SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
The Clinton presidential campaign used a complex computer algorithm called Ada to assist in many of the most important decisions during the race.
According to aides, a raft of polling numbers, public and private, were fed into the algorithm, as well as ground-level voter data meticulously collected by the campaign. Once early voting began, those numbers were factored in, too.
What Ada did, based on all that data, aides said, was run 400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like. A report that was spit out would give campaign manager Robby Mook and others a detailed picture of which battleground states were most likely to tip the race in one direction or another — and guide decisions about where to spend time and deploy resources.
Of course, the results are only as good as the data. Since the outcome of the election was different than most poll predictions, it seems like Ada may have had a Garbage In, Garbage Out problem.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:09PM
More likely ... And it almost certainly wouldn't . . . . Nor is it likely that . . . that hadn't really been showing up . . .
[ . . . ] Why should any of use vote for a candidate that disenfranchised our vote to win the primary?
See, this is what I am talking about! Total speculation on your part, Francis! No facts, only what you "think", using the term loosely. And what is the last sentence? "Any of use vote"? What is that? I hope you feel better after expressing your "opinion", because I do not think this comment has done any good to your fellow Soylentils.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:34PM
So were you not paying attention when it was revealed that the DNC was pretty firmly opposed to Sanders and used a number of propaganda techniques to attack him? The party was not neutral towards him. I don't know if that could make Clinton win, but it certainly didn't hurt Sanders at least a bit.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:40PM
I don't know if that could make Clinton win, but it certainly didn't hurt Sanders at least a bit.
Log in, Francis! Yes, you don't know, that is kind of the point. And certainly? didn't? I do not think you meant to use a negative there, did you not? So what about the algorithm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:58PM
Are you really going to try to downplay corruption just because it had an unknown effect on the amount of votes Sanders received?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:10PM
Are you really going to try to downplay corruption just because it had an unknown effect
Is this an actual question? How can it be corruption if it had no effect? Or a counter-corrupting effect? All you are saying is that you don't know. You are saying nothing. By trying to make it seem like I am saying something, you are still saying nothing. What was the algorithm the Clinton campaign used? Oh, you don't know? Was it corrupt? Maybe, you don't know. Was it inaccurate on predictions? Obviously. Why? You don't know.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:35PM
How can it be corruption if it had no effect? Or a counter-corrupting effect?
I'm sometimes left wondering where the troll ends and the philosopher begins, Detective. Let's take one obvious and well documented example of corruption in the primary -- say, Donna Brazile giving Hillary Clinton debate questions ahead of time. Now let's make the baseless assumption that Hillary came up with a worse response ahead of time than she would have come up with on the spot. In this hypothetical would you really refuse to call the act of revealing debate questions ahead of time "corruption" simply because the effect was the opposite of what was intended? If so this would seem like an odd definition of corruption; I don't think it would even include Watergate.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:45PM
He's a troll, I don't generally bother responding to him because it's a waste of my time and energy, but he's definitely a troll.
Either that or he's got some sort of neurological impairment that prevents him from comprehending even basic facts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:20AM
Either that or he's got some sort of . . .
So let me get this straight, you do not know whether aristarchus is a troll or not?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:43PM
That wasn't me.
Also, just because you've got no critical thinking skills doesn't mean that the AC is wrong here. We've got the emails and even without the emails, how do you explain the huge numbers of Democrats who had their registration changed to GOP in New York and the people who's registration was dropped in California?
Even without the emails from the DNC, that looks incredibly suspicious.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:00AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:48AM
Correct. But there is a vast difference between groundless speculation and speculation grounded in some degree of knowledge that produces testable hypotheses. We are getting none of that here. Instead we have conspiracy theories that purport to somehow to be related to a failure of speculation by the Clinton campaign's software. Failed speculation about a speculative failure, all heat and no light. Yes, we should strive to know, but chasing wild geese more often than not lead away from knowledge, for there are many more ways to be wrong than there are to be correct. The first step is to acknowledge our ignorance, this is what got Socrates in trouble. But the second step is to restrain our tendency to replace our ignorance with the first thing that comes to mind. The second step is almost more important than the first.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:19PM
As to Francis's speculation, I think I can provide a more constructive criticism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:57PM
This is much better than his usual and I think you should recognize that.
Not sure I see that. Seems more like a case of Hilary Derangement Syndrome, from which you also suffer. But that is just my opinion, and what do I know?
As to Francis's speculation, I think I can provide a more constructive criticism.
Have at it! This is why we are all here, to help Francis become a better commenter, and to make SoylentNews a better world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:14PM
Seems more like a case of Hilary Derangement Syndrome
Says the guy who just posted a hysterical article [soylentnews.org] about Peter Thiel's role with the Trump administration.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 21 2016, @01:18AM
Alright, I have to ask: do you mean "hysterical" as in hysterically funny, or as in being controlled by a uterus? (Έχω τρεις ὑστέραi.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 21 2016, @04:51AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday November 21 2016, @05:16AM
Three of them, actually, which you would know if you read Greek. It's trihysterical.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 21 2016, @06:11PM