This is a form of something called "residual analysis". Probably can turn up YouTubes with that alone.
It's used throughout actual hard science experiments as a way of finding unexpected WTFBBQ.
You plot your data/model against something you totally do not expect it to be affect by (say: 'Day of Week' or hair-color of cafeteria-lady or whatever). A normal result is "as in the video". A scatter plot along the horizontal "zero" line with a long list of characteristics. Anything besides the 'closely scattered to horizontal line' is an indication that your thinking is wrong . The line shifting "up" or the line shifting "down" ... but uniformly ... that's a simple "calibration error" - you didn't have a perfect guess when you assumed "Trump" and "Republican" are the same.
But.
Tilts, bends, "U-shapes" ... all signs of weirdness that scream "This is not random!" A mild tilt... sorry. A mild pure tilt (without the bend!) isn't a problem. That's the statement that "Trump's Base" and "Republicans" aren't aligned. That's could be believable - but it's also known to be small . You don't get that wild tilt and get "94% of Republicans support Trump" in the same timeline.
They're doing this from a statistical perspective - they can't say with certainty how it was done. What they're saying is "This is not normal." This is precisely the same sort of statement as "130,000 heads in a row is not normal". Figuring out "Well, that's because the lying liars were also cheating cheaters" and how is a separate problem.
Excellent work but I think they are rediscovering things that have been known for a long time. I remember watching a video on the software being programmed to receive fractional votes years ago. If I recall the person who was supposed to testify to Congress died in a plane crash the weekend before he was scheduled to testify to Congress.
If you cant be bothered to spend one hour listening to what essentially amounts to a smoking gun on national election fraud, you deserve president harris.
It's a long video but worth it for sure.
I wish they presented more "normal" data to prove that this vote stealing is a feature of software
SPEZ: learned more. I believe it now. A line that bends and drops sharply like that is a huge red flag
This is a form of something called "residual analysis". Probably can turn up YouTubes with that alone.
It's used throughout actual hard science experiments as a way of finding unexpected WTFBBQ.
You plot your data/model against something you totally do not expect it to be affect by (say: 'Day of Week' or hair-color of cafeteria-lady or whatever). A normal result is "as in the video". A scatter plot along the horizontal "zero" line with a long list of characteristics. Anything besides the 'closely scattered to horizontal line' is an indication that your thinking is wrong . The line shifting "up" or the line shifting "down" ... but uniformly ... that's a simple "calibration error" - you didn't have a perfect guess when you assumed "Trump" and "Republican" are the same.
But.
Tilts, bends, "U-shapes" ... all signs of weirdness that scream "This is not random!" A mild tilt... sorry. A mild pure tilt (without the bend!) isn't a problem. That's the statement that "Trump's Base" and "Republicans" aren't aligned. That's could be believable - but it's also known to be small . You don't get that wild tilt and get "94% of Republicans support Trump" in the same timeline.
They're doing this from a statistical perspective - they can't say with certainty how it was done. What they're saying is "This is not normal." This is precisely the same sort of statement as "130,000 heads in a row is not normal". Figuring out "Well, that's because the lying liars were also cheating cheaters" and how is a separate problem.
Thanks the helps very much. I wasn’t aware that the horizontal trend itself was that important. And also how unusual the shape of this trend is.
I was thinking the same about the 94-96% approval in the R party. That’s an important piece.
They really do have something then
That was informative and made me laugh noice.
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O453fd/drshiva-figured-it-our-its-fucki/c/
:D
Excellent work but I think they are rediscovering things that have been known for a long time. I remember watching a video on the software being programmed to receive fractional votes years ago. If I recall the person who was supposed to testify to Congress died in a plane crash the weekend before he was scheduled to testify to Congress.
If you cant be bothered to spend one hour listening to what essentially amounts to a smoking gun on national election fraud, you deserve president harris.
*Greta Thunberg has entered the chat
“How dare you!”