The funny thing is that the guy debunking him just does a massive strawman and argues against a methodology that wasn't used. But his own past work recommends the same methodology that Braynard did use.
the commies have smart people in their ranks and have crunched the data for years to see what and where most people get their news. How they spend their days. How they can affect them with changes in their messages. How to rub out and demonetize alt news and then watch how many really see that.
Then they just keep the pressure in the schools and HR depts to bend everyone to take a knee. Regular folk have their kids in schools that they control. Regular folk go to work where they control the HR via regulations.
And they can achieve accuracy of 99.7% in their "predictions." Their problem is that .3% changes everything. Anyone that's ever dealt with hueristics wouldn't trust it to save a mouse.
In fairness to the deboonker - I’m not sure the 1st point is invalid - the rebuttal is talking about fields that were matched on, whereas the highlighted sections used to debunk the deboonk is where Matt listed what was in the database table. We can have seven columns but only match on DOB being the point. Could well be that Matt did match on multiple columns, but the tweet does not disprove it.
I’ve yet to get a chance to compare the deboonk with the tweet de-debunk, but I hope it’s better than this.
The funny thing is that the guy debunking him just does a massive strawman and argues against a methodology that wasn't used. But his own past work recommends the same methodology that Braynard did use.
Braynard's work is so straightforward. How can it be discredited?
Other people are the ones extrapolating his results to larger data sets. I can see trying to discredit them.
One of the biggest reasons why Communism always fails so hard is reality is blatantly ignored in favor of the party's position.
yeah but this is Dark ages 2.0
the commies have smart people in their ranks and have crunched the data for years to see what and where most people get their news. How they spend their days. How they can affect them with changes in their messages. How to rub out and demonetize alt news and then watch how many really see that.
Then they just keep the pressure in the schools and HR depts to bend everyone to take a knee. Regular folk have their kids in schools that they control. Regular folk go to work where they control the HR via regulations.
And they can achieve accuracy of 99.7% in their "predictions." Their problem is that .3% changes everything. Anyone that's ever dealt with hueristics wouldn't trust it to save a mouse.
We have God on our side. This communists have his nemesis. God always wins......Hold the line!
Yes!!!!
All the time.
Especially when their necks are on the line.
In fairness to the deboonker - I’m not sure the 1st point is invalid - the rebuttal is talking about fields that were matched on, whereas the highlighted sections used to debunk the deboonk is where Matt listed what was in the database table. We can have seven columns but only match on DOB being the point. Could well be that Matt did match on multiple columns, but the tweet does not disprove it.
I’ve yet to get a chance to compare the deboonk with the tweet de-debunk, but I hope it’s better than this.