Big data is great at some things, horrible at others, and sometimes a mix of both. In many markets, including advertising, they almost never have a real clue at how effective it is. You may recall Pepsi recently releasing an ad that bit them in the ass because advertising doesn't always work. It's even harder to say conclusively what degree of effect this had in politics, because Trump and Brexit are two of the worst indicators we have. There were so many larger factors involved, and both involved horribly planned gambits by multiple parties. Hell, the only reason that Trump had ANY success was because the donors told him no, and convinced him to run on being above money in politics, and some of Brexit's proponents weren't even expecting to win.
Clinton ran an awful campaign and was an awful candidate. That isn't just my opinion, that's by the numbers. It's also obvious to anyone outside of the Democratic establishment's wishful delusions that we fucking hated Clinton in '08, and she hasn't done anything to change that perception other than not being in so much of a spotlight. That buffed her numbers when she started the campaign, but when people started to remember what she was like, her numbers kept sinking.
Slashdot isn't collectively saying that it had zero effect. Anything to that effect is probably a reaction to this idea being vastly oversold by clickbait articles, in conjunction with the Dem establishment refusing to admit that they backed a goddamn train wreck, and played a major role in electing the least popular candidate ever. Instead, they look for scapegoats, whether it's Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, Sanders/Bernie Bros, racism, or big data.
Could big data have had a large enough effect to swing the election? Sure, but you'd get ten times the effect if Clinton had simply took the popular stance of descheduling marijuana, actually visiting the Rust Belt, or picking a VP that wasn't the dictionary definition of milquetoast. Or even, y'know, not having a candidate that half of the country has been indoctrinated to hate for decades.
Trump being corrupt doesn't change the fact that people don't want to wait in line to vote for someone that makes them want to vomit. Not making Americans vomit was basically all she needed to do to win. Trump is the least popular candidate in US history. He won because the right groups of people hated her more than they hated Trump.
Yeah, she's got experience in politics. Experience agreeing with the Republican's biggest mistakes while having enough baggage and inconsistencies to alienate basically everyone. She voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. She shouldn't be running for dog catcher, let alone POTUS. And yes, that applies to the majority of the rest of the Dem leadership too. That's why they've lost at historical levels despite increasingly favorable demographic advantages.
They're fed up because the Dems are only offering GOP-lite candidates instead of someone that will actually protect their interests. Now, are the Republicans taking advantage of that? Yes, but the Dems could easily undermine that by actually being useful.
Why are you blaming SCL when it's was the Clinton campaign's strategy for a "Pied Piper" nutjob to be the GOP nominee (because she's too bad of a candidate to run against an adult), Bill encouraged him to run, and the media gave that asshole $2 billion in free advertising.
The reason that we have this problem is that our electoral system lacks an option to shoot both candidates into the sun and have a mulligan. That could have gotten 65% of the vote, easy.
They didn't reduce government power. They increased the power of the corporate-government circlejerk. What they reduced was social welfare programs and industrial regulations.
Did this company make Clinton vote for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, support Wall Street, help craft TPP, oppose the fight for the 15, say single-payer will never happen, run the least issue-based campaign in modern US history, and advocate that the media take "Pied Piper" Trump seriously, to the tune of $2 billion in free air time?
You've got put things into perspective. Evolution has billions of years behind it, and domestication of animals drastically altered our immune systems. We just figured out that DNA was a thing a bit over half a century ago.
You've got to consider the scale of the technology too in comparison to the competence. Blizzard games can be largely simulated just by a spreadsheet and a relatively simple random number generator. Atomic level simulation of a leaf flittering in the wind blows a WOW server away. Let alone an entire universe.
Of course he's not really part of the plan, he's a tool of the plan, but his mercurial nature is part of his vulnerabilities.
It's what makes him desirable.
No, it makes it a shitty plan. Someone like Dubya makes sense. He's not bright, but he's predictable. Trump might change his mind 4 or 5 times during a staff meeting, or even a few times within a single sentence.
Anybody who isn't a moron can plainly see that the Russian agenda is far more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump. Putin has reasons to be against Clinton, and I would actually agree with a lot of them. Unfortunately, because Trump is, as I said, unpredictable, he just turned Syria into more of a shitstorm, by interfering in the same kind of way that Clinton would have.
The actual cause for his shitty policies is because he's a bought-off whore, and loves to lick the boots of those more powerful than him. Most of the biggest policy examples of him being a Russian agent are explained just as well or better as him sucking dick for the fossil fuel industry.
Oh please, the Russian plot narrative is ridiculous because of how much of a manchild Trump is. He's far too temperamental to reliably be part of a coherent plan. Focus on his actual shitty policies instead of trying to pretend that Clinton didn't ruin her own campaign.
