And our "Algorithmic" "Secretary of State" is running for Lieutenant Governor. It is like high school. They move up to the next grade to keep robbing us blind and numerically stupid. Same thing in MI, but she is leaping to "Governor"...have to be in control of the check book and keys to that closet full of skeletons. Claude sounds like an absent-minded professor no matter how pure his logic. Thank you for this. Why do the criminals keep on running at this point?
How revealing. And that's not asking a question. But I'd guess 'confirming' might be a better term. Isn't this pretty much what we already believed? So, a valuable thought experiment, especially for those who haven't "thought" already.
"A system designed for trustworthiness would invite verification. A system designed to resist scrutiny would behave exactly as this one did."
This is the crux of things. If Biden had won, every Democrat-dominated election board from NY to CA would be saying, "Here's all the squeaky-clean evidence that things were done properly." The fact that they aren't is extremely telling. They merely assert, over and over again, that there was no fraud and label any critic with a pejorative. That is not the behavior of innocence.
"I cannot prove the election was stolen. The absence of verification is not proof of wrongdoing—it’s proof that the question was placed beyond empirical resolution."
Yes, but... I think it's clear that some level of fraud did occur. See, for instance, the 2000 Mules documentary showed what certainly appears to be widespread, election-changing level of sketchy behavior. That's pretty strong evidence, not easily dismissed, certainly enough to be considered "probable cause." But it was never looked at seriously by any actual investigating body (e.g., Georgia police, FBI, etc.). So, yes, we have not proved fire. But there is obviously a LOT of smoke.
And our "Algorithmic" "Secretary of State" is running for Lieutenant Governor. It is like high school. They move up to the next grade to keep robbing us blind and numerically stupid. Same thing in MI, but she is leaping to "Governor"...have to be in control of the check book and keys to that closet full of skeletons. Claude sounds like an absent-minded professor no matter how pure his logic. Thank you for this. Why do the criminals keep on running at this point?
This AI experiment provides an unintended template on how to argue in favor of independent oversight procedures.
How revealing. And that's not asking a question. But I'd guess 'confirming' might be a better term. Isn't this pretty much what we already believed? So, a valuable thought experiment, especially for those who haven't "thought" already.
I just like it as a very well-stated description of the problem.
"A system designed for trustworthiness would invite verification. A system designed to resist scrutiny would behave exactly as this one did."
This is the crux of things. If Biden had won, every Democrat-dominated election board from NY to CA would be saying, "Here's all the squeaky-clean evidence that things were done properly." The fact that they aren't is extremely telling. They merely assert, over and over again, that there was no fraud and label any critic with a pejorative. That is not the behavior of innocence.
"I cannot prove the election was stolen. The absence of verification is not proof of wrongdoing—it’s proof that the question was placed beyond empirical resolution."
Yes, but... I think it's clear that some level of fraud did occur. See, for instance, the 2000 Mules documentary showed what certainly appears to be widespread, election-changing level of sketchy behavior. That's pretty strong evidence, not easily dismissed, certainly enough to be considered "probable cause." But it was never looked at seriously by any actual investigating body (e.g., Georgia police, FBI, etc.). So, yes, we have not proved fire. But there is obviously a LOT of smoke.