Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
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!”