Slashdot Mirror
Cracking The Code On Trump Tweets (time.com)
jIyajbe writes: From Electoral-Vote.com: "A theory has been circulating that the Donald Trump tweets that come from an Android device are from the candidate himself, while the ones that come from an iPhone are the work of his staff. David Robinson, a data scientist who works for Stack Overflow, decided to test the theory. His conclusion: It's absolutely correct. Robinson used some very sophisticated algorithms to analyze roughly 1,400 tweets from Trump's timeline, and demonstrated conclusively that the iPhone tweets are substantively different than the Android tweets. The former tend to come later at night, and are vastly more likely to incorporate hashtags, images, and links. The latter tend to come in the morning, and are much more likely to be copied and pasted from other people's tweets. In terms of word choice, the iPhone tweets tend to be more neutral, with their three most-used phrases being 'join,' '#trump2016,' and '#makeamericagreatagain.' The Android tweets tend to be more emotionally charged, with their three most-used phrases being 'badly,' 'crazy,' and 'weak.'"
reifman adds: In an excellent forensic text analysis of Trump's tweets with the Twitter API, data geek David Robinson demonstrates Trump authors his angriest, picture-less, hashtag-less Android tweets often in the morning, while staff tweet from an iPhone with pictures, hashtags and greater joy mostly in the middle of the day. Robinson's report was inspired by a tweet by artist Todd Vaziri. As for why Robinson decided to look into Trump's tweets, he told TIME, "For me it's more about finding a really interesting story, a case where people suspect something, but don't have the data to back it up. For me it was much more about putting some quantitive details to this story that has been going around than it was about proving something about Trump's campaign."
I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead. We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days. They're dying out with the newspapers given that people only want to pay for news they like.
Donald trump is just a shill for the Clintions put in place to ruin the Republican Party and get Hillary elected.
It's getting harder for me to take that as completely tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Phony news site Slashdot, that nobody reads, makes up story about phones and tweets. STUPID EDITORS! #CrookedHillary #Trump2016 #makeAmericaGreatAgain
ftfy
The fact there are only two actually viable parties and that they have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as their candidates is already proof enough that the american voting system is completely broken.
nt
Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does. What's up with the thousands of work-related emails she didn't turn over? Who's gullible enough to believe she installed a private server to send pictures of her grandkids? Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?
The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson. We're just expected to take the word of a politician with countless lies already under her belt.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
I stole this Sig
He might get elected. Lately he's been rambling like a crack whore, which is no better than Cliton. I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for pres.
who suddenly feels embarrassed to be using an Android?
I stole this Sig
Funny how the investigative journalist has all but disappeared in the Age of Obama. But now that credible opposition has appeared, investigative journalists suddenly reappear out of nowhere. It's as if Passenger Pigeons began assembling in their flocks and darkening the skies again.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Yes, we broke it ourselves.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You need the decoder ring to read the real message.
lucm, indeed.
Has it occured to any of the "researchers" that his apps on Android and the IPhone are different and may be configured differently? ( Mouse's law on configuration if yiou have N devices you are supporting at least N+1 configurations ).
differnt configurations mean different looking posts. Especially since these are rapidly written posts.
This looks like a masterful play to undermine Trump. Or at least I'd like it to be. I'm a Democrat and I'm used to having these sorts of things done _to_ my party, not by it. I know, I know, nobody likes to think about these kind of shenanigans. The subtle ways you can instill doubt in voters to win elections. I'd like to believe they're not necessary, but then I remember Trump was clobbering Hilary for a week or so and then after one bad week of press it was completely reversed.
Basically, a sizable portion of voters vote on what they're feeling at that moment. They're what everybody calls "swing" voters. It's usually folks too wishy-washy to make up their minds. That means any successful campaign is about managing those voters feelings.
I suppose it's possible I'm reading too much into things and giving the Dems way to much credit. But if I'm not and they embrace the sort of tactics the other side has been using for 20 years expect a _lot_ more Democrats in office.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The system can never be better than the voters themselves.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> The reason you never hear about this is not because it didn't happen or because nobody was looking for it.
