turtley_different

My corgi loves the vet (weirdo), but we were a little worried that he might not love being abandoned for a remote drop off.

Turn out that was a bad guess. The sociable little bastard sprinted into the surgery without a second thought...

As a brief summary:

• If a model is trained on just a single election then there are definitely reasons to fear that it has overfit just *that* year and hasn't really got an understanding of how voting generally works, and therefore could be very wrong about future elections. (therefore professionals don't build models like this)
• When a model produces good matches to many past elections you are more confident in its future predictions -- it must have some good idea of general population and voting dynamics to operate well across a diverse history
• If you build a model ground-up with physical principles (trying to understand how loyalist voters will turn out, modelling undecided voters by their demographics etc...) then the model should be quite resilient to future changes. However, there is never a guarantee that your model can accurately understand large changes in voter behaviour that haven't previously been seen, such as the huge increase in mail-in voting during covid.

For my money 97% is higher certainty that we can confidently state, and probably results from (as OP says) the model not including some kinds of uncertainty about unique shenanigans in this election.

EDIT: side note: I've never seen a fully satisfying mathematical treatment of symmetrical random error at distribution extremes. eg. 97% ± 5%. I wouldn't be surprised if a (perfectly understandable) simplification about presumed gaussian errors allows the model to get closer to certainty than it "should" based on data.

So what sperm concentration does the male pill achieve?

Most studios use pretty vanilla Ethernet as their main network. 10Gbe is still kind of new and the perceptions seems to be it's expensive per switch port, so most studios are still on 1Gbe.

Damn. I'm surprised. Programmers are expensive. Is there not a clear accountancy case that high network speeds save studios money?

Although I suppose the VFX credits I see in films nowadays scream "offshore wage arbitrage" as the solution to that particular problem....

1) Do you think Vasectomy (rather that full castration) will become more generally available for dogs?

2) Dentistry 1: there is no fluoride in dog toothpaste (fair enough, dogs don't spit and eating it is bad) but I am surprised the fluoride coating teeth is not a standard add-on in neutering operations. Why / why not?

3) Dentistry 2: I had assumed that there wasn't much difference in dog toothpaste, but on looking I realised that the cheap stuff is just an enzyme to break down glucose (and generate H2O2 as a by-product), whereas the expensive stuff includes Lactoperoxidase which is actually antibacterial. Is there clinical evidence that the expensive stuff is more effective? Or is mechanical scrubbing all that really matters?