@canton-dawg said:

Then why didn’t you say you were talking out of your ass again?

do you know what this symbol   ~       means?

@clevfan4life said:

I did caveat my suggestion with a ~100m figure. Pure guesswork on my part ofc. But I feel confident "right now", in my assessment. 

Then why didn’t you say you were talking out of your ass again?

@htownbrown said:

Dare I ask why you believe this?  Homicide rates, rape statistics, education levels, etc......don't seem to agree with you.  Outside of Chile, there's not another country south of the US with a lower homicide rate than here last I checked.

Are you basing it off personal tastes of character?  Is us white devils too snooty Cleve? 

I did caveat my suggestion with a ~100m figure. Pure guesswork on my part ofc. But I feel confident "right now", in my assessment. 

@calfoxwc said:

sorry, you felt left out I only posted about clevis? You, with your twisted beak and cowardly mind? I sneeze in your birdbrain direction, woodpecker.

well but he's not wrong is he you insect? Htown, while I pretty much have disagreed with everything he's posted in this thread....is still offering a reasonable nuanced debate. I can talk to that ngr. You....not so much. 

@mld-woody said:

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. 

sorry, you felt left out I only posted about clevis? You, with your twisted beak and cowardly mind? I sneeze in your birdbrain direction, woodpecker.

@mld-woody said:

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. 

You sure about that?  Sometimes even when they figure out their own mistakes, they don't even know what that means.  Or they're being malicious.  Case and point:

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/750778010/how-much-hotter-are-the-oceans-the-answer-begins-with-a-bucket

I don't want to jihad this thread, but I wouldn't guarantee anything with these people.  They are nowhere even close to figuring a damn thing out.  That article is bona fide horseshit and there are thousands more like it.  It really depends on what you expect from the data, I suppose.

Epstein doesn't need precise data to cause alarm, but unfortunately climate science does.  Epstein has already laid out his solution to the problem and it won't change no matter if the data comes back clearer.

Duckduckgo

@clevfan4life said:

The brown people coming across the southern border are albeit simple people, but prob alot better human beings. 

Dare I ask why you believe this?  Homicide rates, rape statistics, education levels, etc......don't seem to agree with you.  Outside of Chile, there's not another country south of the US with a lower homicide rate than here last I checked.

Are you basing it off personal tastes of character?  Is us white devils too snooty Cleve? 

@oldbrownsfan said:

The rule of law is a principal Cleve. One this nation has always stood for. We are a nation of laws. Immigration laws make sense and every country has them. I don't resent the illegal immigrants coming here for a better life. I can understand it. But still they are breaking laws and jumping to the head of the line over others who want to come here and are playing by the rules and waiting their turn. What do you say to those people playing by the immigration laws and waiting their turn in line and  seeing others rewarded for line jumping and not obeying immigration laws?

i honestly dont give a shit anymore

@clevfan4life said:

honestly dont care anymore what google does. Knowing theres a 100 or so million pieces of shit in this country that are so without an ounce of principle makes me give zero fucks. The brown people coming across the southern border are albeit simple people, but prob alot better human beings. I dont know whats happened to certain people, its like some light in them just got snuffed out in tge blink of an eye and now they're operated from somewhere else.

The rule of law is a principle Cleve. One this nation has always stood for. We are a nation of laws. Immigration laws make sense and every country has them. I don't resent the illegal immigrants coming here for a better life. I can understand it. But still they are breaking laws and jumping to the head of the line over others who want to come here and are playing by the rules and waiting their turn. What do you say to those people playing by the immigration laws and waiting their turn in line and  seeing others rewarded for line jumping and not obeying immigration laws?

@calfoxwc said:

i randomly picked one of those links, and its about a woman who compkained that google was pressuring her to work through out her pregnancy and if she didnt it couldnt be guaranteed her manager role would still be there when she came back. So basically conservatives sre now using a traditional liberal platform for maternity leave laws, to make an attack on google thst they're "anti pregnancy". 

ok im just going to say right here i hope google savages the constitution in its entirety to.fuck over everything "conservative". You people are scum of the earth and have no place in a rational human society. Liberals have been fighting the maternity leave law fight for decades, it was one hilly beasts major feminist issues.

@clevfan4life said:

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. 

Dayem Clevis, you broke your own record on the amount of fail crammed into one post.

I could shred this entire gem to pieces, but due to time constrains I can only address that first sentence for now..

you come on here ripping on people like Cal for opinions YOU consider mindless with no basis in fact...and here you are...still clinging to these pee tapes that were never proven to exist only because your bitter feelings keeps you from letting it go..yur a sad sad  man.

@htownbrown said:

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.

@clevfan4life said:

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.

@mld-woody said:

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

@clevfan4life said:

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.

@htownbrown said:

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?

@htownbrown said:

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

@clevfan4life said:

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.

@clevfan4life said:

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.