how that doesn't translate into equivalent EC votes. But there's a disconnect between those two I'm not getting--how can you be slightly favoured in one but not the other?

guessing it's because Harris's most likely paths have her winning more electoral votes on average

That makes sense, although I would have thought the reverse--that Harris wins more often, but mostly by 270-268 and comes out lower on average EC votes.

(I.e., wins slightly more simulations.)

its very tricky to calculate since each state isn't really its own independent event, even if say WI and MI are tossups, they still both go the same way in basically every election, so it's more here than just aggregating probabilities...I think. Nate's models tend to take this sort of thing into account. that said I still don't buy these models are accurate, once again I must point out that Silver's model had Trump at 42% or so to win the popular vote outright a few weeks ago, which I think is nearly impossible - also he throws all those garbage R-leaning polls into the mix, which is how he whiffed so hard on 2022

loooooooooooool he is shook

https://i.postimg.cc/XvcrfZn3/72515267-b85b-41c8-a06f-12797fbe0096.jpg

I mean

https://i.postimg.cc/XvcrfZn3/72515267-b85b-41c8-a06f-12797fbe0096.jpg

repping for the three For the Boys fans out there

wicked burn reminding someone they got nominated for an oscar

The model works based on calls made by five major news organizations: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News, and the New York Times.

Re their coverage tonight. Fox but not CNN? Can see both, neither, or just CNN, but not that--silly.

huh

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:tb2bwzxom5qv4542ru3zqcgu/bafkreih2m6gt4iywiskcjws6l5b46qh3fo3istjbt3zu2fpun2xbmefnkm@jpeg

This chump

ONE MORE TIME

https://i.imgur.com/mKKTIFT.jpeg

I wonder who the other four were?