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

581–590 of 662 posts

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

#581

Post by Guvante »

inigyou wrote: post #573
Guvante wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can happen in the US too... When you agree to a contract you are bound to the terms of it. Why do you think it is so common to hear horror stories about gym memberships? But in your example no one agreed to the contract which means no agreement exists. Generally you can say that payment was agreement to terms but that doesn't work if you deceived to get the payment.

> in your example no one agreed to the contract which means no agreement exists. ??? you agreed to it by registering a .at domain. There was probably some fine print at your registrar which says you agree with the registry policies

My bad I meant original example. I agree the "you agreed to auto renewal" silliness happens everywhere.

Likely the difference is court costs.

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

#582

Post by convolvatron »

rayiner wrote: post #347
fragmede wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who the > The “Mayor Pete” neoliberal democrats are, but yes, you want career bureaucrats running the show that follow the rules as set forth by Congress, with appointed officials that pass vetting at the top. Otherwise every position becomes political and the laws themselves go further out the window.

Your model doesn’t eliminate politics, it just entrenches the particular politics of the kind of people who go to T10 schools then get jobs as division heads at federal agencies.[1] There is no such thing as “following the rules” in an apolitical way. Congress writes very broad laws, and the executive branch exercises a tremendous amount of discretion in enforcing and executing those laws. The founders understood tha…

I understand this argument that by establishing these agencies with career technocrats, you are giving them agency to make up rules in a bubble. with a revolving door and active steering by invested parties. it is in fact antidemocratic. net neutrality shouldn't be a rule published by the FCC, but a serious policy issue that gets chewed up by the congressional sausage machine.

what I don't understand is the remedy you seem to support makes these decisions autocratically, with more external steering by the ostensibly regulated parties. instead of a bunch of little independent fiefdoms with hysteresis and oversight, now we have a giant unitary federal fiefdom, and the only democratic input is a red or blue ever 4 years, if that.

maybe you could put some framing about how you think federal enivironmental/financial/communications/health/housing policy should be managed? because I don't see this shift as being in any way more empowering to the taxpayers.

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

#583

Post by kube-system »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #331
coldtea wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not that MAGA "ate them, chew them and spit them", but that the traditional neoliberal shit GOP circles "ate, chew and spit" the MAGA movement and what people voted Trump for. Instead Trump was fully assimilated to the Borg/Swamp, with a big fuck you to the MAGA promises (except the show he put on about immigration).

Trump was never ever going to drain the swamp. And I wouldn't say he served existing entrenched interests very well either. To the extent he touched the swamp it was to put in worse people only he liked.

Oh he is, but the “swamp” he was talking about the entire time is impartial civil service.

What they’re doing to people at the front lines of our government is very sinister and intentional. They’re using a whole host of (legally dubious or plainly illegal) methods to remove lifelong experienced workers with expertise in their field and replacing them with political appointees.

It is the purest form of anti-intellectualism as policy. They don’t want civil service to have the correct answer - they want it to have the answer that matches the ideology they want.

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

#584

Post by rayiner »

convolvatron wrote: post #582
rayiner wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your model doesn’t eliminate politics, it just entrenches the particular politics of the kind of people who go to T10 schools then get jobs as division heads at federal agencies.[1] There is no such thing as “following the rules” in an apolitical way. Congress writes very broad laws, and the executive branch exercises a tremendous amount of discretion in enforcing and executing those laws. The founders understood tha…

I understand this argument that by establishing these agencies with career technocrats, you are giving them agency to make up rules in a bubble. with a revolving door and active steering by invested parties. it is in fact antidemocratic. net neutrality shouldn't be a rule published by the FCC, but a serious policy issue that gets chewed up by the congressional sausage machine. what I don't understand is the remedy yo…

I think we should eliminate the filibuster so Congress can do actual policymaking. Your example of net neutrality is a great one. Congress should be doing this, perhaps based on recommendations from the executive agencies. There’s thousands of examples of that, such as EPA regulation of CO2 emissions. The executive branch has way too much discretionary authority, especially in the area of rule making.

But I also think that, whatever discretion has been allocated to the executive, it should be exercised by the President and political appointees who are directly accountable to voters. I want Democrats to emulate what Trump did in 2024: get on stage with their proposed appointees to key positions, who can speak about what they want to do in particular areas. The executive runs a huge fraction of the government, and voters should get to see who is going to be in charge. And once they vote, their vote should be effective. These appointees should actually be able to make the big changes they promise.

I think bureaucrats that can’t be voted out are a bigger risk than anything else. You raise the concern about steering by regulated entities, but that happens with bureaucrats too. The department heads of these agencies have a revolving door relationship with the regulated agencies. It’s just not out in the open.

