Making the case for Ed Zitron as the last of the great bloggers
observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com
observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com
Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49526069
Not really. Two cases. If one makes a prediction via some fair random means (flipping coins, tossing dice, etc) then there are consistently the same chances of being right vs wrong at every instance. And if one makes a prediction by actually studying relevant trends (like weather forecasting, etc), then over time it becomes increasingly easier to make right predictions.
The only route to being consistently wrong is through bias, whether via unfair random means or being deliberately blind to the trends. And those can't be called predictions, by definition.
2. Guess the next number
3. You'll be reliably wrong
Do you have "superhuman predictive ability" in this case?
Ed Zitron has a similar success rate, perhaps lower
> An individual who, with no resources or special standing or institutional support, simply goes online, does his research, and starts writing,
could apply to a huge range of bloggers, thought leaders, substackers, and straight up shitposters, many of whom get even more attention than Ed. In fact, this type of personality is much more influential and popular these days than they have ever been.
If this person like's Ed's writings, and believes that his predictions could still pan out some day, I'm not going to take that away from them. But coming up with this strange criteria of being a "last great blogger" that Ed doesn't even meet that well seems like a sleight of hand.
How else could you explain writing, like, half of an essay puffing up a fellow blogger without actually making the case for why you like him?
There are often other incentives at work, structural issues, etc., and sometimes the answer is that their decisions weren't actually as bad as you assumed.
Smugly professing prediction ability years after being categorically wrong, digging in and doubling down, it's not a good look.