I'm working on a project right now that is going to raise a lot of Qs about these models. tl;dr is these things are NOT the same and it is VERY hard to predict how they will capture complex panel data effects.

tell mom!!

I had plenty of conversations with people on here in early 2025 who thought Trump could never lose approval. People aren't robots. They also aren't dupes, no matter what elites tend to think. Never underestimate them.

Quick story. My op-ed on how corporations that kept their DEI programs performed just as well financially was accepted & factchecked at TIME Magazine. Just needed "pro forma review by the legal department." Suddenly the piece is spiked Why? Benioff owns TIME and wants to ingratiate himself to Trump

I don't think we should take anything these companies say at face value. They have very little incentive to be truthful and have faced zero consequences for misdeeds so far, whether that involves stealing copyrighted works or hacking other companies.

or some kind of Freudian slip?

🎯🎯🎯

cool idea! we might need an acronym revision, though. what about PANS?

Ever wondered what attributes are relevant in your conjoint experiment? And what assumptions you need to estimate it? Asya and I got you covered. In a new working paper we propose the APNS: the probability that an attribute's level change is necessary and sufficient for the selection of a profile.

“Our research suggests that Trump was not necessarily attracting male supporters who are as confidently masculine as the former president presented himself to be. Rather, our findings suggest that Trump appeared to appeal more to men who may be insecure about their manhood.” — Knowles & DiMuccio

this election season is a comedy of GOP errors. Paxton and Darline Graham are both absolute unicorn failures.

There's a lot of writing about the shifting loyalties of working class voters but very little on libertarians. Probably enough of them to swing a close election.

All these white supremacists care about is SI (supplementary information). Mainly because they are unable to write anything coherent in the main text.

There is secular extremism just as there is religious extremism.

New York Times needs to edit better (are they using AI? 🤔). Currently their home page is displaying an incorrect headline (for their own article!). The professor who made anti-semitic posts is at "Haverford", not "Harvard."