I've been going back and forth on posting this for years. It makes more sense in periods of high unemployment. Maybe I'll dust it off for the next recession.
Back in the recession, I wondered about sending a new CCC out to thin overcrowded forests. make charcoal of the trees and plow it into the ground. It didn't seem scalable but it might make for an interesting conversation.— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) June 14, 2019
For a long time now, we've been pointing out that the culture of education reform movement left it vulnerable to abuses.
"Home school charters" let families use state $$ to buy Disneyland tickets, horseback riding lessons & more. Even if one claims individual kids benefit from this exposure, implausible to say $ wouldn’t go further & do better in public school classroom. https://t.co/f5dyfOfHk0— Ed Law Blog (@DerekWBlack) June 16, 2019
If more journalists had actually listened to Margaret Sullivan, journalism (and the country as a whole) would be in better shape.
Kudos to @Sulliview: "The truth is that journalists and pundits are bad at predictions. They should have learned that when Trump — a candidate so manifestly unsuited to be president that he couldn’t possibly win — blew their minds by doing just that." https://t.co/uUfYDgFXG8— Walter Shapiro (@MrWalterShapiro) June 16, 2019
Another one I'd like to revisit.
@trnsprtst— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) June 16, 2019
Is anyone looking at the energy and infrastructure implications of one-day? The shorter the turnaround, the more difficult it is to optimize logistics. That means fewer full loads, less direct routes, less freedom to favor reverse commutes and avoid peak traffic.
When you can get your summary down to four letters.
— Russ Mitchell (@russ1mitchell) June 15, 2019
No one knows the subtleties of this stuff like Silver.
One interesting fact is that Rasmussen had Republicans winning the popular vote for the US House last year and Democrats actually won it by **9** points, which makes for about twice as bad a fuck-up as any pollster had in 2016. https://t.co/I2nZaoWOnc— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 16, 2019
TBH, not a bad racket to have polls that are consistently skewed toward the GOP. Maybe once per 3 or 4 elections (2016), R's beat their polls, you look like geniuses. The rest of the time, your polls suck, but you BS your way thru it & criticize people who evaluate poll accuracy.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 16, 2019
Mark:
ReplyDeleteRegarding your last quoted exchange above, I don't know how much stock we should place in journalist X referring to pollster Y as a "good guy." Just for reference, it was back in 2008 that Rasmussen released their notorious poll results that added to 108%, and which by the way they have never fixed, over a decade later. So apparently being "a good guy who cared about polling accuracy" isn't enough for quality control.
"Good guy" is like "electable": it's something you can say that makes you sound like an insider but it doesn't mean a lot.