breaking news, trumps kind of a dickish cocksucking asshole...
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work,
His study isn't nearly that complicated
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
-
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/33/E4512.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Listen, I'm not even saying his conclusions are correct. You would have to go through a lot of statistical formulas to proof his work, but attacking his credibility is probably not the way to go. I mean, you have no real proof he's even a conservative hack.
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
Weird, never once did I see you use this standard throughout the Russian collusion investigation. Interesting. Wax on, wax off.....
If you read the second link I left to his studies, it shows his reasoning for extrapolating out the data in the first link I left. If you're going to call him a hack you should at least check out all his shit first, no?
-
Epstein said he came to the conclusion of bias sufficient to affect 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes based on what he has found in studies of national elections outside the US, including the 2010 Australian prime minister election and a 2014 Indian legislative election.
2010 is before his google beef began, correct?
-
no but i have a pretty solid suspicion he's got a major axe to grind with google and will try to hurt them in any way he can.
Weird, never once did I see you use this standard throughout the Russian collusion investigation. Interesting. Wax on, wax off.....
If you read the second link I left to his studies, it shows his reasoning for extrapolating out the data in the first link I left. If you're going to call him a hack you should at least check out all his shit first, no?
Weird, never once did I see you use this standard throughout the Russian collusion investigation. Interesting. Wax on, wax off.....
explain
-
Weird, never once did I see you use this standard throughout the Russian collusion investigation. Interesting. Wax on, wax off.....
explain
explain
Sure, you bought into a ton of Russian collusion conspiracies despite the sources seeming rather biased. Even peepee tapes you swore were going to drop.
-
explain
Sure, you bought into a ton of Russian collusion conspiracies despite the sources seeming rather biased. Even peepee tapes you swore were going to drop.
Sure, you bought into a ton of Russian collusion conspiracies despite the sources seeming rather biased. Even peepee tapes you swore were going to drop.
well I think peepee tapes exist not because Hillary's people said so....but because it's something that sounds like Donald. We know he's a big fan of hookers in any case, it's how he found his latest wife. And the Russian collusion stuff is based on a ton of circumstantial evidence that even Donald himself provided....rem "Russia are you listening". I said from the beginning this isn't "definitive" proof of anything but I understood the investigation. What I disliked about the investigation is the politisization of it. It should have happened quietly away from the public eye but the dems were never going to let that happen. But the prospect of a sitting president having ties to foreigners like Trump had...it had to be investigated. Period. It just shouldn't have been the political theatre that it was but.... #democrats.
-
As for this Epstein guy, he has yet to furnish any solid proof of google deliberately manipulating search algorightms SPECIFICALLY to hurt or undermine conservative causes. I've seen examples of websites preaching that gay people can convert themselves from Demonic hellspawn by conversion therapy, being cut out from certain search parameters. And im completely ok with that. If someone specifically searches for that stuff, it's at the top of the search list...but it doesn't come up when people google LBGT issues. I see absolutely zero wrong with that.
-
As for this Epstein guy, he has yet to furnish any solid proof of google deliberately manipulating search algorightms SPECIFICALLY to hurt or undermine conservative causes. I've seen examples of websites preaching that gay people can convert themselves from Demonic hellspawn by conversion therapy, being cut out from certain search parameters. And im completely ok with that. If someone specifically searches for that stuff, it's at the top of the search list...but it doesn't come up when people google LBGT issues. I see absolutely zero wrong with that.
As for this Epstein guy, he has yet to furnish any solid proof of google deliberately manipulating search algorightms SPECIFICALLY to hurt or undermine conservative causes. I've seen examples of websites preaching that gay people can convert themselves from Demonic hellspawn by conversion therapy, being cut out from certain search parameters. And im completely ok with that. If someone specifically searches for that stuff, it's at the top of the search list...but it doesn't come up when people google LBGT issues. I see absolutely zero wrong with that.