The reason you "never hear about this" is because your interpretation of those events is nutballs.
If your "liberal media" theory were true, then there are a ton of counter examples. The whole lewinsky thing being chief among them. The obsessive media coverage of clinton "scandals" is beyond dispute. Travelgate, whitewater, vince foster, benghazi, etc. And despite tens of thousands of hours of media coverage, and tens of millions of republican directed tax dollars of investigations, it all turned out to be nothing. Cry wolf too many times and people just start tuning you out, no "liberal bias" necessary.
This makes me wonder where you've been getting your news for the last 25 years.
Of everything that you mentioned, this is the only scandal.
They do it to curry favor with the Clintons. However, I'm 100% certain that the Clintons are savvy enough that everything is totally legal, and that 95% went to the best charities. Unfortunately, we as a nation have decided that direct bribery of politicians is not only legal, but expected, as long as everyone is coy about it.
Play Command HQ online
"The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true"
I hereby accuse you to be an operative of the Secret Great Lizards Conspiracy that I know all about, because i read it on a web site that had actual ANIMATED GIFS OF LIZARDS AND CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
I may not yet be able to prove my theory conclusively, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
I'm one of the two submitters. I submitted this story because I am intrigued by his methodology, and not because of the political angle.
In my submission, I included a reference to the fact that he coded up his analysis in R, and that his code is right there on his website for all of us to inspect. I was hoping that that was what would catch Slashdotters' eyes. The editor deleted that part, unfortunately; oh, well.
I know a little about statistical analysis, a little bit about coding, but nothing about R. Can anyone knowledgeable about R comment on his code, and/or his analysis? Thanks!
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
He's a loser. https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
It's not a conspiracy theory, it has happened before. Bubba Clinton only won against Bush in 1982 because Ross Perot was also running.
It's not the voters' fault. Unfortunately, we use a plurality wins single vote system. The optimal solution for winning in that system system is two parties, each of which selects a nominee who is popular with 50.000001% of that party (i.e. just 25.0000001% of the entire voting population). Usually the most extreme 25.000001% of the population.
Basically, both parties are controlled by extremists, who do their best to steer the nomination process hard right or hard left. The further right one party goes, the further left the other party can go while still being virtually guaranteed that one of their nominees will be elected. And vice versa. The entire process effectively disenfranchises the middle 49.99999% of the voting population, leaving government in control of the fringe 25% whose nominee happened to win.
An instant-runoff voting system would put a stop to this, by making the nominee who best reflects the entire voting population (i.e. a centrist) most likely to win. But that's precisely why the two parties (or rather, the extremists who control the parties) will never allow it to happen while they control the legislatures.
I think most of the trump electors are actually voting to him BECAUSE he's awful, like completely government nuking awful.This and fear of Isis.
I would not call that a scandall, because as you mentioned it is legal.
Why would it be OK that KillThePlanet Inc. is allowed to give monies and not some other person. I am not even sure which one is worse for the American People. One thing is sure, neither has the interest of the (American) Public at heart and that is what you should be looking at.
That said, neither of the two candidates has the interest of the US public at heart; no matter what they say. One wants power and money; they other want money and power. The only thing that would work is if people all voted for a third candidate, but so many years of indoctrination that that won't work is paying off.
I guess these parties are too big to fail. You will need a revolution (does not need to be with blood) to do a serious change. Unfortunately people want change, but are unwilling to change.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Why would you think the liberal media mattered during Lewinski, that had its own political momentum and was not pushed by the media. Things like Clinton setting up the sub prime lending disaster which cost the US 10 times what the Iraq war did however was not covered in any way by the media which would have prevented that disaster. Still isn't.
No, we've seen what your "steady hand" Merkel has done to europe. We've seen the neocons scurry over to support the Clinton's. We've seen people dig into things that matter https://youtu.be/ZFcEnRu-hY8 Not tweet analysis, but billions of reasons to "get rid of" people who get in the way https://twitter.com/magnifier6... Never mind the blatant incompetence when it comes to IT security, which should be something people on slashdog would be familiar with. Someone with intimate knowledge of our own cyber offense capabilities through intelligence briefings should have known better...or more disturbingly, she knew, and protecting her Clinton Foundation corruption was more important than state security. http://thefederalist.com/2016/... https://youtu.be/8acghuIfLTE
How could the voters have prevented this?
