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: 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