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

#585

Post by lazide »

notpushkin wrote: post #524
XorNot wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of an extermination program which was thwarted by a lack of accurate census data? "The Nazis used a data source to implement an extermination program" is not a statement which proves that your problem was the existence of a data source.

The claim was not that the census is instrumental to e.g. ethnic cleansing, simply that the (micro?)data can be used that way.

And it of course helps, if accurate, as it tells you exactly where to go, how many there are, etc.

It’s basically cheating.

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

#586

Post by lazide »

testing22321 wrote: post #469
lazide wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, that’s the ‘if people do the right thing’ approach. Many countries use census data to target (or even round up and murder) specific groups of people by religion, ethnicity, etc.

Ah yes, the old “bad guys did it 50+ years ago, therefore we shouldn’t collect data that will improve our country” It’s no shock the standard of living continues to fall in what was once ostensibly the greatest country.

‘Gov’t consistently threatens to do x which is bad, does x which is bad. collecting data which makes it easier to do x is… good?’

Do you even listen to yourself? How would collecting that data in this environment actually improve the country, instead of clearly being used to do bad things - which will make the situation worse?

Notably, this is the gun registry problem, and exactly why gun registries are also bad.

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

#587

Post by lazide »

makeitdouble wrote: post #558
inigyou wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Germany invaded the Netherlands they found it extremely convenient that the Netherlands had a nice centralised paper filing system telling them exactly where all the Jews lived. The Holocaust proceeded more efficiently in the Netherlands than it had in Germany.

That papertrail mattered less than how you make it sound. France also sent people to the Germans during the occupation, and there was very little info needed. The gov wasn't caring much about due process or lengthy and accurate investigations anyway.

These arguments are bizarre.

Is it easier and more convenient to round up people when you have a literal list of people, along with the attributes that someone might want to round them up based on? Of course.

Is it still possible to do it without said list? Yes, of course. It is just harder.

And more likely some or many will be missed, if those attributes aren’t super obvious and impossible to change.

So why make it easier?

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

#588

Post by pandaman »

estearum wrote: post #580
pandaman wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you are just saying "illegal voting can be detected in this scheme even though I don't know how". Very smart!

You seem very confused. Here's how it's detected: "There are 1000 ballots from this one address that has never had more than 3 ballots sent from it. We should look it up in our GIS and tax records and see how many people reside there. We should also make sure that the affiliated registrations are fully documented as having individual residencies there from e.g. their drivers licenses or utility bills at time of regis…

"Sorry but you are naive beyond words" that made me actually chuckle, coming from you. I am really done with your fantasies, you obviously have no clue how voting registration works (you are not required to live at your registered address for example) and what "checks" are in place yet imagined yourself an authority on the subject. It's so ignorant that makes me think you have not voted in the US and project your home country system.

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

#589

Post by pseudalopex »

gs17 wrote: post #520
pseudalopex wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is why we really need approval voting, so we can actually vote for the candidates we like, rather than needing to "strategically" hold our noses. Approval voting would not end strategic voting.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#Strategic_voti...

Yes, but it specifically ends the "vote for a candidate you dislike instead of the one you do like" type. Strategic approval voting is simply setting a higher/lower threshold on your approval. Your favorite is always included in your vote (assuming you like at least one candidate).

> Strategic approval voting is simply setting a higher/lower threshold on your approval.

The strategy of this is no simpler than the strategy of a single vote system.

> Yes, but it specifically ends the "vote for a candidate you dislike instead of the one you do like" type.

> Your favorite is always included in your vote (assuming you like at least one candidate).

Ranking candidates would express preferences more than approval voting. But you advocated approval voting solely.

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

#590

Post by estearum »

pandaman wrote: post #588
estearum wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem very confused. Here's how it's detected: "There are 1000 ballots from this one address that has never had more than 3 ballots sent from it. We should look it up in our GIS and tax records and see how many people reside there. We should also make sure that the affiliated registrations are fully documented as having individual residencies there from e.g. their drivers licenses or utility bills at time of regis…

"Sorry but you are naive beyond words" that made me actually chuckle, coming from you. I am really done with your fantasies, you obviously have no clue how voting registration works (you are not required to live at your registered address for example) and what "checks" are in place yet imagined yourself an authority on the subject. It's so ignorant that makes me think you have not voted in the US and project your hom…

Pandaman, 9 days ago: "When I moved to the US..." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48406788)

Talk about projection, lmfao! Not even here long enough to prevent your weird writing quirks from revealing that you're a foreigner, and yet comfortable implying some strange nationalist superiority to a native-born American. Beyond parody.

Are people from your country unable to answer simple multiple-choice questions like "which of these three options do you believe?"

Post reply on HN