Can we now get an analysis of all the bat-shit crazy posts on this article. A number of things that could be investigated.
- Is this one crazy person, or has an entire neighborhood of crazy town come visiting?
- Do these crazy people think that crazy shit like this helps persuade voters to vote Trump?
- Or is it a false flag effort designed to show Trump supporters as bat-shit crazy people?
- Does anyone care?
One thing that struck me - after the San Bernardino massacre, when Apple refused to come up w/ a backdoor to the iPhone4 (which ultimately got cracked anyway), Trump called for a boycott of iPhones. People pointed out how Trump was a hypocrite for resuming its use after a few days.
But this story seems to suggest that he does practice what he preached. If the tweets that are actually his come from an Android, then that's his companion/choice of phone/tablet (does he really use a phone to tweet? Or does he have something like a Galaxy tablet?) In which case, he was true to his word and did boycott Apple. Never mind that Google and Microsoft have both spoken out in support of Apple on this issue, so there really ain't a good principle on which to boycott. And never mind that all the other phone platforms out there - Cyanogen, Replicant, et al offer users more privacy, not less
Sad!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Would you care to cite sources (that aren't batshit websites)? Investigations that turn up criminal activities result in trials.
I remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and I remember lots of people checking the facts being promulgated in the mainstream news. That didn't stop them from promulgating falsehoods anyway, but anyone who actually cared about the facts could find them checked easily in plentiful other sources.
The media lies all the time. They lied about Obama's birthplace, the earth being round, the moon landings, etc.
The Internet / YouTube fact checkers have exposed these falsehoods and helped expose these falsehoods. The fact checkers play an important role in society. /s
A friend used to send me emails incessantly that was just bat ---- crazy "facts" from right wing nutjobs. I thought anyone would at least google to see if it were true before broadcasting it. I'd be mortified if I repeated such easily checked facts as the world is flat. Nope, she believed it and when I'd send her multiple articles invalidating it, I think she did not believe me. But then this is a woman who I told to make sure she gets a 30 year fixed mortgage and she calls me 2 years after the purchase to tell me she got a letter from the bank changing her rate. She never read the mortgage docs. People as a mass are stupid.
OK, here we go...
0. The FBI doesn't charge, prosecute, convict, or imprison (for very long, anyways, mostly) anyone.
1. The Justice Department would be the most common agency to charge and prosecute Hillary.
2. By delaying interviews, and the FBI's accommodation of her, Hillary successfully delayed the FBI's completion of its investigation until the campaign reached a point where legal action would raise significant questions of tampering or interference on the part of the FBI, whether these would be warranted or not.
3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked. This meeting;
- was plainly improper, actually unethical, and should be grounds for removal of Lynch as AG on any of several legal grounds - witness tampering, ex parte communication, obstruction of justice (see next point) among others.
- was calculated to cause an obvious conflict of interest on all parties' part, save the FBI, which was impacted by it.
- was therefore crucial in forcing the FBI to reconsider how it would proceed with the disposition of its investigation.
4. With this meeting exposed, FBI Director James Comey was left with;
- Referring the case to Justice, where he knew Lynch would recuse herself, force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and delay prosecution until after the election, prompting widespread claims of tampering and a potential Constitutional crisis.
- Refusing to disclose details, which no matter how he proceeded from there would result in denunciations and outrage from all quarters.
- Or, as he did, disclose sufficient details to expose Hillary's apparent guilt, but then claim that the case was not sufficiently obvious for a 'reasonable prosecutor' to pursue. This is the way he chose to avoid referral and the problems that would cause.
- And bottom line, Comey may well have wanted to avoid the FBI being accused of any of several impacts on the election, for he would not get support from the Administration if he did refer the case to Justice.
