WSJ: “Pollsters are committing statistical malpractice. Pollsters prominently tout their low “sampling error,” wrapping their results in the cloak of science. Sampling error is an important statistical metric, typically framed as studying the variations in selecting balls from an urn with 1,000 red balls and 1,000 blue balls. But when the response rate is 2%, sampling error is dwarfed by projection errors from 98,000 colorless balls representing those who won’t respond. Pollsters bury their response rate in the fine print, sometimes even requiring the readers to calculate how low it was. That conceals that their analysis is built on shaky assumptions. Sooner or later, projections based on shaky assumptions are bound to fail spectacularly. In an era when people are no longer willing to trust elites, pollsters are risking a major crisis in public confidence. For their own sake, they need to explore different methods, such as using paid panels followed over long periods. Gallup and Nielsen already use this approach for some reports.” More: “Théo argued that pollsters should use what are known as neighbor polls that ask respondents which candidates they expect their neighbors to support. The idea is that people might not want to reveal their own preferences, but will indirectly reveal them when asked to guess who their neighbors plan to vote for.”
FT: “What happens when the growth models collapse? Japan after the bubble burst in the 1990s, with an ever more striking ageing problem, had very slow growth, but no political or social, let alone a civilisational collapse. It still plays an important foreign policy role, and it still leads in some areas of design. Maturing is not the same thing as sudden death. A future Münchau may write a parallel analysis of Chinese stagnation, where the political fallout is likely to be much more destructive. The EU provides a protective framework for a broken wunderkind, and there is dynamism elsewhere, notably to the north and to the east, where the likes of Denmark and Poland have become the new economic exemplar.”
The Diff: “It remains true that, since the release of ChatGPT kicked off the current AI cycle, it’s been a net consumer of capital by a huge margin. But there are places where that capital is producing a meaningful return, and where bigger datacenter buildouts and more costly training runs can increasingly be underwritten by rigorous return-on-investment calculations rather than the hope that models will turn out to learn some valuable new tricks…AI investments are paying off for companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft, with measurable revenue growth and cost savings.”
WSJ: “Plaque begins to recolonize on the teeth between two to six hours after brushing it off, says Kimbell. After about 48 hours, it hardens to calcified tartar, which a toothbrush can’t break up. Brushing regularly helps disrupt the plaque and stop the colonization. “The whole point of brushing is to remove the biofilm of bacteria that causes decay and gum disease,” says Dr. Edmond Hewlett, a consumer adviser spokesperson for the American Dental Association and professor of dentistry at the University of California, Los Angeles. It’s especially important to clear out foods that are sugary, starchy, sticky and acidic. Think candy and sweets, chips and bread, and fruits and juice. When these substances come into contact with the natural bacteria in our mouths, they form acid, which can lead to cavities and tooth decay.”
Jaspreet Bindra: “Every artificial intelligence (AI) company is making a frontal attack on the impregnable-so-far fort that Google has created with search. The emperor’s defeat, however, will come not from outside, but within. The market for search is worth $200 billion, expected to grow at 10% every year to $400 billion in 2035, with a fat 60% gross margin. 90% of this is owned by one player, Google, which guards it as jealously as its very own Kohinoor.”
