>Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.)
I've always found this copy-paste rather hypocritical since by responding to my comment you are submitting a comment complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site instead of flagging it, thereby contradicting your entire stance on the issue.
If you don't like my comment, flag it, don't tell me something I already know.
Edit: Also, it would seem that down-voting would serve an even better purpose here since while you can down-vote my comment, there's nothing of substance I can do about this stupid article w/o commenting on it since, historically, I have seen no effect from flagging.
Actually one of the few threads where I've done this in the past was killed, presumably by flagging. I don't think it takes that many flags to kill a story.
In the end my comment is certainly wasting space, but in the end hopefully it results in less people complaining about submissions. Finally if you want to play semantics, the guidelines say don't complain about a "submission." Complaining about comments is fair game.
Ah, well I stand corrected then. My argument of semantics was perhaps not warranted, I was just frustrated by this and another recent article. I'm not sure which is more annoying, political submissions or articles that are on-topic but simply idiotic (see: TC article @ #8.)
It's a hacker writing about politics. Unless he developed some algorithm to determine the winner based on number of lies and non-answer-answers, I don't really give a damn about his "objective" analysis.
I'm sorry, this is an instance of snark gone wrong. I don't disagree with your "NonHackerNews" assessment. I just think it's funny that it applies to Peter Norvig too.
He cites 538 a few times. That's good enough for me. Some of the best "objective" analyses, based on evolving algorithms of poll data, are being done there. 1000 simulations/day across each of the 50 states. Watch how accurate they end up being.
Or even better, "Why I prefer candidate A to candidate B, phrased in FAQ form with occasional attempts to sound impartial by pointing out [before immediately dismissing] the arguments the other way, by Peter Norvig".
Don't get me wrong -- as far as party-political blog postings go this one is by no means especially bad, but nor is it good enough to transcend its genre of the usual douche-is-better-than-turd politics.
Posted as an example of a refreshing, rational, surprisingly lucid way to look at making a particular decision using messy data. Norvig's analysis, whether you agree with it or not, is a good example of using a particular tool occasionally prized by some scientists and engineers -- reason.
Some folks do seem to get a bit upset when reason interferes with their own irrational, sacred cows. Understandable.
