2
MaAzGrA 2 points ago +5 / -3

And we as Americans should give a shit, Why?

5
MaAzGrA 5 points ago +5 / -0

Again... I swear we are in a simulation. Whoever is running this thing just keeps on laughing at us.

4
MaAzGrA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Did you just describe Heaven?

16
MaAzGrA 16 points ago +16 / -0

Are we in a simulation? I swear everything going on right now is just one giant joke.

30
MaAzGrA 30 points ago +30 / -0

I bet it’s going to be just another “nudge” normalizing small restrictions, increased bureaucracy, and taxes. Frog in a boiling pot of water approach. You won’t like it, but most everyone will just comply. Look at the number of people still wearing masks. We are at week 56 of 2 weeks to flatten the curve.

As long as people get their paychecks and food, no meaningful group of people will fight.

0
MaAzGrA 0 points ago +1 / -1

Wrong. It is used in financial fraud NOT ELECTION FRAUD. Do you know how it works? Did you watch the video and the paper that I linked to? Since our votes across the country are mostly cast in precincts with only a few thousand voters per, you will get anomalies. These anomalies do not mean that anything nefarious occurred. The test misleads you to believe so.

Fraud happened, Trump is prez, but using Benfords law to prove or point towards the likely hood of fraud is stupid. That’s all I’m saying.

1
MaAzGrA 1 point ago +2 / -1

Never said it didn’t. But BL is a bad test to use as some sort of leverage that fraud occurred is all my point is.

-1
MaAzGrA -1 points ago +2 / -3

Thanks... at least someone gets it

2
MaAzGrA 2 points ago +4 / -2

The amount of downvotes, even after I explain with sources, is kinda astounding... it took me 5 min of googling back in November to figure this out.

-1
MaAzGrA -1 points ago +1 / -2

Did you watch the vid or read that paper?

0
MaAzGrA 0 points ago +1 / -1

It can... but the data set has to exhibit certain characteristics. You just have to be careful when you use it... but in most cases, its a bad tool to use.

2
MaAzGrA 2 points ago +4 / -2

Man, with all that mental masturbation going on, im surprised you havent rubbed your brain smooth.. maybe you have.

I bet you got the full stimulus, and didn't even have the ware-withal to not even use it, because that would make you no different than the neck beards screaming for UBI.

Go fuckyourself.

-3
MaAzGrA -3 points ago +2 / -5

suck a dick. I bet you still breast feed while living moms basement.

0
MaAzGrA 0 points ago +3 / -3

Did I ever say that the info-graphic is wrong because Benford's law is included? Including it makes us look dumb when you include erroneous "proof" and start spreading this thing far and wide. It is a bad tool to use when analyzing data sets for election fraud. Just stop using it as proof unless you know exactly where the data is coming from.

file:///C:/Users/92sag/AppData/Local/Temp/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud.pdf

-3
MaAzGrA -3 points ago +2 / -5

Benfords law is a bad tool for looking into election fraud. The tool is not "designed" to be used in that manner. You have to be very careful in using the tool, to make sure the data set from precincts, and counties has multiple orders of magnitude, which they typically don't. I'm not saying that it cant successfully find it, which it could, but its best to leave this tool out of the equation when many papers on this subject point to Benford's law and election fraud to be "problematic".

file:///C:/Users/92sag/AppData/Local/Temp/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud.pdf

-1
MaAzGrA -1 points ago +1 / -2

Its a good tool when the datasets satisfies one of the largest requirements; Multiple orders of magnitude. Which many precincts don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

This guy lays it out pretty well. In order to use it, you have to do what this guy did, and look at every precinct and understand where the data is coming from. Typically people just apply it liberally.

I just think its best to not include it because the tool really isn't "designed" to be used for elections.

0
MaAzGrA 0 points ago +5 / -5

I'm not an apologist. Benford's law is not a tell-all and should not be used without looking at the individual data sets themselves. Its a good tool when used appropriately, but most people just apply it without knowing how the law works. Do some research.

Its just best to leave off of these info-graphics because you want these things to be factual and to the poiint.

-2
MaAzGrA -2 points ago +3 / -5

its on these info graphics as a tell-all. Many people think you can apply this as a blanket litmus test, which you cannot. If we remember just a mere 5 months ago, Benfords law was posted front page for weeks as a direct link to fraud. It can point to fraud, but only in very specific circumstances. It should just plain be avoided. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

1
MaAzGrA 1 point ago +5 / -4

No, you have to be careful in which cases you use the law. It is not a blanket litmus test to fraud.

2
MaAzGrA 2 points ago +6 / -4

https://youtu.be/etx0k1nLn78 . Watch this guy. He gives a pretty un biased and mathematical approach to why it should not be used. At least, you should be VERY careful before applying the law. It cannot be used as a blanket litmus test.

view more: Next ›