2016 dating totally german Milf chat on skype

The Inside View is useless here; probably every voter thinks they’re better than average. But overall, my suggestion is that if you’re seriously uncertain about whether or not you think more clearly than the average voter, by that fact alone you almost certainly do. If you think (in a well-calibrated way) that it’s 10% more likely that your candidate will use

The Inside View is useless here; probably every voter thinks they’re better than average. But overall, my suggestion is that if you’re seriously uncertain about whether or not you think more clearly than the average voter, by that fact alone you almost certainly do. If you think (in a well-calibrated way) that it’s 10% more likely that your candidate will use $1 trillion well than that the other candidate will, your vote is worth $500. If you value the amount of time it takes to vote at less than that, voting is conceivably a good use of your time. SSC endorses voting for Hillary Clinton if you live in a swing state.I recommend the Outside View – looking for measurable indicators correlated with ability to make good choices. If you live in a safe state, I endorse voting for Clinton, Johnson, or (if you insist) Stein.But Presidents do shift budgetary priorities a lot.GW Bush started a war in Iraq which probably cost $2 trillion; the CBO estimates Obamacare may cost about $1.2 trillion.We don’t know for sure that we’re right about politics.In order to add signal rather than noise to the election results, we have to be better than the average voter.It ranges from about one in ten million (if you live in a swing state) to one in a billion (if you live in a very safe state).

||

The Inside View is useless here; probably every voter thinks they’re better than average. But overall, my suggestion is that if you’re seriously uncertain about whether or not you think more clearly than the average voter, by that fact alone you almost certainly do. If you think (in a well-calibrated way) that it’s 10% more likely that your candidate will use $1 trillion well than that the other candidate will, your vote is worth $500. If you value the amount of time it takes to vote at less than that, voting is conceivably a good use of your time. SSC endorses voting for Hillary Clinton if you live in a swing state.

I recommend the Outside View – looking for measurable indicators correlated with ability to make good choices. If you live in a safe state, I endorse voting for Clinton, Johnson, or (if you insist) Stein.

trillion well than that the other candidate will, your vote is worth 0. If you value the amount of time it takes to vote at less than that, voting is conceivably a good use of your time. SSC endorses voting for Hillary Clinton if you live in a swing state.

I recommend the Outside View – looking for measurable indicators correlated with ability to make good choices. If you live in a safe state, I endorse voting for Clinton, Johnson, or (if you insist) Stein.

Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin calculate the chance that a single vote will determine the election (ie break a tie in a state that breaks an Electoral College tie).

The paper was from the 2008 election, which was a pro-Obama landslide; since this election is closer the chance of determining it may be even higher.

The size of the US budget is about trillion, but Presidents can only affect a tiny bit of that – most of the money funds the same programs no matter who’s in charge.

And since the lesson of Brexit is that polls underestimate support for politically incorrect choices, this is going to be really close.

And I don’t know if I’d go so far as Scott Aaronson, who worries that he will one day live in a nuclear hellscape where his children ask him “Daddy, why didn’t you blog about Trump? But if some of my blogging on conservative issues has given me any political capital with potential Trump voters, then I this is where I want to spend it.

Leave a Reply