He's not claiming they are manipulating searches. He's clarified he believes it's an unintended bias in an algorithm that hasn't gotten corrected or possibly even addressed by Google.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” -
Sure, you bought into a ton of Russian collusion conspiracies despite the sources seeming rather biased. Even peepee tapes you swore were going to drop.
well I think peepee tapes exist not because Hillary's people said so....but because it's something that sounds like Donald. We know he's a big fan of hookers in any case, it's how he found his latest wife. And the Russian collusion stuff is based on a ton of circumstantial evidence that even Donald himself provided....rem "Russia are you listening". I said from the beginning this isn't "definitive" proof of anything but I understood the investigation. What I disliked about the investigation is the politisization of it. It should have happened quietly away from the public eye but the dems were never going to let that happen. But the prospect of a sitting president having ties to foreigners like Trump had...it had to be investigated. Period. It just shouldn't have been the political theatre that it was but.... #democrats.
well I think peepee tapes exist not because Hillary's people said so....but because it's something that sounds like Donald. We know he's a big fan of hookers in any case, it's how he found his latest wife. And the Russian collusion stuff is based on a ton of circumstantial evidence that even Donald himself provided....rem "Russia are you listening". I said from the beginning this isn't "definitive" proof of anything but I understood the investigation. What I disliked about the investigation is the politisization of it. It should have happened quietly away from the public eye but the dems were never going to let that happen. But the prospect of a sitting president having ties to foreigners like Trump had...it had to be investigated. Period. It just shouldn't have been the political theatre that it was but.... #democrats.
Well, ok.
But that's........conspiracy based stuff right there. Especially at this point.
-
As for this Epstein guy, he has yet to furnish any solid proof of google deliberately manipulating search algorightms SPECIFICALLY to hurt or undermine conservative causes. I've seen examples of websites preaching that gay people can convert themselves from Demonic hellspawn by conversion therapy, being cut out from certain search parameters. And im completely ok with that. If someone specifically searches for that stuff, it's at the top of the search list...but it doesn't come up when people google LBGT issues. I see absolutely zero wrong with that.
He's not claiming they are manipulating searches. He's clarified he believes it's an unintended bias in an algorithm that hasn't gotten corrected or possibly even addressed by Google.
He's not claiming they are manipulating searches. He's clarified he believes it's an unintended bias in an algorithm that hasn't gotten corrected or possibly even addressed by Google.
Though, again, there are a few big flaws in that study, so I wouldn't use it to justify anything
-
As for this Epstein guy, he has yet to furnish any solid proof of google deliberately manipulating search algorightms SPECIFICALLY to hurt or undermine conservative causes. I've seen examples of websites preaching that gay people can convert themselves from Demonic hellspawn by conversion therapy, being cut out from certain search parameters. And im completely ok with that. If someone specifically searches for that stuff, it's at the top of the search list...but it doesn't come up when people google LBGT issues. I see absolutely zero wrong with that.
He's not claiming they are manipulating searches. He's clarified he believes it's an unintended bias in an algorithm that hasn't gotten corrected or possibly even addressed by Google.
He's not claiming they are manipulating searches. He's clarified he believes it's an unintended bias in an algorithm that hasn't gotten corrected or possibly even addressed by Google.
oh so it's "accidental" now? That's not what he was saying just a few months back. Is his story changing?
-
and if it's "unintended"....that msg hasn't reached the unwashed boobs that troll this board obviously, right?
-
He's not claiming they are manipulating searches. He's clarified he believes it's an unintended bias in an algorithm that hasn't gotten corrected or possibly even addressed by Google.
oh so it's "accidental" now? That's not what he was saying just a few months back. Is his story changing?
oh so it's "accidental" now? That's not what he was saying just a few months back. Is his story changing?
Can't argue with that.
-
The point Trump wants to make (which he's tweeting out immediately after watching Fix talk about it ....) is that Google influenced undecided voters.
That study only followed 21 undecided voters. They even said the "bias rate" for undecided voters was left. Though they don't really go into detail on how they determined bias.
And didn't the guy that ran this already have a beef with Google?
