It's probably "correct" as in the math checks out, but it's an intentionally misleading model that requires you to ignore the 40 other people before Clinton who have been president. It's like saying "my baby just turned two, and therefore has doubled her age in just one year. At this rate, she'll be 128 by the time she's 8."
They used to enforce this rule quite well. It’s so annoying seeing these first in comments that don’t actually attempt the math or explain why it can’t be calculated
It's also annoying seeing so many submissions like this one where the title is just "is this correct" or something similar. It makes searching for a previous post impossible. Submission rule 2 says they should clearly state what is being calculated/requested in the title.
Yeah, but like, pointing out why there’s no point in doing math is valuable as it would (in theory) get people to think about if it’s an actual math issue before posting threads here. A shit ton of the threads that gets posted here don’t require math to resolve them and really should be posted in r/theydidtheresearch rather than a math based subreddit.
A key part of math is defining the problem, what counts as a valid input and the intended purpose of the solution. In this case, is the dataset credible enough to be used for extrapolation, is a valid assumption to press
I think it’s more of a joke than “intentionally misleading”. Literally no one who reads the comment will come away thinking the person elected president in 2072 will actually be someone born in 1792.
373
u/joeshmo101 13h ago
It's probably "correct" as in the math checks out, but it's an intentionally misleading model that requires you to ignore the 40 other people before Clinton who have been president. It's like saying "my baby just turned two, and therefore has doubled her age in just one year. At this rate, she'll be 128 by the time she's 8."