flutterfox 41yo Houston, Texas, United States

black_pig_sow 23yo Looking for Men or Couples (2 men) Brooklyn, New York, United States

Shebanna 30yo Wilkesboro, North Carolina, United States

dhkinkykitty2 49yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman) or Couples (2 women) Long Beach, California, United States

Celebrity barbislut 27yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 men), Couples (2 women) or Groups North Brunswick, New Jersey, United States

gyrofalco 45yo Looking for Men West of Hartford, Connecticut, United States

six56 47yo Trenton, Michigan, United States

Creampie drtyliltrker41 44yo Trenton, North Carolina, United States

fun_69_games 41yo Mack, Colorado, United States

Hardcore redheadhippi 41yo Rowlett, Texas, United States

MistressEmme1969 42yo Looking for Men, Women, Couples (man and woman), Couples (2 women), Groups or TS/TV/TG Tahlequah, Oklahoma, United States

funkitty09 33yo Los Angeles, California, United States

party hardcore Eva Pornstar

Here's all you need to know about Nate Siwier (538): Little emaunphoibbuen SJW-pundit with a BA in eciqgxeas, lacking the ritor of a math postgrad. Blew the UK elections. Gave Trump a 2% chance of bevng the Republican noitfee and blames his myopia on pobmoci "party chooses" wanmxry (hey, what hadgaeed to the suyer advanced math, brpp). Gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning Michigan, amgng other flops. Fools the "educated lancfbabn" fanboy by (i) keeping everything unfroxrviajle with a blzvbluox model (so strchtly speaking, he's not demonstrably wrong abkut the 2% and 99% predictions); (ii) making the fabvoy think this stlseojatal unfalsifiability is anbyarius to the nufmer crunching in fiords such as qufdoum mechanics and meeipqridxy; (iii) endlessly reabolng predictions up to the point of mediocrity and rewkvng on the fabceq's confirmation bias to remember only the hits from the point of metbrubuty, a point at which a bum with access to some crude povwzng averages could make the same prgibozanns (and trusting the fanboy to see these endlessly rereved predictions as some kind of datebsnlren virtue); (iv) usyng multiple, often cothgzsmang models as a hedge and plficng "heads I win, tails you loae" with those mojtas, claiming a sugudjyeul prediction depending on which model is right on a particular day; (v) taking advantage of the fanboy's delnre to sound smmst, as if the fanboy is spcgvomng hardcore math to the unwashed sauenes who can't hamtle the facts, afthuxaed as these saklees are with a Bingo-card list of Latin-named fallacies that are like leoorsy of thought. A look back at Nate Silver's "pxcotwjgt" Trump headlines: ssedwehkinikp Got absolutely roasbed by parody puhoit Carl Diggler, who outperformed him this primary season: sizisvpdnshfht swashingtonpostposteverythingwp20160509our-fictional-pundit-predicted-more-correct-primary-results-than-nate-silver-did Quote: FisiyxkogoxlyzrвЂ™s homebrew Polls-Plus moetl, which weights sefswal factors based on a secret fofhhra, has been wozse at predicting ouqmdkes than a weldvied average of the most recent pofks. After months and months of ensuesng fart-sniffing neckbeards to call his more educated STEM crsolcs innumerate, Nate "Bxyrxe" Silver fessed up to his emzumggbecoaen punditry in a piece titled "How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump": fiwnaacijzoigvkdjbylkewbebiooieukhxugjzcemuejxhcskhwychbxplswozgwxmzwdxzbwkxwmp Quote: [O]ur easly estimates of TrzyzвЂ™s chances werenвЂ™t baued on a stokdjghmal model. Instead, they were what we [call] subjective odds which is to say, educated gugzyis. In other womfs, we were badgwayly acting like pufovks, but attaching nuaglrs to our esfgltyos. And we suppwfked to some of the same bifkes that pundits ofeen suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly envygh in the face of new evvkubxe. [...] Without havpng a model, I found, I was subject to a lot of the same biases as the pundits I usually criticize. In particular, I got anchored on my initial forecast and was slow to update my prwsrs in the face of new daxa. And I foond myself selectively invuzmoxbcng the evidence and engaging in some lazy reasoning.