The point Trump wants to make (which he's tweeting out immediately after watching Fix talk about it ....) is that Google influenced undecided voters.
That study only followed 21 undecided voters. They even said the "bias rate" for undecided voters was left. Though they don't really go into detail on how they determined bias.
And didn't the guy that ran this already have a beef with Google?
Since you keep quoting me and get quoted, I might as well do this. All your posts can be answered here i think.
I haven't defended Trump on this so have that conversation with someone else.
Yes, his data is flawed. Maybe not as bad as you think. His methodology is designed well enough to get unbiased results, which seems to be Cleve's hangup. It's his sample size in his US study that creates the issue. I'm frankly more interested in his older studies that do have more subjects, albeit they come from entirely different demographics. He was able to get over 2000 volunteers for at least one of them, from which he extrapolated out his smaller study (which I linked also, in case your up to it). I see the flaws, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legit trend throughout all his work.
I think it's worth a look next election, as you know he's going to do another one. Maybe the publicity gets him more participants.
I don't see malicious intent in his data, especially since he started experimenting with this before Google shut his page down. It's not complex, but it doesn't have to be. The whole concept of what he's suggesting is simple.
Does it make you "hot" and want to "melt" when other disciplines use bad data and extrapolate it to predict trends? It happens.
Deuce
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” -
hat “following complaints about censorship of ...Which Google pages to review, which results to measure ... viewpoint of Google's bias than someone who considers Fox and The Washington Examiner centrist.
Aug 8, 2019 - “Google has shown a clear bias against pregnancy centers; ... To make sure that no complaint raised goes unheard at Google, we give ...Sep 13, 2018 - The leak comes amid growing complaints from conservatives that Google and other tech giants are biased against them. They have voiced .Jun 7, 2019 - White conservative males who allege that liberal bias at Google Inc. doomed ... Conservative Ex-Google Engineer's Bias Complaint Goes to ...Sep 10, 2018 - Google, YouTube and other tech giants filter, suppress and even directly attack conservatives. This must stop to protect our free and open ...Jun 24, 2019 - ... questionable YouTube privacy complaints after exposing Google bias ... The privacy complaints allege that Project Veritas displays private ...Jun 6, 2019 - John Wacker is a right-leaning Google employee who recently ... He goes on to explain how leftists at Google weaponize HR complaints in ... OFF on his company's anti-conservative bias: “These outrage mobs are so hostile.Eric Schmidt, CEO Of Google's parent company, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and many of Google's executives worked on her campaign. Evidence below.The veteran radio host turned up in Washington on Tuesday to lodge complaints against Google CEO Sundar Pichai after the internet giant banned him from ...Jul 19, 2019 - Google agreed to pay $11 million to end a lawsuit accusing it of ... in recruiting and ensure that complaints are adequately investigated.Jun 26, 2019 - Conservative frustration with Big Tech bias bubbled over this week amid fresh evidence of behind-the-scenes political manipulation at Google, .. -
Sure, you bought into a ton of Russian collusion conspiracies despite the sources seeming rather biased. Even peepee tapes you swore were going to drop.
well I think peepee tapes exist not because Hillary's people said so....but because it's something that sounds like Donald. We know he's a big fan of hookers in any case, it's how he found his latest wife. And the Russian collusion stuff is based on a ton of circumstantial evidence that even Donald himself provided....rem "Russia are you listening". I said from the beginning this isn't "definitive" proof of anything but I understood the investigation. What I disliked about the investigation is the politisization of it. It should have happened quietly away from the public eye but the dems were never going to let that happen. But the prospect of a sitting president having ties to foreigners like Trump had...it had to be investigated. Period. It just shouldn't have been the political theatre that it was but.... #democrats.
well I think peepee tapes exist not because Hillary's people said so....but because it's something that sounds like Donald. We know he's a big fan of hookers in any case, it's how he found his latest wife. And the Russian collusion stuff is based on a ton of circumstantial evidence that even Donald himself provided....rem "Russia are you listening". I said from the beginning this isn't "definitive" proof of anything but I understood the investigation. What I disliked about the investigation is the politisization of it. It should have happened quietly away from the public eye but the dems were never going to let that happen. But the prospect of a sitting president having ties to foreigners like Trump had...it had to be investigated. Period. It just shouldn't have been the political theatre that it was but.... #democrats.
