Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
9/1/2024, 2:17:26 PM
X
In reply to:
FredSavage
@FredSavageNSFW
·
529d
@GaryMarcus A "vastly better," but still wildly inaccurate, prediction is still wildly inaccurate. The fact that one side is slightly less delusional than the other, but still comically delusional, seems like a weird thing to brag about, imo.🤷‍♂️
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
529d
@FredSavageNSFW i bet mine (still inaccurate) will be 2x closer, if you sum up the errors for his poll vs mine. that’s not slightly better. that’s vastly better.
FredSavage
@FredSavageNSFW
·
529d
@GaryMarcus Voice of Nelson from The Simpsons: "Our delusional, wildly inaccurate prediction is slightly better than your delusional, wildly inaccurate prediction, HAHAHA!"
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
529d
A thousand dollars say my poll is closer to the final popular vote than Elon’s.

Anyone reputable (no anons, 100k followers+) willing to take my bet? Proceeds to charity. (Criterion is not who wins but how far off the percentages are.)

The statement and the conversation it is part of constitute public discourse as they engage in a debate about the accuracy and reliability of polling data, which is a public issue. The tone of the conversation is somewhat confrontational and sarcastic, but it does not appear to cross into harassment or hate speech. The participants are engaging in a discussion about the validity of their respective polls and the significance of their predictions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm. It is a clarification about the difference between 'vastly better' and 'slightly better.'
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it also does not detract from these values. It is a neutral clarification.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out a perceived inconsistency in the use of terms. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]