Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing from the mind of someone who doesn't appear to have any particular expertise so much as a lot of time and tunnel vision. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

The last thing we want is to invite someone to represent our side who makes his case like someone who looks for coded messages from the future on his cereal boxes.

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing from the mind of someone who doesn't appear to have any particular expertise so much as a lot of time and tunnel vision. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

I have a feeling like people are just upvoting this because the title has "reverse engineered" and "Dominion" in it and aren't really considering the merits of his theory and presentation. There are actual experts who have provided credible and convincing statistical evidence of fraud, we need to be careful not to accidentally elevate someone who could be used to discredit or dilute stronger arguments. The last thing we want is to invite someone to represent our side who makes his case like someone who looks for coded messages from the future on his cereal boxes.

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing from the mind of someone who doesn't appear to have any particular expertise so much as a lot of time and tunnel vision. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

I have a feeling like people are just upvoting this because the title has "reverse engineered" and "Dominion" in it and aren't really considering the merits of his theory and presentation. There are actual experts who have provided actual sound statistical evidence of fraud, we need to be careful not to accidentally elevate someone who could be used to discredit or dilute stronger arguments. The last thing we want is to invite someone to represent our side who makes his case like someone who looks for coded messages from the future on his cereal boxes.

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing from the mind of someone who doesn't appear to have any particular expertise so much as a lot of time and tunnel vision. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

There are actual experts who have provided actual sound statistical arguments, we need to be careful not to accidentally elevate someone who could be used to discredit or dilute stronger arguments, especially if they just come off as a raving crackpot...

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing from the mind of someone who doesn't appear to have any particular expertise so much as a lot of time and tunnel vision. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

There are actual experts who have provided actual sound statistical arguments, we need to be careful not to accidentally elevate someone who could be used to discredit or dilute stronger arguments.

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing from the mind of someone who doesn't appear to have any particular expertise so much as a lot of time and tunnel vision. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see was... underwhelming and embarrassing. I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything is just misleading.

I feel like amplifying this guy could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.

Same, I couldn't stand to watch the full several hours of rambling, but what I did see did was pretty bad. He sounds like someone trying to fit his own arbitrary algorithm to some interesting data points. The data needs an explanation, but this isn't it. Saying that he "reverse engineered" anything, it is just misleading and I don't think his explanation is plausible.

I think there is an algorithm that's switching votes, but not like this. I feel like amplifying this guy, who comes off as a crackpot with no particular expertise, could backfire and end up discrediting legitimate data analyses. There is way stronger statistical evidence of interference, this (from what I've seen) is just theorizing. Very sketchy, and the ms-paint and star-craft "simulation" isn't lending him any credibility.