They can. IIRC, Amazon apps would check to make sure the Amazon App Store was still installed. And I'm pretty sure Netflix games stop working when you unsubscribe from Netflix
Because the developers want to check whether you got the app from the Play Store.
If the developers don't care where you get the app from, then they won't check.
Comic books don't have market makers. Stocks generally do.
They act as intermediaries so individual stock buyers don't have to find individual stock sellers. Which means the companies that agree to act as market makers are always willing to buy a stock and always willing to sell it. When buyers and sellers don't balance, they adjust the stock price until they do (always making a slight profit on arbitrage).
The listed value is more or less the amount currently being offered by people who want to buy the stock. So if it has a listed value then he can sell it.
I think it's the exact opposite.
Juveniles may not understand that jaywalking or trespassing or resisting arrest is wrong, especially if parents haven't explained those things to them.
But even a ten year old understands that murdering your classmates is very wrong. Just ask one if you don't believe me.
Ok. But Silver's model is proprietary and the details of its workings have not been presented to the public. So on what basis should we trust it?
I don't expect a model to be perfect. But it is certainly possible for one model to be better than another, for example one might think the Weather Channel forecast is less accurate than AccuWeather (at least for your region).
Which, in turn, means that it is possible to decide when a forecast is more "right" or "wrong" than another, because what other basis would you have for judging which is better?
Hahahahaha Trump never learns. It backfired before and it will backfire again. Good job buddy, way to piss everyone off right before an election.
First, we need to distinguish Silver's state-by-state prediction with his "win probability". The former was pretty unremarkable in 2016, and I think we can agree that like everyone else he incorrectly predicted WI, MI, and PA.
However, his win probability is a different algorithm. It considers alternate scenarios, eg Trump wins Pennsylvania but loses Michigan. It somehow finds the probability of each scenario, and somehow calculates a total probability of winning. This does not correspond to one specific set of states that Silver thinks Trump will win. In 2016, it came up with a 28% probability of Trump winning.
You say that's not "getting it wrong". In that case, what would count as "getting it wrong"? Are we just supposed to have blind faith that Silver's probability calculation, and all its underlying assumptions, are correct? Because when the candidate with a higher win probability wins, that validates Silver's model. And when that candidate loses, that "is not evidence of an issue with the model". Heads I win, tails don't count.
If I built a model with different assumptions and came up with a 72% probability of Trump winning in 2016, that differs from Silver's result. Does that mean that I "got it wrong"? If neither of us got it wrong, what does it mean that Trump's probability of winning is simultaneously 28% and 72%?
And if there is no way for us to tell, even in retrospect, whether 28% is wrong or 72% is wrong or both are wrong, if both are equally compatible with the reality of Trump winning, then why pay any attention to those numbers at all?
@FlowVoid
@lemmy.world