As far as forecasting business... I don't think he should give up his day job.

I bet that guy got his job by being damn good at meteorological forecast, if he's so bad on the screen.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Wha? A big win is not a big win if it resembles pre-election polling trends?
That would be some kooky spin, even if it were true. But...
Obama beat expectations by nearly double, beating the spread by 6.7 points.
Hillary's expectations were cut in half, coming up 3.6 points short.


Ok, so I said the election margins where pretty much what was expected from pre-election polling. And I'm saying that beating expectations is a stupid concept and the media is playing games. Sure a big win is a big win. But beating some CNN forecast or not meeting it is not a big anything.

Then you go on to tlak about double and half... half of what?? My blog predicted Hillary would get 100% of the vote in IN, instead she only got 1/50th of the expected spread.

(see it means absolutely nothing)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, forecasting' to 'Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Black Swan, forecasting, statistics, markets, uncertainty, 00s' - edited by Eklek

Xtreme weather forecasting, SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!

Yes. Trying too hard is what makes it even funnier. That's what I learned at comedy college.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Is there some new virus going around that makes white people try too hard to be funny??

>> ^choggie:
Scenarios begin breaking down at the moment of conceptualization.....

...but that doesn't diminish their usefulness.

Think about forecasts and predictions. They both anticipate the future, and in doing so also help to guide it--not unlike a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only difference is that predictions assume a confidence level we know to be too high.

Coming up with scenarios for the next 100 years isn't about clinging to an unrealistic source of constancy, it's about planning to avoid a worldwide depression or collapse due to foreseeable events.

From http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ddc/?n=over

Many people mistakenly think that a highway overpass provides safety from a tornado. In reality, an overpass may be one of the worst places to seek shelter from a tornado. Seeking shelter under an overpass puts you at greater risk of being killed or seriously injured by flying debris from the powerful tornadic winds.

The idea that overpasses offer safety probably began in 1991, when a television news crew and some citizens rode out a very weak tornado under an overpass along the Kansas Turnpike. The resulting video continues to be seen by millions, and appears to have fostered the idea that overpasses are preferred sources of shelter, and should be sought out by those in the path of a tornado. In addition, news magazine photographs of people huddled under an overpass with an approaching tornado imply that this is the correct safety procedure. Nothing can be further from the truth!

In the Oklahoma City area in May, 1999, three people were killed and many had serious injuries by a violent tornado while seeking shelter under an overpass. Eyewitness accounts from others in the area indicated that roads were blocked at times as people stopped cars to run up into small crevices under an overpass. Not only is the overpass unsafe as a shelter, blocking roads denies others the chance to get out of the storm's path, and impedes emergency vehicles from their critical duties!

Wind speeds in tornados can be over 200 mph. These destructive winds produce airborne debris that are blown into and channeled under the overpass where people might try to seek shelter. Debris of varying size and types, including dirt, sand and rocks, moving at incredible speeds can easily penetrate clothing and skin causing serious injuries and possibly death. Very fine debris can also be forced into eyes causing injury or loss of sight. A person could even be blown out or carried away from the overpass by the fierce tornado winds. People positioned at the top of the overpass encounter even high wind speeds and more missile-like debris. Wind direction will also shift abruptly as the tornado passes tossing debris from all sides.

In the 1991 Kansas Turnpike video, the tornado was relatively weak when it passed near the overpass. A stronger tornado striking the overpass directly would likely have caused serious injury to those attempting to find shelter there.

The safest course of action when a tornado approaches is to get out of the tornado’s path, or to seek shelter in a sturdy, well-constructed building. Lying flat in a ditch, ravine, or below grade culvert also offers protection from flying tornadic debris. Do ot try to outrun a tornado in a car. Be aware of your surroundings, check weather forecasts often in changing conditions and take personal responsibility for your own safety. Remember: Overpasses offer no protection from a direct hit from a tornado, and should not be used as shelter.

Tornado Safety-Related Internet Links:

National Weather Service Tornado Safety Brochure:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/tornado.shtml




More myths about tornadoes.

I wonder how much Bernanke can actually do. The only instrument the Fed has to immediately act on the stock market is the interest rate. But back in December, Bernanke and everyone else knew that cutting interest rates would promote inflation and another credit bubble. So he decided against it, just like the European Central Bank decided this week.

But the market tanked, because traders don't give a damn about inflation. Actually, they can't even care about long term perspectives, because if they did the market would crash. They want to see stocks rising in the short term, and it's up to Bernanke to keep the music going.

Back in December, Bernanke made the responsible choice of controlling inflation and preventing further long-term damage to the economy. Bernanke was hoping Bush's tax rebate proposal would have some effect, but it didn't. On MLK day, world markets took a dive and the forecast for the next day was a historic plunge on the Dow. It was already being called the Black Tuesday.

So Bernanke and the board of the Fed convened and decided on a 0.75% emergency rate cut, because the way they saw it, they could either have a crash right then or worry about the dollar some other day. They decided to postpone the problem, and made the cut.

It worked for a day. The Dow closed lower, but it didn't crash. On Wednesday, it degenerated during trading hours and it was pretty obvious that traders were going short. In came the PPT, the Plunge Protection Team, also known as the Working Group on Financial Markets. Created by an executive order by Reagan, these guys give recommendations to the private sector for "enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of [United States] financial markets and maintaining investor confidence". No one knows what the hell they talk about in their meetings, no one has access to the minutes and they respond to no one -- not even to Congress.

