PortaJohn

[supercorndogs]

People who have probably never listened to him.

 

[Choid]

The smallest average precinct in the US is 440 in Kansas, the average for the country is 1100. At least in 2004 it was. https://web.archive.org/web/2006121...04/chapter_table/Chapter13_Polling_Places.htm

Most of the studies and papers that suggest that Benford's law is not a reliable indicator are tested on individual voting machines.

The US Government and foreign governments have routinely used second digit benford's law as a tool to identify possible election fraud where they are analyzing precincts with a lower average precinct size than 1100.

Average is 1100, turnout averages around 55%, so normal number there is going to be 4-600 as I said. I can't say what governments have done in the past, but I can say that Benford's law applies more as numbers go up. If the maximum of votes in a precinct is, say, 900, then then the maximum size of 2bl is going to be 99. Benfords law is a law of large, but not infinite, series, and I don't think a series under a hundred is what they mean by that. That isn't to say that smaller series won't conform, but that the law holds more strongly with large numbers.

Understanding and Applying Benford’s Law

Understanding and Applying Benford's Law. Article describes what Benford’s Law is, when it could apply, & what constraints to consider applying to an IT audit.

www.isaca.org

 

[jakelly]

I have NEVER seen anyone make someone else's child uncomfortable with a touch. Never saw it one time. Years of clinical work with child sexual abusers and victims, NEVER saw this forceful trespass of a child's boundaries. Not one person and not one child. Never. Adult publicly touching a child anywhere a bathing suit would cover? NOPE. Mind you this is in an arena where incest, rape, molestation, etc. have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have also NEVER seen a child react to an appropriate touch squeamishly or with that defensive body language. I HAVE seen children react to abusive guardians defensively. You can argue about the location of breasts, shoulders, groins, etc. But the fact that you acknowledge the presence of that discomfort, that it is "inappropriate" and yet defend it, is gross.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

If he did that, and I haven't seen the reports, it would be reprehensible behavior. It would not, of course, be proof of pedophilia, unless we now have six year old secret service agents.

In my experience, lots of CEOs get away with some ridiculous shit, but what others get away with isn't the bar. What is acceptable behavior is.

ETA: The nude swimming issue appears to be true. Reprehensible. Disqualifying, to me.

Dig baby dig.
Boy do you ever know how to dig a hole.
You should change your name to The Shoveler

 

[Choid]

I have NEVER seen anyone make someone else's child uncomfortable with a touch. Never saw it one time. Years of clinical work with child sexual abusers and victims, NEVER saw this forceful trespass of a child's boundaries. Not one person and not one child. Never. Adult publicly touching a child anywhere a bathing suit would cover? NOPE. Mind you this is in an arena where incest, rape, molestation, etc. have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have also NEVER seen a child react to an appropriate touch squeamishly or with that defensive body language. I HAVE seen children react to abusive guardians defensively. You can argue about the location of breasts, shoulders, groins, etc. But the fact that you acknowledge the presence of that discomfort, that it is "inappropriate" and yet defend it, is gross.

Since this is a seemingly reasonable reply, I ask you to show me one place where I defended his behavior qua behavior. What I have said is that it is bad behavior, but not pedophilia. If that is a defense of anything, it is a defense of the definition of pedophilia because when it comes to stuff like that, stuff that awful, the definition of the disorder really matters.

 

[Blutroop]

I guess I am in group one, because I don't defend pedophiles. But shouldn't there be a third group? Those who need to call all of their political enemies pedophiles, whether it is true or not. This group also includes morons who thought Lin Wood was a good guy, who thought Gina Haspel had been injured or killed in a raid by Delta Force, who thought the Kraken was coming, who thought that Benford's Law applied where it didn't, who thought a guy hacked a voting machine through the heater controller... Do I need to go on? It's basically a group of people so stupid that they have convinced themselves they are the only ones who can see the truth.

Yup, just like those claiming no voter fraud..

 

[BullGear]

Bill Gates... on his investment in Vaccines. 20 to 1 return.

Bill Gates Deleted Documentary Why he switched from Microsoft to vaccines

Bill Gates Deleted Documentary Why he switched from Microsoft to vaccines Re-edit of Mikki WIllis' "Plandemic" Higher Quality version available on DVO: https://odysee.com/@devrijeomroep:6/bill-gates-deleted-documentary:0 - Unmasked by the Justice Department in exclusionary practices designed...

www.bitchute.com

Did you see where Bill Gates believes that prosperous countries should be eating artificial beef? I'll try finding the article.

 

[BullGear]

Um, like SOOOOO surprised.

BREAKING: CNN Paid Antifa Agitator at Capitol Riots — Now We've Got Receipts to Prove It

CNN & NBC paid John Earle Sullivan *TENS OF THOUSANDS* of dollars...

beckernews.com

Amazing that this hadn't been reported on before this. CNN should be taken off the air.

