TheKingBombOmbKiller

Do you have any examples?

What would accurate odds in the previous two presidential elections look like to you?

Here is a direct quote from 538:

538’s forecast is based on a combination of polls and campaign “fundamentals,” such as economic conditions, state partisanship and incumbency. It’s not meant to “call” a winner, but rather to give you a sense of how likely each candidate is to win. Check out our methodology to learn exactly how we calculate these probabilities.

Source

In 2016 they gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4 % chance of winning, and in 2020 they gave Joe Biden 89 % chance of winning. They are dealing in odds, not calls.

And even if it isn't getting through to you, how were they wrong in 2020?

If I told you that you had a five in six chance to roll the dice and not roll a one, and then you rolled the dice and got a one, was what I told you wrong?

They don't call elections. They tell you the odds.

Doctor Strange 2

By that logic 2000 is the last year of the second millennium, 2001 is the first year of the third millennium, 2002 the second, and 2003 the third.

The era started at year 1, and not year 0. So the new millenniums starts at years that ends with 1.

It's also the third millennium of the era. 1-1000 AD was the first, 1001-2000 AD was the second, and we are now in the third.

That is what the culture war is. The effort to create an environment where publishers and artists have a harder time including aspects labeled "woke" because of a loud minority will harass the people involved, review bomb the products, dominate the discourse with bad faith arguments, and generally minimize the potential enjoyment of anyone who is the intended audience. This is what forcing an agenda upon artists looks like.

And when the artists chooses to include all genders, or races, or trans people; what would you call the effort to force the artists from removing this from their art?

As you pointed out previously, nobody uses decimeters, so x10 errors are not that common.

I find it weird that when measuring height in metric, people using cm exclusively, i’ve noticed this a lot actually, people will use cm or mm in places where it arguably doesn’t make any sense. I could see the justification for doing math maybe, but like, that defeats the whole point of it being metric no?

Why is that defeating the whole point of being metric? If you know someone is 183 cm tall, you also know that they are 1.83 m tall. If its easier to say the length in cm, you do. No need for "one meter and eighty-three centimeters" or "one point eighty-three meters", just "a hundred and eighty-three centimeters". Often you just skip saying the "centimeters" part as well, because most people can see that you're not the size of a skyscraper without getting a ruler out.