The problem with Bayesian is that it's often over confident in the model. Error bars don't take this into account and people over rely on error bars - especially with complex domains.
Then there are the intentional and unintentional sampling biases in the polls that have to be taken into account. Then there are known human effects that add additional biases. E.g. the shy voter effect (e.g. Torres and Brexit), silent majorities (Nixon), momentum, dam breaking (Reagan), enthusiasm gap (Obama), the giant fk you to the establishment vote, pending indictments etc. In my view with the election being so emotional this year these effects are big enough to swing it to Trump making a poll based model wildly inaccurate.
I've taken an actual position in the election. $4k on Trump to win at 15% odds made just after the tapes. At the time I felt Trump had at least 50% chance so the bet was positive expected return for me. I figured the public would get over it. My Bayesian friends had his odds at 2%. Today I consider Trump to be at least 70% with the whole FBI inditement saga picking up steam.
In addition, the betting market behavior mirrors Brexit. A few very big bets on the status quo and many small bets against. It appears as if once again deep pocket punters are intentionality trying to manipulate the odds on the illiquid market in order to send a message that effects the vastly larger financial markets. So I think the odds are that there is some free money there.
Come to Panama! I looked hard at both and Panama is better for a ton of reasons. Don't worry about the language barrier. There is small and growing foreign tech community here. I moved here 6 months ago from SF and it has been the best decision of my life! Reply with your contact details if you want to know more.
It's not as simple as don't have a school gathering under a landslide risk after heavy rain. The tips were a known danger. The mistake was in preventing their removal. This mistake happened because those at risk didn't have the power to act in their own interest. Preventing such mistakes in the future would require empowerment of the proletariat.
Perpetual low interest rates are crushing the middle class and men are opting out. Check out Japan for a glimpse at that future. Mathmatically it cannot last forever, so it will correct itself. The question is if there is a slow controlled deflation or a rapid deflation (crash or war). Unfortunately given our politics and banking system a rapid deflation seems unavoidable.
The feedlots is due to subsidised corn, take away the subsidy then it's no longer cost effective. The anti-biotics is to prevent the cattle from becoming sick from eating corn. It screws up their gut flora and they spend their entire lives with diarrhea. The whole process is really unhealthy for the cattle and us. My country doesn't have feed lots for cattle and you can taste the difference. I'm not a hippy / hipster but I will insist on free range food.
Then there are the intentional and unintentional sampling biases in the polls that have to be taken into account. Then there are known human effects that add additional biases. E.g. the shy voter effect (e.g. Torres and Brexit), silent majorities (Nixon), momentum, dam breaking (Reagan), enthusiasm gap (Obama), the giant fk you to the establishment vote, pending indictments etc. In my view with the election being so emotional this year these effects are big enough to swing it to Trump making a poll based model wildly inaccurate.
I've taken an actual position in the election. $4k on Trump to win at 15% odds made just after the tapes. At the time I felt Trump had at least 50% chance so the bet was positive expected return for me. I figured the public would get over it. My Bayesian friends had his odds at 2%. Today I consider Trump to be at least 70% with the whole FBI inditement saga picking up steam.
In addition, the betting market behavior mirrors Brexit. A few very big bets on the status quo and many small bets against. It appears as if once again deep pocket punters are intentionality trying to manipulate the odds on the illiquid market in order to send a message that effects the vastly larger financial markets. So I think the odds are that there is some free money there.