That is incorrect

Thanks! Pm me after if you like. I really want to know

I recommend watching the latest rr group video explaining the purpose of the earlier court cases

Not to mention that tabulated voter data is hardly random...

Whether it's reliable or not I have no idea, I don't think they have released any information on how frequently Benford's law leads to finding financial fraud.

there is no such thing as random in sets of numbers entirely generated by human interaction

he's claiming my demonstration shouldn't work (it clearly does ... just raise the sigma)

I understand the purpose. It’s to get try and stall for time so they can put something together. But even what they have put together so far is still speculation @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

If you witness someone murdering an innocent joggers in cold blood, do you think there should be a trial with cross examination of your witness testimony based on your affidavit?

So? why does this mean Benford's law shouldn't apply? Benford's law has nothing to do with humans

.....

it doesn't

Actually I believe humans are more random than computers. A random function on a computer is not really entirely random.

it works on any "natural numbers" or or any set of numbers that has certain properties

I get it... I was just disputing that voting data could be characterized as random.

There is the entropy factor.

the reason it is used to detect fraud is because humans tend to pick _non-random_ numbers with a preference

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire yes but ultimately if it’s is just you then that’s all you got is your affidavit.

i.e they tend to like numbers beginning with various digits more equally

Cross examine all you like

Damning.

Computer randomization is actually an incredibly interesting topic.

people much smarter than you designed a legal system with failsafes to every counter point you have made. i would suggest you stop criticizing and talking about a system you clearly don't understand

Because all computers have to use some sort of tangible data to produce a "random" result.

You can see it was based on time in older systems like the NES.

So it was easily manipulated.

https://gcpdot.com/

If that’s the case then it should follow you believe that trumps legal team should be able to have a hearing in which their evidence can be presented and their witnesses can be cross examined from both sides, and the defendants witnesses can be cross examined from both sides

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire, you just advanced to level 4!

Interesting stuff if you care to look into it.

Just claiming people don’t understand things while bumbling around with benfords law does not mean I don’t understand the system

I think we’d both agree that you wouldn’t send the murderer to jail based solely on your affidavit without a trial, right?

you clearly don't if you think affidavits and witnesses aren't sources evidence

@SPEARS re read what I have said and the come back

you never provide any sources or citations, all you have is rhetoric that has no substance and shows you clearly misunderstand how the legal system works

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire I don’t think what has been presented so far in the courts , (not the sham public hearings) meets the threshold to start evidentiary hearing. So far all we have are opinions and speculation that would get crushed in a cross examination @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

Sources do help. 🤔

@SPEARS everything I have said is common knowledge

LOL james you are going to be absolutely horrified and shocked once you find out how prosecuting attorneys operate, if you ever do

You are gonna be horrified and shocked when you learn affidavits is meaningless on its own

no criminal would ever see justice if the legal system worked like you keep insisting it does