Talk:1131: Math

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (signing unsigned comments)
(pixels)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
[http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}
 
[http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}
 +
 +
I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:52, 9 November 2012

Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod

Picture downloaded from xkcd, uploaded to the wiki with the correct license and "xkcd" added to the filename as a prefix, then filename changed in page source to correct image. Hope this helps in the future! - Coombeseh (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain further? I guess the joke is about the forecast? thank you --89.144.192.97 14:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Randall's on the nose again. This is why I just turned off all media yesterday, especially toward the end of the evening. Unless you're up for contrived suspense, it's really just tediousness lived through: barely five minutes of "news" per hour, the remaining "empty" time filled with the drone of talking heads waxing obnoxious about irrelevancies. This morning, the results are in, and I'm no worse for not having endured the conjectural drivel... -- IronyChef (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As a note, the title text is referring to the consensus polls, including those at fivethirtyeight.com, which were referred to in the previous episode. Another interpretation of the "numbers" comment is that the predictions based on polling numbers and proper statistical analyses of those, rather than mere punditry and opinion, were always the best predictors of what was going to happen in this election. So not only could numbers retroactively tell us who won (based on actual votes) but numbers when used as individual data points with variance and sample sizes, and combined into an aggregate, were far more effective in telling us prospectively who was going to win. 128.104.149.65 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers continue to be best system for determining? 204.191.29.154 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Yes and no. In news stories (see newspaper headlines for an example), this is a typical format. You didn't notice the "To surprise of pundits" part that came first? 76.122.5.96 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For more critical relevance, he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium 70.167.158.178 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - Frankie (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?