 

[Choid]

Amazing that this hadn't been reported on before this. CNN should be taken off the air.

I mean, it kind of has. He was literally walking through the capitol with a fucking CNN crew.

 

[theLBC]

yeah, cause they don't have husbands that will bash your stupid face in.

 

[BullGear]

Maybe it's just dialysis, but the news is making my head pound. Ca this country get any more screwed up than it already is??????

 

[Blutroop]

Maybe it's just dialysis, but the news is making my head pound. Ca this country get any more screwed up than it already is??????

Not only can it... it will.

 

[pmclaine]

Choid you are a gun guy....John Lott.....good stats....does he do good research?

 

[darkfader]

I wonder if Chode irritates the fuck out of everyone around him in real life, or just all of us on the internet.

 

[pmclaine]

Did you see where Bill Gates believes that prosperous countries should be eating artificial beef? I'll try finding the article.

But not prosperous Oligarchs.....

 

[Blutroop]

Did you see where Bill Gates believes that prosperous countries should be eating artificial beef? I'll try finding the article.

It’s in the bear pit already

 

[Choid]

Choid you are a gun guy....John Lott.....good stats....does he do good research?

I haven't back checked any of is info, and I realize that there are controversies on how DGUs are reported and counted. That said, there is noting I have seen in his work that makes me think it is anything but solid. I am a fan.

I wonder if Chode irritates the fuck out of everyone around him in real life, or just all of us on the internet.

Probably. But as in here, I generally turn out to have been right.

 

[pmclaine]

I haven't back checked any of is info, and I realize that there are controversies on how DGUs are reported and counted. That said, there is noting I have seen in his work that makes me think it is anything but solid. I am a fan.

I think he does his homework.

Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots in the 2020 US presidential election

This study reports three tests measuring vote fraud in the 2020 US presidential election, although they provide inconsistent evidence. To isolate the impact of

papers.ssrn.com

 

[Choid]

I think he does his homework.

Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots in the 2020 US presidential election

This study reports three tests measuring vote fraud in the 2020 US presidential election, although they provide inconsistent evidence. To isolate the impact of

papers.ssrn.com

I understand his argument, but it has a lot of theoretical holes in it. It is an interesting way of looking at it. It isn't very persuasive proof of fraud.

contra, and not exactly a left leaning source: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/comment_voterfraud_grimmer_garro_eggers.pdf

 

[Ric O'shay]

Choid, I clearly recall you promising to "go away" and stay out of the Bear Pit.
My celebration of such was clearly premature.

 

[Choid]

Choid, I clearly recall you promising to "go away" and stay out of the Bear Pit.
My celebration of such was clearly premature.

People kept @ing me and quoting me. I have a weak will, apparently.

 

[Geeb]

Since this is a seemingly reasonable reply, I ask you to show me one place where I defended his behavior qua behavior. What I have said is that it is bad behavior, but not pedophilia. If that is a defense of anything, it is a defense of the definition of pedophilia because when it comes to stuff like that, stuff that awful, the definition of the disorder really matters.

Anyone whom calls pedophilia a 'disorder' is a chode (and a retard). Is it a disorder to stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger? No, it's a choice, just like every other CHOICE we make in life.

 

[Samuel Whittemore]

Maybe it's just dialysis, but the news is making my head pound. Ca this country get any more screwed up than it already is??????

Yes.. first name Kamala

 

[Choid]

Direct Quote from the article you linked:

"For IT auditors, that would be data such as files with hundreds of transactions (e.g., invoices to customers, disbursements, payments received, inventory items). It is inadvisable to use Benford’s Law for small-sized data sets, as it would not be reliable in such cases. Thus, some experts recommend data sets of at least 100 records. This author recommends that the data set be 1,000 records or more, or that the IT auditor justify why a lower volume of transactions is suitable to Benford’s Law, i.e., show that the smaller size still meets the other constraints and that size will not affect the reliability of results. The orders of magnitude in particular usually take hundreds of transactions. Using fewer than 1,000 can also lead to too many spikes of interest, too many false positives."

So, an analysis at the level of polling place given the last set of complete data we have showing numbers of all polling places we have in US is less than 114,000 polling places in 2004. Given that there were over 159 million votes in 2020, there were no doubt many polling places with over 1000 votes which would satisfy the 1000 record threshold per data set recommended by the author of the article you linked.

Almost all polling places and voting precincts would be over the 100 record threshold per data set the articles states that some experts recommend.

Not for BL2. For BL2, extremely few would have enough data points. Remember, BL2 removes the first digit, so in order to have over 100 you would need to be over 1000 for at least one candidate in the precinct.

