[yankyou]

> Other than that it's a clever (and yes, entertaining) way of displaying margins of error.

No dispute that it's clever and entertaining. These are undesirable qualities in a reliable source of information.

Can you imagine reading a scientific journal in which the data narrative was deliberately engineered to keep you guessing until the conclusion? You would be right to raise eyebrows at a publication that is investing in your attention rather than its own accuracy.

There's no dire consequence here, it's just slightly dystopian that US presidential elections are unapologetically leveraged as a vehicle for mass entertainment by the press itself.

[scrollaway]

Good thing the NYT is not a scientific journal then? And that what you mentioned has nothing to do with jitter, either.

HN is so incredibly cynical sometimes. How are "clever and entertaining" undesirable qualities in reliable source of information? The only requirement in a reliable source of information is reliability. "Entertaining" is very much a desirable quality if you actually want people to care about said reliable information.

My argument is that jitter doesn't make it unreliable as it's simply a visualization of the uncertainty. So if it gets people interested and doesn't do it inaccurately, that's a win in my book.

You would be right to raise eyebrows at a publication that is investing in your attention rather than its own accuracy

Por que no los dos? One doesn't conflict with the other.

> unapologetically leveraged as a vehicle for mass entertainment

Sorry America, you turned those elections into mass entertainment all by yourself ;)