LOL. Cool story, now why don't you tell everyone why Trump has to be impeached.
-
Hint to Clevis - the Mueller Report is over. done with. Is there no cure at all for TDS?
-
Just stay out of it Cal. You might hurt yourself. Htown may be insufferable at times but he's not an idiot and can discuss something without a Google search link drop.
-
The point Trump wants to make (which he's tweeting out immediately after watching Fix talk about it ....) is that Google influenced undecided voters.
That study only followed 21 undecided voters. They even said the "bias rate" for undecided voters was left. Though they don't really go into detail on how they determined bias.
And didn't the guy that ran this already have a beef with Google?
Since you keep quoting me and get quoted, I might as well do this. All your posts can be answered here i think.
I haven't defended Trump on this so have that conversation with someone else.
Yes, his data is flawed. Maybe not as bad as you think. His methodology is designed well enough to get unbiased results, which seems to be Cleve's hangup. It's his sample size in his US study that creates the issue. I'm frankly more interested in his older studies that do have more subjects, albeit they come from entirely different demographics. He was able to get over 2000 volunteers for at least one of them, from which he extrapolated out his smaller study (which I linked also, in case your up to it). I see the flaws, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legit trend throughout all his work.
I think it's worth a look next election, as you know he's going to do another one. Maybe the publicity gets him more participants.
I don't see malicious intent in his data, especially since he started experimenting with this before Google shut his page down. It's not complex, but it doesn't have to be. The whole concept of what he's suggesting is simple.
Does it make you "hot" and want to "melt" when other disciplines use bad data and extrapolate it to predict trends? It happens.
Deuce
Since you keep quoting me and get quoted, I might as well do this. All your posts can be answered here i think.
I haven't defended Trump on this so have that conversation with someone else.
Yes, his data is flawed. Maybe not as bad as you think. His methodology is designed well enough to get unbiased results, which seems to be Cleve's hangup. It's his sample size in his US study that creates the issue. I'm frankly more interested in his older studies that do have more subjects, albeit they come from entirely different demographics. He was able to get over 2000 volunteers for at least one of them, from which he extrapolated out his smaller study (which I linked also, in case your up to it). I see the flaws, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legit trend throughout all his work.
I think it's worth a look next election, as you know he's going to do another one. Maybe the publicity gets him more participants.
I don't see malicious intent in his data, especially since he started experimenting with this before Google shut his page down. It's not complex, but it doesn't have to be. The whole concept of what he's suggesting is simple.
Does it make you "hot" and want to "melt" when other disciplines use bad data and extrapolate it to predict trends? It happens.
Deuce
Someone posted the Trump tweet referring to the study, I called it out, you posted the study.
I read through it and found flaws. Nothing other people haven't seen before. Mostly the incredibly low sample size, but also I'm not sure what he's doing to determine the bias of a website.
I quoted you because you posted the study. It was just weird you continued to engage with Cleve about the study but not with the person calling it out.
If you're saying now that there are major flaws with the study, than I'm good. We at least got to that point. I don't think the data is statistically significant to prove much of anything. If you posted another study I must have missed it.
I also wonder how something like the "grab her by the pussy" story would be counted. I mean, it's a negative for Trump, but you could just report on it without bias. If ABC just says it's something that exists, plays the clip, etc does that count as a "liberal" search result?
And ha ha ha. Great last paragraph. I guaran-damn-tee that there is more of and more reputable climate data than this study has.
I've also seen people on here freaking out about "data manipulation" when data is just being normalized. Excuse me if I don't think damn near every climatologist at damn near every scientific organization in damn near every part of the world is faking data.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login