No, ISIS happened because we invaded a country over bullshit reasons upon bullshit reasons. Even if ISIS didn't happen, it was still a mistake large enough that the majority of Bush's cabinet should be corpses right now.
How is it Libertarian to TRUST the government? I want all of our politicians to have bombs embedded in their necks, and if they even look at a lobbyist, it goes off. IMO, the president SHOULD be a quasi-slave position to preserve the liberty of the other 300 million of us, plus the 7 billion others that occupy this rock.
Yeah, the Dems have sabotaged the left, typically because they think they're so fucking smart by using "triangulation" (i.e. giving up before you even start the fight), and are arguably MORE to blame for the rightward shift of our politics than the Republicans. I would LOVE it if Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and the whole Clinton clan were all shot into the sun. With friends like them, we don't need enemies.
You are accusing me of never blaming my team, when it's the very opposite. I want the majority of 'my team' to be dead or at least gone from politics. Then we might reach some reasonably sane policies. I want the left to be on the left (particularly the progressive flavor), and the right on the right (ideally the libertarian flavor). The Clinton wing wants it to be center-right and goddamn-crazy-right.
Regarding transparency, I'm far more extreme on that than anybody currently in a position of power. I want those elected to office to cede certain rights (such as most contracts) for 5-10 years, and I want effectively everything that isn't weapon schematics and troop positions to be public record.
If the website stops 1 Tomahawk missile from being fired, it's paid for itself several times over. The problem isn't that there's an attempt at financial responsibility. It's that the only time some people seem to care is when it's something useful, and never when it's a corporate handout or war profiteering.
No, it's vital to national security that the government be responsible to the people. You know what happened when there wasn't transparency about Iraq? ISIS happened.
There were three past presidents that could reasonably be expected to have a transparency website. Clinton is arguably grandfathered in because he largely predated mainstream internet usage. Dubya is a war criminal, so that leaves Obama, who had a decent but very much inadequate start.
We should be very insistent that transparency is a one-way ratchet, as sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, maybe succeeding in capitalism is easy once you've got enough capital.
Big data is great at some things, horrible at others, and sometimes a mix of both. In many markets, including advertising, they almost never have a real clue at how effective it is. You may recall Pepsi recently releasing an ad that bit them in the ass because advertising doesn't always work. It's even harder to say conclusively what degree of effect this had in politics, because Trump and Brexit are two of the worst indicators we have. There were so many larger factors involved, and both involved horribly planned gambits by multiple parties. Hell, the only reason that Trump had ANY success was because the donors told him no, and convinced him to run on being above money in politics, and some of Brexit's proponents weren't even expecting to win.
Clinton ran an awful campaign and was an awful candidate. That isn't just my opinion, that's by the numbers. It's also obvious to anyone outside of the Democratic establishment's wishful delusions that we fucking hated Clinton in '08, and she hasn't done anything to change that perception other than not being in so much of a spotlight. That buffed her numbers when she started the campaign, but when people started to remember what she was like, her numbers kept sinking.
Slashdot isn't collectively saying that it had zero effect. Anything to that effect is probably a reaction to this idea being vastly oversold by clickbait articles, in conjunction with the Dem establishment refusing to admit that they backed a goddamn train wreck, and played a major role in electing the least popular candidate ever. Instead, they look for scapegoats, whether it's Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, Sanders/Bernie Bros, racism, or big data.
Could big data have had a large enough effect to swing the election? Sure, but you'd get ten times the effect if Clinton had simply took the popular stance of descheduling marijuana, actually visiting the Rust Belt, or picking a VP that wasn't the dictionary definition of milquetoast. Or even, y'know, not having a candidate that half of the country has been indoctrinated to hate for decades.
Okay...but we're talking about Hillary Clinton here....
Trump being corrupt doesn't change the fact that people don't want to wait in line to vote for someone that makes them want to vomit. Not making Americans vomit was basically all she needed to do to win. Trump is the least popular candidate in US history. He won because the right groups of people hated her more than they hated Trump.
Yeah, she's got experience in politics. Experience agreeing with the Republican's biggest mistakes while having enough baggage and inconsistencies to alienate basically everyone. She voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. She shouldn't be running for dog catcher, let alone POTUS. And yes, that applies to the majority of the rest of the Dem leadership too. That's why they've lost at historical levels despite increasingly favorable demographic advantages.
Honey, this isn't far-left. This is the center-right members of the relatively left-wing party upset that Third Way politics is failing.
They're fed up because the Dems are only offering GOP-lite candidates instead of someone that will actually protect their interests. Now, are the Republicans taking advantage of that? Yes, but the Dems could easily undermine that by actually being useful.
