Difference between revisions of "1131: Math"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Picture corrected)
(Added basic explanation relating to current US presidential election (by BigMal27, unregistered))
Line 7: Line 7:
 
| titletext = As of this writing, the only thing that's 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.
 
| titletext = As of this writing, the only thing that's 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.
 
}}
 
}}
 +
 +
==Explanation==
 +
The comic shows a bar graph representing expected (see note below) electoral college votes in the 2012 United States presidential election, including a dotted bar indicating the 270 votes needed to win, a span of media & exit poll projections ("Forecast"), and the actual result.  Such a visual -- and the true result of the election -- can only be based on the actual data available, proving the comic's point that the numbers matter more than any rhetoric.
 +
 +
Note: The electoral college votes are expectations until the official voting in early December.
  
 
{{comic discussion}}  
 
{{comic discussion}}  
 
[[Category:Politics]]
 
[[Category:Politics]]

Revision as of 12:23, 7 November 2012

Math
As of this writing, the only thing that's 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.
Title text: As of this writing, the only thing that's 'razor-thin' or 'too close to call' is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.

Explanation

The comic shows a bar graph representing expected (see note below) electoral college votes in the 2012 United States presidential election, including a dotted bar indicating the 270 votes needed to win, a span of media & exit poll projections ("Forecast"), and the actual result. Such a visual -- and the true result of the election -- can only be based on the actual data available, proving the comic's point that the numbers matter more than any rhetoric.

Note: The electoral college votes are expectations until the official voting in early December.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

I really like the term "dramatically equal." - Kieran

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)
I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption. mwburden 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
So was the answer. The caption, like many news headlines, omits the articles. "To [the] surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be [the] best system..." 72.169.224.103 15:45, 5 December 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)

"Explain the title text." What's there to explain? 173.245.52.109 22:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the tag, and expanded the title text explanation.

Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. Probably not Douglas Hofstadter (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)