 

[Choid]

159 Million voters divided by 113,000 polling places is 1400. So, given that the child sniffer allegedly received upwards of 90% of the votes in some polling places, it would be applicable in some instances even given the heightened standards used in the article above what other experts recommend.

This is retarded. Take the L and move on.

 

[Choid]

Even if I do take an "L" I would be taking an L on the side historical analysis and studies which state: "The Benford test for the second significant digit is one of the most commonly-used tools in election forensics." Forensic Analysis of Venezuelan Elections during the Chávez Presidency (nih.gov)

So, the first argument is that there are not many data sets that meet the recommendations of experts in the field for analysis.

Then, when shown that there are some data sets that meet the recommendations of experts in the field, "that's retarded".


I think that pretty much sums up the interest level of the media in applying tools to identify possible fraud in the 2020 election. Even when shown the tools would be applicable to some of the data sets: "it's retarded". Got it. Everything was above board LOL

It's retarded because you are trying to say there are a number of applicable precincts based on simple division, without showing any applicable precincts. And even if there are some number of applicable precincts, that number is still at the low end of the scale, and would only represent a sliver of the total voting group of precincts, and it would be a self selecting sliver. It is an exercise in choosing your data to try to get your answer, not in looking at the data and using the correct tools to analyze it.

And I think it is fair to say that none of the experts in Benford's Law think it is applicable. In fact, many of them have described why this is so, based on precinct size, similarity in precinct size and other factors. It's just not the right tool for the job.

FWIW, Mebane, one of the few remaining who think it is a good test, says there are no issues with the election as far as his analysis goes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

 

[Son of Dorn]

Must be taking after that other great Liberal LBJ that used to take a shit in front of his subordinates just to humiliate them.

And we don't even have Forrest Gump to show Biden his ass-wound on national TV...

 

[Choid]

That's not exactly what the experts say.

"If tests based on the second significant digit of precinct-level vote counts are diagnostic of election fraud, the tests need to use expectations that take into account the features of ordinary elections, such as strategic actions. Whether the tests are useful for detecting fraud remains an open question, but approaching this question requires an approach more nuanced and tied to careful analysis of real election data than one sees in the discussed paper."

Comment on "Benford's Law and the Detection of Election Fraud" on JSTOR

Like I said, the one guy who thinks it is a reliable test is the same guy who wrote the paper that says 2020 didn't sow fraud based on that test. Seems like a conundrum. Either it isn't reliable, or it is pretty reliable and shows no fraud.

 

[Choid]

He analyzed a very small amount of data especially data from places where fraud was suspected. Look at the distributions from Chicago. Which distribution conforms more closely to expected results under 2bl? But, he explains this away saying other non-fraud factors account for the deviation from the expected distribution .

View attachment 7559839

So the one guy who thinks it is useful is lying to show us that there was no fraud?

This whole line of argument has been a joke from day 1. It started out assuming fraud, then applying Benford to show it. Then when it was explained that the tool was inapplicable, we stayed with fraud and jumped to Benford 2, as though the new experts doing so knew all along that what they were suggesting at first, also as experts, was BS, but now they are sure they have the right tool. And it isn't even an accepted tool among many statisticians, but there is one guy who shows a lot of support for it. But unfortunately he says it doesn't show fraud. Conclusion? He is just explaining away the fraud because he doesn't want it to be there. Got it.

 

[Choid]

Anyone whom calls pedophilia a 'disorder' is a chode (and a retard). Is it a disorder to stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger? No, it's a choice, just like every other CHOICE we make in life.

It is literally defined as a disorder in the DSM V. Not sure why this is controversial.

 

[10ring'r]

Can you imagine him in the Presidential bathroom? That toilet paper roll must be downright confounding.. much less him able to remember he's supposed to reach around with the TP still in his hand.

I'll bet if he does though... he intentionally pops a finger through the TP just for the thrill of it. Thus the real reason why elbow bumps are now the norm at the WH

THANKS! Now I've got that F'd-up mental picture in my F'n HEAD!! Mac

 

[cast1]

Probably. But as in here, I generally turn out to have been right.

Congratulations. You’re the smartest guy on Snipershide.

It’s actually interesting to see a guy enter an environment, find virtually zero consensus with anyone there, determine everyone else has the problem, and lecture them all about it. Nonetheless he’ll continue to bless them with his radiance lol, whether they want it or not.

FYI most all these guys you’re “educating” likely have successful careers, wives, kids, homes, and friends in abundance. They really don’t care what you think. What do you have? A little self assigned Snipershide scorecard? Showed them, lol. Why is that the only thing you can find to do on here? Pitiful.

I feel sorry for you dude. There’s something wrong with you.

