> BTW, I approached ABC about buying back the former FiveThirtyEight IP*, and they said they wouldn't sell at any price because I'd criticized their management of the brand.
--Nate Silver (538 founder)
ABC seem pretty petty here.
--Nate Silver (538 founder)
ABC seem pretty petty here.
If his comment is accurate, then ABC’s decision is a clear lose-lose decision driven entirely by personal spite.
IIRC, he got to keep all of the models and etc from 538 which is kinda all that mattered about it. Like anybody is really going to lookup the 2016 election in 2030 but they're definitely want the model's output in 2030 for 2030.
Management seems to be clearly inept and if somebody wants to give you a wheelbarrow of cash for something worthless you're generally foolish to not accept.
It was definitely sad to lose 538 how we did, but G Elliott Morris has really stepped up to continue the spirit on his Strength in Numbers blog. It's the best data-driven US politics reporting out there right now imo. He also contributes to Fifty Plus One with Mary Radcliffe, and that's excellent too, reminiscent of the old 538 polling roundup stuff that went beyond just core US politics. Recently he started a podcast with David Nir of The Downballot, which is another solid resource for lower level races.
He’s a sellout at heart, including his recent association with Polymarket.
Someone cool would have never sold out a website as good as 538 used to be. Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers.
now you can actually bet on your beliefs and dont need to debate with anyone on whether the koolaid colored wave of choice will actually happen, or whether you are a slave to an algorithm induced hall of mirrors. note, the senate has been 50-50 for over a decade, its probably the latter
so the only intervention necessary here is on yourself, focusing on things you cant control while delusionally thinking this time will be different, over and over and over again
extracting value from partisan gullibility and pathetic power struggles is unironically the move
A better way to assess accuracy would be to bin predictions (0-10% chance, 10-20% chance, etc.) and see if the observed frequency aligns with the predictions.
In parallel your signal could be a data source adding to individuals contribution to price discovery
I think Nate has become better at this sort of stuff in recent years. But still, he said that Disney "hardly ever" interfered in their editorial process, oblivious to the implication.
(What it means is that Disney/ABC were perfectly willing to interfere in their editorial process, but rarely needed to since Nate said what they wanted him to say anyway).
There's not much extreme about Nate Silver.
Parent says because they “criticized our management of the brand”.
Big corporations don’t give a crap. They are 100% about the bottom line.
This isn’t “big corporation” behavior.
Any exec who operates that way should be shown the door ASAP as they are likely doing similar emotional management of other aspects of the business.
This is frustrating as a consumer. Any further insight, on the solution side?
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...
"It's okay set millions of dollars on fire because we have billions in this pile over here!"
As far as I can tell the fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders is something that Jack Welsh of GE said enough times that people remembered it. However, I’m always interested in additional details concerning the history of this meme, and happy to learn more.
(Not legal advice. I'm not licensed in either state.)
The duty of care is otherwise known as the duty to be informed. And the duty of loyalty is otherwise known as the duty not to usurp corporate opportunities. I stated the law in Delaware, which is consistent with the law on the rest of the United States on these points.
You and I simply use two different sets of words to describe the only two fiduciary duties of an officer.
$12B profit is obscenely large.
Regardless, a single metric is almost never sufficient to provide a well rounded analysis of anything.
I know it can be confusing that many places exist and that the corporation has multiple customers.
Who's shareholders are the public.
> The shareholders aren't going to care
This is not a valid defense in court. You can't let "attitude of investors" override "sound financial decisionmaking."
(Internally I'm sure they could probably phrase it some other less negative way such as chance of people confusing the brand as still owned by them, etc) association
... and to think I thought I was being clever. I see this has been suggested already.
It seems silly at best to take that as a literal statement.