/biz/ - Business & Finance

Cope but it would we wickedly funny if Glormpf still wins despite everything

>>23811648

>Glormpf

>>23811614
Betteridge's law of headlines states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

>>23811664
/thread

>>23811648
Imagine the salt

big if true

>>23811664
conquest’s second law states that any board that is not explicitly nazi will deteriorate into perverted judenpresse

benford’s law states that it was statistically impossible for Biden to receive the votes he did, and therefore Trump wins

>>23811885
Benford’s law is able to point to voter fraud maybe about 50% of the time. It’s essentially as effective as tossing a coin, also deviation from a statistical model is not admissible “evidence”, it’s just looks fishy.

>>23811614
COPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>23812065
>Benford’s law is able to point to voter fraud maybe about 50% of the time.
lmao source?

The more the figures deviate from the norm, the greater the possibility of fraud.
And Biden's results are WAY off.

what the fuck is with all these laws, make up your own opinions Plebeians

>>23811614
Just like that time he put Hillary behind bars... Oh wait.

Trump is literal normie culture.

>>23812643
Normies consoom the MSM and adhere to the same viewpoints as major corporations, Hollywood, big tech, colleges and unis, ...
So no.

https://yournews.com/2020/11/05/1912030/source-trump-team-staged-massive-sting-operation-to-trap-democrats/

>>23812419

Have you bothered even reading about Benford's Law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Overview

> Benford's law tends to apply most accurately to data that span several orders of magnitude. As a rule of thumb, the more orders of magnitude that the data evenly covers, the more accurately Benford's law applies.

With such tiny data samples, the Law is hugely inaccurate. Also, it's funny that only these three specific cities/counties were studied. Let's see a study with 100 of them at random, and then see how many of Trumps counts also strongly deviate from the norm (which is statistically likely to happen in a notable amount of smaller data sets).

This shit is brainlet 50 IQ stuff.

>>23813046
>US election
>millions of votes per state
>"such tiny data samples"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Elections are one of THE prime real-world use cases for Benford's law precisely because of the large data samples.

>>23813046
Check the page history, they started editing it after the election.

>>23813046
Here's a guy who applied Benford's law to all states btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2DRwt6RWyc

Pic is his analysis of the swing states, and oh boy is it telling lmao.

>>23811614
"Q"FS

>>23811614
>>23811663
You're so fucking sad, please for the love of god kill yourselves an masse on a live stream so we can laugh even more at you pathetic incel losers.

>>23813046
>Have you bothered even reading the establishment-approved and recently record-corrected Wikipedia entry about Benford's Law?
lmao

>>23813377
In a few days they'll probably turn that wiki entry into a veritable hit piece on Benford's law.

>>23813093

Holy fuck. Brainlet detected.

Allegheny county has 415,000 votes for Biden. So that's 0.55% of Biden's overall sample (75.4m votes).

0.55%.

Within each candidate's overall sample, there's a statistically high likelihood that some sections of data, if selected/segmented to fit the hypothesis, will show deviations in Benford's Law. I absolutely guarantee you could find a 0.55% sample of Trump's votes somewhere in the country that also violate the law. It's the broader picture, by many orders of magnitude, where the law even comes close to being accurate.

Run the Benford's Law analysis across all counties in all states for both parties. Unless Biden ends up with an improbably larger percentage of data sets violating the law compared to Trump, it means absolutely fuck all.

It's literally in front of your eyes that they've chosen three specific counties/cities that fit what they want the data to show.

>>23813463
Anon, the Benford's law anomalies only become more apparent at the macro level, see >>23813211

And several hundred thousand people is still a large sample size when it comes to Benford's law applying to humans.

>>23813377

It's extroadinarily well documented, through numerous decades, that this is how Benford's law works.

Again, if you bother to read, you'll see the citation for that comes from a website retrieved in 2012 and a research paper in 2009. Didn't know liberals have time machines.

>>23813534
>that this is how Benford's law works
Yes, the greater the sample size the better it works.
Which is why it’s such a good fit for elections.

And Wikipedia is a highly partisan and utterly unreliable party at this point.