The text below is the output of my phone’s AI autocomplete app (SwiftKey), based on its knowledge of the things I say and do. My only interaction was to choose between the three suggestions it offered.
I have been made to the park. I am not going anywhere, and I will not receive the item is faulty, but the most important things. The only way I could have a good idea. The problem isn’t with the loan companies, who is a good film, but the subway. I am a real Zeus, and I am not sure what to expect.
The problem is that it is not a good idea. The only thing I have been a bit of fun. I have been a while, but I can confirm that you can get round to the zoo tomorrow, zoo tomorrow. And I know that analgesics, and I am not sure what to expect. I have a glass of wine. I have a glass of wine. The only way I could have a great day and the Machine, but it is. It has an appointment. The quality is the most of my own.
We have to do it. I have a glass of wine.. I don’t vividly the best. If I identified and then I will have the same. Federalism the best. The only problem is the first place to find a job, but the best way of organizing emails into the address below and click the Help section for the next few days ago.
It was a bit of a fine example of the most important thing. But it was a very long time to get the latest version, and the Democrats are total pansies who are not responsible for any reason. I have a glass of wine.
The quality of life and I am not sure what to expect. I don’t think it’s a good time to do it. It is a bit of a new member. I don’t vividly recall his own words. The problem isn’t a problem with your friends, but I guess the queen plays by her own rules.
K is technically right here at the moment. The quality is not a good day and night and then the next day or night. The only way to get a quote from you soon as possible to make a decision on the phone and the other side of things to come and see if you are looking for a few weeks, but it doesn’t matter how much I love you so that.
I have a glass of wine.
Slightly worried that in the reasonably near future, my phone will replace me.
On the Church of England female bishops rejection, the saddest thing is that the C of E:
- was created by a woman (Henry VIII’s Church rejected the authority of the Pope, but remained Catholic in doctrine; it was Elizabeth I who turned it into a solidly Protestant church after Mary I’s attempt at Catholic, erm, revivalism);
- is headed by a woman (Liz’s namesake, defender of the faith);
- had a massive “yes” vote to the ordination of female priests from both the House of Bishops (0% female, 94% ‘yes’) and the mixed-sex House of Clergy (29% female, 77% ‘yes’);
- saw the vote defeated for failing to achieve a two-thirds majority in the mixed-sex, non-ordained House of Laity, made up of democratically elected representatives of C of E churchgoers (46% female, 64% ‘yes’).
The all-male boys-club dinosaurs voted almost solely for equality, the still-male dominated clergy were overwhelmingly for equality, and the mixed-sex representatives of the C of E congregation (which is itself about 65% female) were the most bigoted of the lot.In other words, if the C of E wasn’t so keen to give regular churchgoers a say, female bishops would totally be a thing already, and the massive blow to both PR and moral authority of voting for discredited Pauline nonsense wouldn’t have happened.
I was going to add, I don’t know why the female-dominated C of E congregation choose to elect representatives (both male and female) who hate women. But on reflection, I’m pretty sure it’s that, although many women whose views mirror those of Ann Widdecombe in rejecting the C of E’s modest levels of inclusivity and egalitarianism have opted to join the Roman Catholic Church (which, obviously, has none of either), some have stayed with what they know. Sadly, yesterday’s vote is likely to keep them on board for longer.
This is technically true (random quote from blog commenter, but one which reflects a lot of educated-people-who-know-about-stats opinion on the Silver model):
Silver’s analysis (which I happen to accept) won’t be contradicted (or proven) in any way by tomorrow’s outcome. Either result is accounted for in the model. People seem not to understand that.
However, it’s a silly thing to say. If you craft a model in such a way that you are publicly on record as saying that one candidate in a two-horse race has a 90% chance of winning, and he loses, then you will find it very hard to avoid looking like a tit, even if your stats were absolutely correct and the result is just a one-in-ten piece of bad luck for your model.
The only way in which you could plausibly avoid the tail-risk of looking like a tit would be to focus a sizeable part of your commentary on that tail-risk, why your model shouldn’t be taken as an out-and-out prediction, and why you might be wrong, rather than focusing on the reasons that you think are underlying the 90%-likely outcome.
Mr Silver has gone very strongly for the “focusing on the underlying reasons” option, presumably because he’d much take a 90% chance of being The Awesome Pollster Who Correctly Tipped The Election with a 10% chance of being That Tit, than a 100% chance of being That Boring Wonk Who Explained Why We Shouldn’t Pay Too Much Attention To His Numbers.
Which is entirely rational, given the risk/reward matrix he faces, but does mean that anyone who suggests we should refrain from calling him That Tit if the 10% scenario comes through is missing the point.
(tenuously relatedly, I’m delighted to see Ezra Klein dredging up this fine work of speculative psephology and poll-bludgeoning)