Message from @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
Discord ID: 783045913529548890
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.
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
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. 🤔
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
no one is arguing this. the only person saying this is you projecting it onto us
https://youtu.be/Q_get06-tgo @SPEARS this is the quality of affidavits presented in court
Ok... so credible employees including democrats and election workers with decades of experience witnessing a crime that has mathematical data supporting their claims isn’t enough to have a hearing. What else would you like to see in order to earn the hearing?
No , all I said was affidavits are meaningless if it’s all you got @SPEARS it’s you that is projecting
@AdvanceManExtraordinaire define credible
@AdvanceManExtraordinaire It would appear only a selfie from Biden giving a thumbs up and holding up a handful of empty ballots could be credible evidence.
@AdvanceManExtraordinaire In my opinion, the analyses of the Edison Research NEP data feed to the NYT that I have seen so far appear to assume that all data collected by NEP is received directly from the source Voting System. I have seen no stipulation or accommodation for the fact that a significant amount of that data was collected manually with humans making phone calls directly to precincts to get preliminary numbers and then those numbers being later superseded by data scraped from Sec of State sites that publish preliminary results intermixed with some automated feeds. Because of this less than consistent method of gathering the data and the haphazard way that it is managed through the night. I reject the notion that anyone could with any degree of certainty be able to tell that data was indicative of fraud. They are starting with a false premise based on an incorrect assumption. You can know this, because they do not acknowledge anywhere that the intercepted data is anything other than an accurate representation of the data that resided in the voting systems. It simply was not.
Also all the math is based on certain presupposes axioms after the fact, as with braynard you have to be willing to trust his data set (that he gathered on his own) @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
interesting james. lets hold the mail in votes to the same standard then. because we know at least one mail in vote is fraudelent we should throw out all of the mail in votes.
@yetiCodes like I said before voter fraud has been proven in the past