Why are you blaming SCL when it's was the Clinton campaign's strategy for a "Pied Piper" nutjob to be the GOP nominee (because she's too bad of a candidate to run against an adult), Bill encouraged him to run, and the media gave that asshole $2 billion in free advertising.
The reason that we have this problem is that our electoral system lacks an option to shoot both candidates into the sun and have a mulligan. That could have gotten 65% of the vote, easy.
They didn't reduce government power. They increased the power of the corporate-government circlejerk. What they reduced was social welfare programs and industrial regulations.
Did this company make Clinton vote for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, support Wall Street, help craft TPP, oppose the fight for the 15, say single-payer will never happen, run the least issue-based campaign in modern US history, and advocate that the media take "Pied Piper" Trump seriously, to the tune of $2 billion in free air time?
You've got put things into perspective. Evolution has billions of years behind it, and domestication of animals drastically altered our immune systems. We just figured out that DNA was a thing a bit over half a century ago.
Actually, a 10% casualty rate is largely seen as a serious or unacceptable loss. Antietam was 20%, Waterloo was 25%.
You've got to consider the scale of the technology too in comparison to the competence. Blizzard games can be largely simulated just by a spreadsheet and a relatively simple random number generator. Atomic level simulation of a leaf flittering in the wind blows a WOW server away. Let alone an entire universe.
Mosts atoms smells like plum pudding.
No, it makes it a shitty plan. Someone like Dubya makes sense. He's not bright, but he's predictable. Trump might change his mind 4 or 5 times during a staff meeting, or even a few times within a single sentence.
Anybody who isn't a moron can plainly see that the Russian agenda is far more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump. Putin has reasons to be against Clinton, and I would actually agree with a lot of them. Unfortunately, because Trump is, as I said, unpredictable, he just turned Syria into more of a shitstorm, by interfering in the same kind of way that Clinton would have.
The actual cause for his shitty policies is because he's a bought-off whore, and loves to lick the boots of those more powerful than him. Most of the biggest policy examples of him being a Russian agent are explained just as well or better as him sucking dick for the fossil fuel industry.
Plus, NASA snapped up all of their rocket scientists.
Oh please, the Russian plot narrative is ridiculous because of how much of a manchild Trump is. He's far too temperamental to reliably be part of a coherent plan. Focus on his actual shitty policies instead of trying to pretend that Clinton didn't ruin her own campaign.
No, ISIS happened because we invaded a country over bullshit reasons upon bullshit reasons. Even if ISIS didn't happen, it was still a mistake large enough that the majority of Bush's cabinet should be corpses right now.
How is it Libertarian to TRUST the government? I want all of our politicians to have bombs embedded in their necks, and if they even look at a lobbyist, it goes off. IMO, the president SHOULD be a quasi-slave position to preserve the liberty of the other 300 million of us, plus the 7 billion others that occupy this rock.
Yeah, the Dems have sabotaged the left, typically because they think they're so fucking smart by using "triangulation" (i.e. giving up before you even start the fight), and are arguably MORE to blame for the rightward shift of our politics than the Republicans. I would LOVE it if Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, and the whole Clinton clan were all shot into the sun. With friends like them, we don't need enemies.
You are accusing me of never blaming my team, when it's the very opposite. I want the majority of 'my team' to be dead or at least gone from politics. Then we might reach some reasonably sane policies. I want the left to be on the left (particularly the progressive flavor), and the right on the right (ideally the libertarian flavor). The Clinton wing wants it to be center-right and goddamn-crazy-right.
Regarding transparency, I'm far more extreme on that than anybody currently in a position of power. I want those elected to office to cede certain rights (such as most contracts) for 5-10 years, and I want effectively everything that isn't weapon schematics and troop positions to be public record.
Yeah, Garland is a corporate cocksucker. That Obama tried to appoint him in his stupid attempt to appease the GOP doesn't change that fact.
If the website stops 1 Tomahawk missile from being fired, it's paid for itself several times over. The problem isn't that there's an attempt at financial responsibility. It's that the only time some people seem to care is when it's something useful, and never when it's a corporate handout or war profiteering.
No, it's vital to national security that the government be responsible to the people. You know what happened when there wasn't transparency about Iraq? ISIS happened.
>Progressive
>Hillary
+1 funny.
There were three past presidents that could reasonably be expected to have a transparency website. Clinton is arguably grandfathered in because he largely predated mainstream internet usage. Dubya is a war criminal, so that leaves Obama, who had a decent but very much inadequate start.
We should be very insistent that transparency is a one-way ratchet, as sunlight is a very effective disinfectant.