I haven't slept in days and I have plenty of fun shit to do. Go grab a textbook or something--if you want to dismiss what happened with a few million votes to evil "control boards" or LCD. Piss off shill.
I'm not dismissing anything except the AI part of it. You don't need AI to run a botnet which co-ordinates to adjust its own totals using feedback from the other nodes. I doubt they even use differential equations.
Come on, think a little harder.
They are using the phrase "AI" as an intensifier so it sounds more spooky.
Or, to put it another way: if the Chinese were using a sophisticated AI to do whatever it is, why would anybody even mention "Chinese made LCD panels and switches"
In layman's terms, yes. [No, I'm not suggesting that there's a QPU in deep freeze controlling it...]
The data are sampled across the aggregate periodically and the shaves/flips happen at certain interval with predictable thresholding within the context of affecting a specific race. [While it may be hard-algorithmic based rather than inference and intent, it's a grid of computers being used to act in concert toward a specific end. That doesn't happen organically, even with a distribution of "bugs" or glitches. These instances have a purpose and a role in a set of collections of federated instances.
This doesn't happen in isolation. If calling it a "bot net" makes you feel better, go with that.
It's a distributed set of instances that work toward a common goal. Each node is aware of its membership in at least one federation (state race) as well as the aggregate (popular vote). There are thresholds being triggered, and either the machines are keeping a local count which differs from the actual or there's a digital twin representtion of each node because votes continue reporting and there needs to be some semblance to reality--skewed as it is. Or the intercept is at the fractional portion--I don't have the system design handy--that would look more man in the middle.
But hey, what do I know. The behavior Dr. Shiva describes does not happen organically.
You totally missed the point of Dr Shiva's presentation. Its a simple linear algorithm. All you need is to lookup the percentage of expected trump voters in a database. No fancy distributed computing network necessary.
Actually, I haven't watched it yet. Go ahead and bust my balls over that.
The point is, while the regression of the data may yeild a linear algorithm, there are nodes contributing to that data which are "supposedly" non-inacting. So when you produce several unified results (one per state/race) [not even considering the national popular vote effects] across a distributed network that produce a linearly identifiable skew--that's damn hard to do. I'm basically trying here in "layman's terms to water down the observations from inspectorPede's work analyzing the NYT Edison.
There was an article somebody posted here about SOFIT sampling and minority weight referencing--dude/zxr, I don't give a damn to argue with you--if you want to believe that a slew of thousands of supposedly disconnected machines will behave linearly with a distributed con -- fine.
Everyone dont feed the numbnut conspiracies on here. Keep seeing these IT posers pop up with AI this or Quantum that. You dont need these experimental technologies to explain the fraud.
not really
YOU SHOULD WATCH THIS VIDEO GENERAL FLYNN POSTED.... WHY ARE THERE CHINESE AI PROCESSORS IN A U.S. VOTING MACHINE!?!?!?
Maybe. you are a CCP shill...
AI processors, oooh spooky words
Did you watch the video? A Chinese AI Processor serves, what purpose in a voting machine?
I did yes, apply some critical thinking.
What is an "AI Processor", do you know?
If that was important, why would "display panels" and "control boards" be the first two items in the list?
I haven't slept in days and I have plenty of fun shit to do. Go grab a textbook or something--if you want to dismiss what happened with a few million votes to evil "control boards" or LCD. Piss off shill.
I'm not dismissing anything except the AI part of it. You don't need AI to run a botnet which co-ordinates to adjust its own totals using feedback from the other nodes. I doubt they even use differential equations.
Come on, think a little harder.
They are using the phrase "AI" as an intensifier so it sounds more spooky.
Or, to put it another way: if the Chinese were using a sophisticated AI to do whatever it is, why would anybody even mention "Chinese made LCD panels and switches"
Oh, sure thing. Make the CCP sound good--way to read the room, shill.
In layman's terms, yes. [No, I'm not suggesting that there's a QPU in deep freeze controlling it...]