The rally on Wednesday afternoon had all the signs of concerted stock manipulation originating in the futures market. The rise started tentative at best, but the index was propped up by very well timed buying over an essentially perfect trendline. The first leg of the rise scared the folks who were short, but a lot held on. But they couldn't handle the second leg, closed their positions and made the stocks surge up with incredible volume.

The panic is over, at least for now. But the market's pricing in a 0.5% cut for the Fed's next meeting, which happens in a week. If they don't cut, the markets will fall AGAIN.

Ron Paul said many times that the credit problem is like an addiction, and I can't think of a better description.

I'm already over it. Issykitty is my personal barometer for right and wrong, and she had no problem with my comment.

Thanks. You are a prince among men.

-dft

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Well, it's been over 8 hrs since ercell or bamdrew wrote something in the thread that dares not speak its name. Does this mean the storm has past? Fuck, I don't know. You can never tell with these crazy internets. However I wouldn't worry about it. Seriously. Some people thought I was a misogynist for posting a certain Mentos video that dares not speak its name, but I weathered the storm. I know you can too.

Think of it like this: You've built up a pretty substantial bank of good will with your fellow sifters, so I think most of them know you well enough to cut you some slack. If you were a n00b whose first comment was that one it might be a little different. Yet again, I survived my controversy while I was still a n00b (I know I was no more than a bronze star at the time), but I think it was mainly because I took the time to explain my position. You also took the time to explain yourself, so I think you have all your bases covered.

Again, I wouldn't worry about it. I'll still check the thread tomorrow some time just to see what's happening (it might be late, because I anticipate a long work day tomorrow), but I forecast with a reasonable degree of certainty that there should be no further controversy for you on that post (that dares not speak its name).

Well, it's been over 8 hrs since ercell or bamdrew wrote something in the thread that dares not speak its name. Does this mean the storm has past? Fuck, I don't know. You can never tell with these crazy internets. However I wouldn't worry about it. Seriously. Some people thought I was a misogynist for posting a certain Mentos video that dares not speak its name, but I weathered the storm. I know you can too.

Think of it like this: You've built up a pretty substantial bank of good will with your fellow sifters, so I think most of them know you well enough to cut you some slack. If you were a n00b whose first comment was that one it might be a little different. Yet again, I survived my controversy while I was still a n00b (I know I was no more than a bronze star at the time), but I think it was mainly because I took the time to explain my position. You also took the time to explain yourself, so I think you have all your bases covered.

Again, I wouldn't worry about it. I'll still check the thread tomorrow some time just to see what's happening (it might be late, because I anticipate a long work day tomorrow), but I forecast with a reasonable degree of certainty that there should be no further controversy for you on that post (that dares not speak its name).

Source: MARK WASHBURN, TV/RADIO WRITER
Mark Mathis - whose unpredictable, improvisational weather forecasts on Charlotte's Fox affiliate amused some viewers and infuriated others over the last two years was fired this week by WCCB-TV, two weeks after checking into rehabilitation for alcohol and substance abuse problems. "They called me here at the hospital and basically said they're `terminating your employment with Fox,' " said Mathis, 38, in a telephone interview

Published on November 19, 2004, Page 1B, Charlotte Observer, The (NC)

Oh goddamnit, Lucky! I told you not to turn off those curvy corners! Now look what you did - Britney Spears' sister is pregnant and the forecast shows rain tomorrow!

Choggie, thanks for the clearly informed guesstimate of my knowledge or overzealous assumption making style. We know each other so well, after all. The Irony is strong in you, I see. Apologies if the drug jab rankled you.

I can appreciate your reasons for not wanting to believe certain things are true or not true about causes of climate change etc. However, I do fail to see why someone who is making an effort---possibly for some pathetic or nefarious reasons---to help us minimize our industrial and personal environmental impact, makes you feel the need to voluntarily waste considerable amounts of your time shitting all over it.

And, of course there's spin! he's an ex politician for christ's sake.

If Al Gore can get it through Joe Sixpack's thick head that his pickup and urban assault vehicle might actually be harmful (if not to the planet at large, than at least to the atmosphere around my immediate person) then so be it. If he can change the industrial zeitgeist even slightly into one of environmental responsibility instead of total apathy so that those vehicles are cleaner and more efficient (among other things), then why shut him down? Because he's a possible Chicken Little? A mouthpiece? An opportunist? That's his problem.

At the end of the day, I'd rather live in a world with cleaner (and possibly more abundant) power and industry. I happen to see Gore as a contributer to that becoming a reality, doomsday forecast or no.

Let's also keep in mind that Al Gore did not invent the problem so he could strut around Switzerland. It was brought forward by science before Al Gore made it his ego trip. If dissenting scientists can find reasons to think otherwise, they are perfectly free to bring it on and the scientific community can judge the validity of their evidence and theories as they always have.



ANYWAY. The whole reason this is on the Sift is that I thought the speech had some historical merit, even if (especially if?) it all turns out to be horseshit.

Strictly speaking, they say they're forecasting wet panties, which they might actually get if the girls piss themselves laughing from watching this.