A day with the news!

One great thing about working in statistics and political science is, between them, these two subjects are connected to just about everything.

From the day’s news (sort of):

Pat Robertson Thinks Low-Carb Diets Violate God’s Principles: I wonder what Art De Vany will think of this. I had the impression that lo-carb is vaguely connected to conservative politics, that whole paleo-caveman-thing. I’d think that if Pat were a bit more plugged into the zeitgeist, he’d be pushing lo-carb as a poke in the eye at the liberal health establishment. But maybe I’m the one who’s out of touch, as can be seen from these links:

Screen Shot 2013-10-09 at 9.27.06 AM

A Week Into the Shutdown, Government Buys $47,174 Mechanical Bull: They should see some of the things we pay for from our NSF grant. Remember that setup we bought at the state fair where people could throw a ball at a target and try to send Mister P into the water tank?

Nielsen’s New Twitter TV Ratings Are a Total Scam. Here’s Why.: This one I can definitely relate to. Social media has become a bit of a fad in quantitative social science, and for good reason (new data capturing aspects of people’s lives that are not always accessible via survey interviewing), but can also get oversold. So I’m happy to see some pushback on this in the popular media. Next step, perhaps: a counterintuitive story in Slate explaining why Twitter ratings are not all crap. . . .

Tech’s Gender Problem in One Chart: Uh oh. This looks a lot like the gender mix of the Stan team. And, no, we’re not planning to put Chelsea Clinton on our board.

Robo-Vaping Is the Sad Future of Smoking: I’m seeing these on the street all the time.

The Daily Show Definitely Showed an Uncensored Penis [NSFW]: No comment.

7 thoughts on “A day with the news!

  1. Nielsen has had a monopoly on TV ratings for most of the last 50 or 60 years, so its methodologies have significantly lagged in methodology, sample size, and technology.

    A lot of marketing research sub-sectors are “1.5 firm industries:” if there is only one firm, it makes wonderful monopoly profits, while the customers have to put up with poor products. If there are two firms, the customers get to choose between state of the art services, but both firms lose money.

  2. Vaping: I recommend E-Cigarettes: The Vapor This Time?, a symposium I attended at UCSF last month. Videos and slides are online.
    EITHER:
    a) E-cigs really exist to help people quit smoking, which si hy big tobacco companies are getting into the e-cig business. OR
    b) They are a golden opportunity to reverse the slow decline in number of teenage smokers, since msot people need to get their brains wired for nicotine addiction (unlike opiates) while their brains are developing. Ages 12-18 are best. Also, a chance to get back on TV, as per Jenny McCarthy for blu or this set of commercials in UK.
    What demographics might these be aimed at? How about chocolate/candy-flavored e-cigs?

    Experts I know think that e-cigs are less bad than tobacco (for existing nicotine-addicted smokers), although they are wildly variable and have all sorts of junk in them (see Monique Williams’ slides), but the issue is “replacement smokers”.

    Best marketeers in the world get another round!

    • Even if they’re wildly variable in their composition, doesn’t the fact that you don’t inhale burning particulate matter with e-cigs make them (very likely to be) better than regular cigarettes?

  3. ” I had the impression that lo-carb is vaguely connected to conservative politics, that whole paleo-caveman-thing. “. What an odd connection to make. What on earth would either low carb or paleo have to do with one’s politics?!? Low carb has to do with the preponderance of evidence emerging from all recent randomized trials.

Comments are closed.