5. Congress could refer an investigation to Justice, demand they charge Hillary, and then impeach Lynch and/or Obama, but at this stage that would be seen as petty, too late for meaningful results, overreaching their authority, manipulative of the election, and would likely fail. Not that any of these accusations are
accurate or not, that doesn't matter, for this would be a political act also. All of this would be correct, legal, and devastating to the Republican Congress, as we are in an era where truth is unimportant.
Director Comey was in an untenable situation, not of his own making except for the delay in completing the investigation. And he was on an island with no support from his boss or his bosses boss.
Democrats have infected every branch and level of government, even co-opting the Republican congressional leadership. The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one. This will take more than one election cycle, as around 43% of the electorate is entirely satisfied with Democratic rule, and around 30% of the electorate is at war with itself. True undecideds and independents have little hope they can change things, and are not unified in any case, so sadly we either face the truth of our nation's condition or continue devolving into something other than what is constitutionally permitted.
I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left, or deliver insurmountable control to the Left, which will result in further unconstitutional rule and eventual collapse of what constitutional foundation for our government is left.
We will regre
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Consistently refusing to vote for idiots.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's not the voters' fault.
As long as voters are willing to vote for nincompoops, those are the kinds of candidates we'll get. A runoff system won't fix that (for evidence, see Australia).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Plurality voting needs to be replaced, but IRV has serious problems with 1. spoiler candidates and 2. central counting (i.e., no votes can be counted until all IRV ballots are collected for an entire state, at least).
Approval voting allows local precinct counting, and always elects the candidate that the least voters disapprove of. How easy is it to implement? Just change the ballot instruction to say, "Vote for as many as you like."
Approval voting satisfies the one ballot per voter criterion (aka, each voter gets an equal say). Approval voting is easy for voters to understand. And, voting for your ideal-candidate cannot detract from your vote for your acceptable-second-choice, even in those (nontrivial!) situations where IRV would betray you.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Umm isn't this wiretapping? and could end in jail?
Jack of all trades,master of none
I'm a 2000 man.
The Left is unified at the voting booth. That is more important than anything.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Well, that's partially right. Another part is that there's been a tremendous consolidation among the "traditional media" such that their voices are controlled by a small number of very wealthy people whose primary interest is not news.
This is not to claim that the news in general was ever trustworthy, but it is to claim that news organizations used to be mainly interested in news, and only secondarily politics or public relations. That this was never reliably true is witnessed by the Hearst Press, which earned the name "yellow journalism". But there were alternatives. E.g., in San Francisco a paper called "The Dramatic Chronicle" started off covering theatric presentations, and expanded into sports and local news. It was originally quite reliable. It's wider news, however, was no more reliable than the wire services. Then there was the New York Times, which used to be reliable, and perhaps still is if you learn how to read it...but which was delayed a week in getting to the west coast. Etc. Each news source was biased, but many had areas where they were accurate, and they weren't the same, because the controlling interests had differing goals.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The whole thing was misreported. It was the mother who voluntarily stepped out on her own when the baby started crying as a courtesy to the other guests, and to pacify her kid. She stepped out, was w/ the security while the baby calmed down, and once the baby got a pacifier and was perfectly quiet, she returned to her seat.
Something completely different from protesters at rallies who had to be evicted
Resulting in idiots voting for idiots? Refusing to vote would not fix this.
who starts a post in the subject line.
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
The FBI findings were indeed a forgone conclusion. Anyone paying attention at all knew that.
And yes, dinner recess does slow the process down.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Not in a single election, but over time politicians notice what traits provide winning candidates and optimize for it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Even the Democrats vote their own interests. Some economic, some moral.
And rich Democrats vote. There are many.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Not in a single election, but over time politicians notice what traits provide winning candidates and optimize for it.
Idiots realising things that changing their ways? Look it doesn't work like that in a system that is fundamentally broken. Look at what happens in countries that are ahead of you with political hate, e.g. Australia. They've gone through 5 prime ministers in the past 5 years. The last election saw an unprecedented number of "alternative" parties (the idiots replaced with the batshit insane). Every election has or very nearly has resulted in a hung parliament with no one in power.
