Yeah, one problem is that some statistician critiqued Shiva's work, and then everyone took that to mean Shiva must be wrong even though he went over said criticism.
That's a major problem with the statistics/algorithm stuff: it's too high level for laypeople to understand (myself included) that it's hard for anyone to believe its veracity or its illegitimacy. I wish there could be some neutral panel of experts to dissect it. Unfortunately, the arena can be as compromised or political as the science and medical fields.
It is not too hard to understand, if explained simply. Shiva could have done better in his video keeping it simple. For example: "Common sense tells you that if you vote straight party Republican, you are going to vote for Trump. But that is not what the data says. In fact, it says that the more people vote Republican, the less they vote for Trump. You don't have to have a Phd from MIT to understand this makes no sense."
Shiva did a decent job keeping it simple. I posted a video from Edward Solomon who cracked the voting algorithm, though, and it straight up went over my head:
I think a lot of people have trouble simplifying things down to a layman level, and it adds to communication issues I've seen in these hearings. I this Shiva was talking at the AZ hearing I was screaming at my TV, just say "X"! But I guess in the moment they can't figure out how to ELI5.
Shiva with the spice! Informative as always.👌
Shiva is the real deal. I heard Crowder dissed him. I don't think Crowder does math.
Yeah, one problem is that some statistician critiqued Shiva's work, and then everyone took that to mean Shiva must be wrong even though he went over said criticism.
That's a major problem with the statistics/algorithm stuff: it's too high level for laypeople to understand (myself included) that it's hard for anyone to believe its veracity or its illegitimacy. I wish there could be some neutral panel of experts to dissect it. Unfortunately, the arena can be as compromised or political as the science and medical fields.
It is not too hard to understand, if explained simply. Shiva could have done better in his video keeping it simple. For example: "Common sense tells you that if you vote straight party Republican, you are going to vote for Trump. But that is not what the data says. In fact, it says that the more people vote Republican, the less they vote for Trump. You don't have to have a Phd from MIT to understand this makes no sense."
Shiva did a decent job keeping it simple. I posted a video from Edward Solomon who cracked the voting algorithm, though, and it straight up went over my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pVAKm8JqvU&feature=emb_logo
Some "statistician" could counter this was straight up bullshit but use fancy words and I wouldn't be able to tell who was right.
I think a lot of people have trouble simplifying things down to a layman level, and it adds to communication issues I've seen in these hearings. I this Shiva was talking at the AZ hearing I was screaming at my TV, just say "X"! But I guess in the moment they can't figure out how to ELI5.
Watch his live interviews on tbdailynews.com the man is a friggin nutjob