 

[pmclaine]

And we don't even have Forrest Gump to show Biden his ass-wound on national TV...

Id be careful exposing an orifice in that group.

 

[jakelly]

Since this is a seemingly reasonable reply, I ask you to show me one place where I defended his behavior qua behavior. What I have said is that it is bad behavior, but not pedophilia. If that is a defense of anything, it is a defense of the definition of pedophilia because when it comes to stuff like that, stuff that awful, the definition of the disorder really matters.

You claim to be arguing for reasonable judgment and against wild speculation.

That’s simply not true. You have stated that you don’t believe he has ever touched a child in a sexually inappropriate way or is sexually attracted to children 13 and under (the actual definition). You have no proof of his innocence.

There’s been no investigation, you haven’t had access to the findings. What’s your logic? Somebody would’ve snitched? Justice always prevails? Fallacy upon fallacy. You’re not on higher ground, you’re on the opposite side.

If you were arguing for prudence and logic, your arguments would be framed much differently. You’re hiding your real argument (which is: Biden isn’t a pedophile) with “I’m against illogical conspiracy theories”. You’re just using a forked tongue to defend him.

While I agree that logic should restrain us from declaring Joe Biden is a pedophile. It’s hard to explain these amorous interactions without sexual attraction:



I think the facts point to serious perversion. Not something I’d defend.

 

[Doc68]

You claim to be arguing for reasonable judgment and against wild speculation.

That’s simply not true. You have stated that you don’t believe he has ever touched a child in a sexually inappropriate way or is sexually attracted to children 13 and under (the actual definition). You have no proof of his innocence.

There’s been no investigation, you haven’t had access to the findings. What’s your logic? Somebody would’ve snitched? Justice always prevails? Fallacy upon fallacy. You’re not on higher ground, you’re on the opposite side.

If you were arguing for prudence and logic, your arguments would be framed much differently. You’re hiding your real argument (which is: Biden isn’t a pedophile) with “I’m against illogical conspiracy theories”. You’re just using a forked tongue to defend him.

While I agree that logic should restrain us from declaring Joe Biden is a pedophile. It’s hard to explain these amorous interactions without sexual attraction:



I think the facts point to serious perversion. Not something I’d defend.

I watched the first two...
What a sick bastard. He was groping the girl in the red dress. Kept his hand on her side and was moving his fingers the whole time.

Castrate the mother fucker.

Doc

 

[theLBC]

 

[theLBC]

maybe chode is really big mike.

Video Resurfaces of Michelle Obama Praising Convicted Rapist Weinstein

Video of former First Lady Michelle Obama praising convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein resurfaced on Twitter Monday in a post by the video editor for former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

www.newsweek.com

 

[darkfader]

I watched the first two...
What a sick bastard. He was groping the girl in the red dress. Kept his hand on her side and was moving his fingers the whole time.

Castrate the mother fucker.

Doc

Yea this. I stopped watching after the red dress. That motherfucker had absolutely no business with his hand on her hip. The most important bit of info he could garner was everyone’s age. Sick fuck.

 

[theLBC]

hahahaha?

not funny...scary.

 

[theLBC]

New York Assemblyman Kim alleges Gov. Cuomo threatened to tank his career

"Gov. Cuomo called me directly on Thursday to threaten my career if I did not cover up for Melissa [DeRosa] and what she said. He tried to pressure me to issue a statement, and it was a very traumatizing experience," Kim said.

justthenews.com

"No man has ever spoken to me like that in my entire life," Kim said. "At some point he tried to humiliate me, asking: 'Are you a lawyer? I didn't think so. You're not a lawyer.' It almost felt like in retrospect he was trying to bait me and anger me and say something inappropriate. I'm glad I didn't."

 

[Bender]

 

[theLBC]

nothing to worry about wypipo, just a PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL!

gotta be fake?

 

[armorpl8chikn]

nothing to worry about wypipo, just a PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL!

gotta be fake?

Keep it up....you'll need ultra violet on that motherfucking pie chart.

 

[supercorndogs]

BREAKING: Biden Gives Andrew Cuomo $50 BILLION | D.C. Swamp Watch

dcswampwatch.org

 

[armorpl8chikn]

BREAKING: Biden Gives Andrew Cuomo $50 BILLION | D.C. Swamp Watch

dcswampwatch.org

This is how civil wars get started...well historically.

 

[Blutroop]

nothing to worry about wypipo, just a PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL!

gotta be fake?

Why’d it hafta be a “colored” meter? Isn’t that racist?

 

[Steel head]

 

[Steel head]

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Swirling the drain!!

nothing to worry about wypipo, just a PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL!

gotta be fake?

 

[Doc68]

This is how civil wars get started...well historically.

They are currently pouring gas on the fire now......they want something to happen.

Doc