The data are sampled across the aggregate periodically and the shaves/flips happen at certain interval with predictable thresholding within the context of affecting a specific race. [While it may be hard-algorithmic based rather than inference and intent, it's a grid of computers being used to act in concert toward a specific end. That doesn't happen organically, even with a distribution of "bugs" or glitches. These instances have a purpose and a role in a set of collections of federated instances.
How is "a program running" suddenly "a distributed AI".
I'm not a Layman btw. I'm a masters level data scientist
YOU SHOULD WATCH THIS VIDEO GENERAL FLYNN POSTED.... WHY ARE THERE CHINESE AI PROCESSORS IN A U.S. VOTING MACHINE!?!?!?
Maybe. you are a CCP shill...
ah the same comment again'
if you say it often enough it becomes true
Dr.SHIVA LIVE: MIT PhD Analysis of Michigan Votes Reveals Unfortunate Truth of U.S. Voting Systems.
This doesn't happen in isolation. If calling it a "bot net" makes you feel better, go with that.
It's a distributed set of instances that work toward a common goal. Each node is aware of its membership in at least one federation (state race) as well as the aggregate (popular vote). There are thresholds being triggered, and either the machines are keeping a local count which differs from the actual or there's a digital twin representtion of each node because votes continue reporting and there needs to be some semblance to reality--skewed as it is. Or the intercept is at the fractional portion--I don't have the system design handy--that would look more man in the middle.
But hey, what do I know. The behavior Dr. Shiva describes does not happen organically.
Good luck with school.
You totally missed the point of Dr Shiva's presentation. Its a simple linear algorithm. All you need is to lookup the percentage of expected trump voters in a database. No fancy distributed computing network necessary.
Actually, I haven't watched it yet. Go ahead and bust my balls over that.
The point is, while the regression of the data may yeild a linear algorithm, there are nodes contributing to that data which are "supposedly" non-inacting. So when you produce several unified results (one per state/race) [not even considering the national popular vote effects] across a distributed network that produce a linearly identifiable skew--that's damn hard to do. I'm basically trying here in "layman's terms to water down the observations from inspectorPede's work analyzing the NYT Edison.
There was an article somebody posted here about SOFIT sampling and minority weight referencing--dude/zxr, I don't give a damn to argue with you--if you want to believe that a slew of thousands of supposedly disconnected machines will behave linearly with a distributed con -- fine.
That still isn't AI.
Here, perhaps go debate that with an expert. I'm overdue for a Big Mac. Cheers.
I am an expert.
InteIligent. I meant to post this link for "expert".
Be whatever you want. Being called an "IT Poser" is the highlight of my day.
YOU SHOULD WATCH THIS VIDEO GENERAL FLYNN POSTED.... WHY ARE THERE CHINESE AI PROCESSORS IN A U.S. VOTING MACHINE!?!?!?
Maybe. you are a CCP shill...
and the third one, Beetlejuice still hasn't appeared
Do you even know what AI is ?
I built my own bare-metal hyperscaler--most of your life runs on it. Like I said before, good luck with school.
Everyone dont feed the numbnut conspiracies on here. Keep seeing these IT posers pop up with AI this or Quantum that. You dont need these experimental technologies to explain the fraud.
You sure seem to have latched onto one aspect to discredit the significance of argument. That's exactly the approach of the "fact checkers". As I said, below, if calling it a "bot net" makes you feel better, go with that.
Being called an "IT Poser" makes my day. Cheers.
YOU SHOULD WATCH THIS VIDEO GENERAL FLYNN POSTED.... WHY ARE THERE CHINESE AI PROCESSORS IN A U.S. VOTING MACHINE!?!?!?
Maybe. you are a CCP shill...
No, AI not needed in this in fact you would never want to use AI. Its too unpredictable.
YOU SHOULD WATCH THIS VIDEO GENERAL FLYNN POSTED.... WHY ARE THERE CHINESE AI PROCESSORS IN A U.S. VOTING MACHINE!?!?!?
Maybe. you are a CCP shill...
Please see my "this is in layman's terms" answer, here.