Slashdot Mirror
Canada's 'Random' Immigration Lottery Uses Microsoft Excel, Which Isn't Actually Random (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Last year, Canada introduced a new lottery system used to extend permanent-resident status to the parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens. The process was designed to randomly select applicants in order to make the process fairer than the old first-come, first-served system. There's just one problem: the software used to run the lottery isn't actually random. The Globe and Mail reported the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) uses Microsoft Excel to run the immigration lottery to select 10,000 people for permanent resident status from a field of about 100,000 applications received each year. Experts warned that the random number generating function in Excel isn't actually random and may put some applicants at a disadvantage.
First, it's best to understand just how the lottery system works. An Access to Information request filed by The Globe and Mail shows that IRCC inputs the application number for every person entering the lottery into Excel, then assigns them a random number to each using a variation of the program's RAND command. They then sort the list from smallest to largest based on the random number assigned and take the first 10,000 applications with the lowest numbers. The system puts a lot of faith in Excel's random function, which it might not deserve. According to Universite de Montreal computer science professor Pierre L'Ecuyer, Excel is "very bad" at generating random numbers because it relies on an old generator that is out of date. He also warned that Excel doesn't pass statistical tests and is less random than it appears, which means some people in the lottery may actually have a lower chance of being selected than others.
First, it's best to understand just how the lottery system works. An Access to Information request filed by The Globe and Mail shows that IRCC inputs the application number for every person entering the lottery into Excel, then assigns them a random number to each using a variation of the program's RAND command. They then sort the list from smallest to largest based on the random number assigned and take the first 10,000 applications with the lowest numbers. The system puts a lot of faith in Excel's random function, which it might not deserve. According to Universite de Montreal computer science professor Pierre L'Ecuyer, Excel is "very bad" at generating random numbers because it relies on an old generator that is out of date. He also warned that Excel doesn't pass statistical tests and is less random than it appears, which means some people in the lottery may actually have a lower chance of being selected than others.
Regardless of Excel's poor random function, the way this is being described as being done, it sounds pretty legit and random enough. There's no bias on assigning the random number to each name, and the name itself isn't being used to generate the random number. So this should be fine.
Just because it doesn't meet some math/computer geek's standards of proper random number generation, doesn't mean it's not useless for this application. I say thumbs up. The RNG being perfect isn't really necessary.
There is explicit, and there is implicit. There is a whole slew of people who think that if you can sneak across the border, that you are entitled to live in America unmolested for any reason because "oppression". I would consider this implicit "accept all immigrants who show up" stance. It is largely why Donald Trump wants a wall built, and none of these other people want a wall. Again, building the case for implicit "accept all". And then there is the Sanctuary Cities. And and and ...
On the Explicit category, there is me. I explicitly state that ANYONE that shows up at the border, and checks in (documented) should be allowed in*. Yes, I am a libertarian. I also want to remove the stupid policies and fake fighting over the (D) party who loves illegal aliens, and the (R) party who loves cheap labor and remove those policies from existence.
I realize that I am in the minority for stated opinions, but the reality is, there are enough people who already "want" it in some way or fashion, I'm just honest about it.
*Other conditions apply, but for simplicity sake, this is the basis for my policy.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Who is the "they" you speak of? I can think offhand of anybody who says "accept all the immigrants who show up."
This is technically the libertarian position, true (libertarians consider borders to be government red tape restricting people's natural freedom to go wherever they want), but most libertarians are smart enough to mostly work on less hot-button issues, like freedom of guns and drugs, instead of freedom of borders.)
I've also noticed that most libertarians aren't really libertarians. Most people I've met who self-describe as Libertarian tend to be Republicans who are pissed off at the Republican party and call themselves libertarian as a protest. When I ask them do you believe "x, y, and z" (insert libertarian positions) the answer is always, "well no... but I think we need less government". Libertarian is not republicanism minus racism and Libertarians are not just republicans that smoke pot. That's not what libertarian means.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I don't see a lot of consistent application of principles from them. I've yet to meet one that turned down free medical care when they needed it. I've known a lot of libertarians who go to the VA long after they've left the military. I know a lot that work in psuedo private sector jobs like the defense industry. My personal favorite is a libertarian friend of mine who gets it from his dad, but has severe health problems. He's come up with some of the craziest justifications to square his LIbertarian ideas with the fact that he needs medicine to live but can't afford to buy it himself (and wouldn't be able to even in a perfect libertarian world since his illness is bad enough he can't work).
Even Ayn Rand took social security in her old age. Though to her credit she had to be convinced to take it rather than die in the street. Her writings weren't profitable until the Republicans decided they needed an intellectual
My experience with Libertarians is they're folks who never grew out of that phase in your teenage life where you really, really hated being told what to do. You know the one. It's when you're just starting to realize how capable you are, when you're at your peak of learning capacity and you're figuring things out faster than the adults. And you really are (teenage brains work that way).
What I find especially maddening is the libertarians who rail against coastal elites and SJW and are perfectly OK with billionaires having unlimited wealth because, hey, they earned it by virtue of having it. Never mind the fact that money is power and you can't be free in a world with that much wealth inequality. After all, you're not free if somebody controls your access to food, shelter, healthcare, education and transportation (the latter needed to access the former). You're one week's food, one winter's cold or one pill away from slavery. True freedom only arrives when everybody has their needs cared for not because they can threaten or cajole people into getting it but because they're humans, and humans have a right to those things.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/