Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

desfontain.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 662 posts

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#351

Post by robocat »

nerdsniper wrote: post #249
rectang wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ranked Choice Voting makes it easier to vote for “less bad” candidates. RCV also tends to work against polarization, since it rewards candidates who are at least acceptable to a broad swath of the electorate. It may not be the “answer” for all that ails the American political system, but it would help. ETA: Unlike many other reforms it's also doable within the constraints of the current constitutional order and is ha…

Approval Voting would be an easier pill to swallow for most americans. It’s hard to explain “yeah Trump got the most #1 votes but still lost” and easy to explain “this other candidate got the most checkmarks”. https://www.rangevoting.org/CompChart.html#votsysts

That site promotes range voting, and rather superficially dismisses approval voting: "Why Range Voting is Better than Approval Voting": https://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVapp.html

We've got MMP here in New Zealand, which is a fantastic improvement over what we had. However the list vote does give politicians some weird power.

Comment moderation is voting too.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#352

Post by Dylan16807 »

Dig1t wrote: post #306
cyberax wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tens of millions"? Really? Even if we take 20 million, that's 75% of the total population of Venezuela or half of the population of Colombia. There simply are not enough people in South America for these kinds of numbers.

Chuck Schumer: >“We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants – the Dreamers and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but [also] to get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here,” Chuck Schumer, who is ma…

That 11M represents decades of migration. It's not getting tripled with the flip of a switch.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#354

Post by shiandow »

sherburt3 wrote: post #344
shiandow wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it has to be random in a predetermined fashion to be considered differential privacy. It is reversible in the way that someone shouting over an aicraft producing white noise is intelligible. I guess someone could fiddle with the noise, but then why not nudge the originals? Or more insidiously, control what is published?

If someone modified the original dataset and it was discovered they would be held accountable. However if you have a departmental policy of modifying the data for "privacy reasons" and it just so happened to surrepititiously affect some sort of political outcome then ah geez that just a wacky coincidence not any individuals fault.

You shouldn't base political decisions on stuff that falls within the margin of error.

Anyway you either ensure any analysis is reproducible or not, if adding noise is one of the steps just make sure to fix the seed.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#355

Post by Dylan16807 »

throwawa1 wrote: post #232
LPisGood wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As planned by whom?

The Epstein class. Bankers, Zionists who lost their civilization and Temple 2000 years ago: A good google search to view art owned by one family: "Artist funded by de Rothschild's depicts racial violence and rape themes"

Telling me some art depicts a bad thing tells me next to nothing about the merits of that art.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#356

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #336
nerdsniper wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approval Voting would be an easier pill to swallow for most americans. It’s hard to explain “yeah Trump got the most #1 votes but still lost” and easy to explain “this other candidate got the most checkmarks”. https://www.rangevoting.org/CompChart.html#votsysts

We already have a system where the person with the most #1 votes can lose. A third party candidate that only got a couple states would be able to prevent a majority. And that's electoral votes. Counting actual people has the most voted candidate lose all the time. Approval voting would be an improvement over the status quo but it makes it a lot harder for me to influence the choice between candidates I like less. If…

> We already have a system where the person with the most #1 votes can lose. A third party candidate that only got a couple states would be able to prevent a majority.

And people complain about it. If you were trying to make a change from some other status quo to that, it would be a significant impediment.

> Approval voting would be an improvement over the status quo but it makes it a lot harder for me to influence the choice between candidates I like less. If I do check my third choice I risk helping them beat my top two.

Approval voting is the range compressed version of score voting. Instead of scoring each candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, it's score each candidate on a scale of 0 or 1. Use score voting and you can give your favorite candidate a different score than your second favorite without giving them the same score as your least favorite.

Both of them are still better than RCV.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#357

Post by throwawa1 »

poslathian wrote: post #322
throwawa1 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Epstein class. Bankers, Zionists who lost their civilization and Temple 2000 years ago: A good google search to view art owned by one family: "Artist funded by de Rothschild's depicts racial violence and rape themes"

This take is oversimplified to where it’s literally scary - heres an honest book about the Rothchilds Bankers and Zionists with the additional context I hope you incorporate. https://ia601309.us.archive.org/20/items/historyDEEPWEB/The%...

I've read it. A follow for you could be Jews vs Rome - Netanyahu recommended this with a review: "we lost that one, we won't lose the next one"

Another follow on for you could be the question of the origins of the Slave Trade: Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South - 1789-1865.

The root of all western Ethnic issues are Zionists.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#358

Post by robotresearcher »

vjulian wrote: post #284
estearum wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting and getting everyone you know to vote

Many of us find voting insulting, given very low marginal power in a vote; it’s akin to throwing breadcrumbs to the poor. The structure of governance (the reality, not the mythology taught in schools or pushed forth as propaganda) is not in support of ‘the people”. Right or wrong, this is how many of feel. Voting is silly and futile.

Ironically, the way to change this is by voting. One election at a time, we can trend towards the better or worse.

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#359

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #258
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A primary role of political parties has traditionally been to filter candidates. It's literally their raison d'etre Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. He switched solely to run in the primary. It's neither scandalous nor surprising that the DNC would try to put up barriers between him and the nomination. If the RNC had done it's job, Trump would never have been allowed into the primary in the first place.

> A primary role of political parties has traditionally been to filter candidates. It's literally their raison d'etre Yes, that's exactly why they shouldn't exist.

I don't know about that, but if they exist, they need to be stronger institutions that take more of an active role in picking/filtering candidates.

The introduction of the partisan primary has been an unmitigated disaster for our politics, by massively empowering the most zealous fringes within parties

Re: Noise infusion banned from statistical products published by Census Bureau

#360

Post by helpfulclippy »

bee_rider wrote: post #137
arjie wrote: post #74

Pretty sad, in my opinion. In my ideal the state should have visibility into the shape of the people present so that we can make good decisions about our combined organization. I think we’re making a mistake we will come to regret by intentionally damaging our data collection infrastructure. I think a large amount of the US’s success is the result of good institutions handling granular data. Policies can be adjusted…

I’d be more interested in giving my state detailed info, letting them run programs. The country can have aggregate data.

The feds have smart people who find the levers to work to get municipal, county, state and private data via voluntary/“voluntary” disclosure.
Post reply on HN