You want to see the mentality of the politicians? In the last actual hung parliament the winning party (after making a deal with independents to gain power) went to the news saying the election results clearly show Australia has had enough of the opposition. Quite clearly the opposite of what the election showed which was that we had had enough of BOTH major parties. Yet one scraped through and declared it a huge victory for democracy.
But sure let's optimise in the up coming election. Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win. That's how the system works. So do we optimise it in 3 years so we have the choice of voting between 2 corrupt members of the entitled class of career politicians, or do we get the choice between 2 people so insane that the country's IQ drops everytime they open their mouth on the TV?
I see what will happen with this optimisation path. Camacho for president in 2028!
I'm still convinced it was intended to give Lynch the cover to recuse herself. And she did.
That it happened at all should have resulted in her resignation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm not sure what you mean by your Australian example. It sounds like one party found a way to win.
It's too late to optimise the upcoming election this year lol......I'm voting third party, but let's be honest, the third party candidates aren't much better than the mainstream candidates.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Compare for example the stories on Fox news with those CNN for a day. I do that once in a while and I get the distinct impression they're reporting on different worlds.
Fox News for example reports everything that might possible be used to call global warming into question (and omits everything that supports it), and goes on and on and on about Mrs. Clinton's emails. And stubbornly try to pin blame on her for the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. They've put it firmly into their minds that it's their job to spin those affairs out, keep them alive (at least until the elections), and milk them for all they're worth. Fact-checking Mrs. Clinton seems to be limited to one main subject: emails. Fox News commenting on Mrs. Clinton seems to focus on emails. Did I mention that Fox News seems to be particularly interested in her emails?
When it comes to Mr. Trump, Fox News steadfastily refuses to fact-check or to criticise him (well ... I can understand that: look what he did to Megyn Kelly and how he boycotted Fox News). No critical comment on Mr. Trump's allegations that Mrs. Clinton "plans to abolish the second amendment". No comment on his claims of seeing "secret footage" of cash-for-prisoners deals. No comment on his allegations that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton "founded ISIS". Even less (if possible) critical review of Mr. Trump's allegations that Mr. Obama is a "weak president" as far as ISIS is concerned. No comment on his mean-spirited dissing of the Khan's. No comment on his brinkmanship-like ramblings about leaving Nato (great move now that Russia is re-emerging as an aggressive power and EU countries are getting worried) and leaving Japan to fend for itself.
Then CNN. Lots of different topics being covered every day. But each time Mr. Trump ventilates some blatant, glaring untruth or a snide insinuation it's reported on CNN. Is that bias? Could be. It would be mine if I had to report. Does Mrs. Clinton come off scot-free? I shouldn't think so. The development of her email story is duly reported.
As a matter of fact, continued exposure to Fox News can be harmful to one's mental health. See e.g. http://www.thebrainwashingofmy... .
For a victim in an advanced state of over-exposure, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What I'm saying is that in a country forced to vote between idiots and psychos we did the voting is mandatory version of showing we're pissed off at everyone in the race and effectively voted in a way that no one had a majority. This caused the major parties to have to form a coalition with minor ones in order to gain power. It's about as clear of a message as you can send politicians, "You all suck, we don't think any of you are capable of tying your shoelaces let alone running the country."
What happened? Straight after the election the liberals which scraped through with a coalition went to the media and said the results of an election was a clear indication that Australia was sick of the Labor party.
They rightfully got mocked for it, but the scary thing is they genuinely believe that. You can't send messages to idiots. Not be voting, not directly. They are almost by job requirements narcissists who believe that everything that happens in the world just further shows that they are right and awesome and everything is meant to be like that.
The USA is the same. Whatever is wrong with the political system that resulted in this race can not be fixed by voting or not voting.
The American voting system does not have any political parties, not officially. They are purely private clubs, with no legal connection to the voting system. Really!
We need an "approval voting" system, where each voter can vote for all of the candidates that they like. This "one voter one vote" system is screwing up the possibility of more candidates. And, it gives way to much power to the political parties.