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

651–660 of 662 posts

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

#651

Post by Dylan16807 »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #644
Dylan16807 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suppose your favorite candidate is the first choice of 20% of the population, your second favorite is 25% and the two candidates you hate are at 25% and 30% respectively. RCV makes you give your top pick to the second candidate so they can beat one of the two candidates you hate and ensure the runoff isn't between both of the candidates you hate. Let's call those candidates A B X Y. I don't see the issue. I vote my…

> I vote my actual ranking no you don't. take a warren supporter who votes biden to stop trump. that person ranks: biden 1st, warren 2nd, trump 3rd they don't want warren to be a spoiler. http://rangevoting.net/TarrIrv

That person is not me. Don't tell me what I do.

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

#652

Post by asdff »

esseph wrote: post #378
asdff wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the census. Census data is stale. These data are not stale. If you no longer qualify for medicaid you need to update medicaid office within 10 days for example.

You act like anybody is actually following that.

Why would you keep your medicaid if you already have employee sponsored healthcare that comes out of your would be earnings?

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

#653

Post by righthand »

greyface- wrote: post #57
righthand wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The census is already voluntary LOL. So we’d have two censuses?

Census participation is not voluntary. Failure to provide complete or accurate data is, in theory, punishable by a fine. Last census, I intentionally provided incomplete data on the web form, which resulted in a person with a clipboard and some stern questions showing up at my door.

To counter this, I had a census taker show up at my door and ask me if they knew how many people lived in the neighboring apartment. Where was the consequence there?

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

#654

Post by greyface- »

righthand wrote: post #653
greyface- wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Census participation is not voluntary. Failure to provide complete or accurate data is, in theory, punishable by a fine. Last census, I intentionally provided incomplete data on the web form, which resulted in a person with a clipboard and some stern questions showing up at my door.

To counter this, I had a census taker show up at my door and ask me if they knew how many people lived in the neighboring apartment. Where was the consequence there?

I don't see what that has to do with whether census participation is voluntary or mandatory.

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

#655

Post by ClayShentrup »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #649
ClayShentrup wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

score voting is extremely good. https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig compressing it to approval voting doesn't hurt very much and makes the ballot extremely simple. > I don't see how. i just showed you how. better average voter satisfaction, better resistance to strategy, etc. https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig not to mention radically simpler: https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/ https://sites.google.co…

> i just showed you how. That comes across as weirdly aggressive when you're referring to earlier in the same post. Like I'm dumb for not somehow seeing that before I finished my own post. Also what's the definition of honesty for approval voting? Where am I supposed to draw the line? The chart is pretty but I'm not trusting that chart without a lot more info. > IRV is a strategic mess I didn't say I want instant run…

it doesn't really matter how you define "honest". what matters is how people actually vote. the only really crucial distinction for "honest" versus "strategic" is that "honest" can't consider viability. in the simulations, we just use "approve everyone you like more than average". optimal strategy is to approve everyone you like more than the expected utility of the winner. https://rangevoting.net/RVstrat6

here's lots of detail. you can run the code for yourself. https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html

here's a slightly different model from the late harvard stats phd, jameson quinn. https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/

don't "trust" anything. look at the data. you could also read the book "gaming the vote" by william poundstone.

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

#656

Post by ClayShentrup »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #651
ClayShentrup wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I vote my actual ranking no you don't. take a warren supporter who votes biden to stop trump. that person ranks: biden 1st, warren 2nd, trump 3rd they don't want warren to be a spoiler. http://rangevoting.net/TarrIrv

That person is not me. Don't tell me what I do.

that person is STRATEGIC VOTERS, who are about 90% of the electorate. even if you want to vote honestly, you're still subject to the whims of other voters.

indeed, practically the only thing that matters in a voting method is the aggregate affect of what it achieves in light of other voters. YOUR vote will almost never make a difference. you could upgrade voting methods in exchange for giving up your right to vote, and you'd still be drastically better off.

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

#657

Post by makeitdouble »

lazide wrote: post #638
makeitdouble wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my eyes the chimpanze's "loaded gun" is the actual guns and the impunity to use them, and they're pulling the trigger because they can. Having accurate lists would be more of a painted targets instead of randomly shooting in the pack. Basically the kind of people shor would be different, but someone would still be shot. I'd argue that raiding the data center is theatrical more than anything, and they're not flaili…

Previously, the data didn’t exist. Which is (a large part) of why they are running around in total chaos. They want to ‘fix’ this, by now gathering the fine grained data, and storing it. See the problem? Do you want them to be more effective with their terror tactics?

My main point is that they are already fully effective.

What you call "running around in total chaos" is exactly what the organization was built for, its actions follow its structure and the only improvement they'd benefit for is more people more guns and less scrutiny.

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

#658

Post by Dylan16807 »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #656
Dylan16807 wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That person is not me. Don't tell me what I do.

that person is STRATEGIC VOTERS, who are about 90% of the electorate. even if you want to vote honestly, you're still subject to the whims of other voters. indeed, practically the only thing that matters in a voting method is the aggregate affect of what it achieves in light of other voters. YOUR vote will almost never make a difference. you could upgrade voting methods in exchange for giving up your right to vote, a…

> that person is STRATEGIC VOTERS

When I said "I" I meant me. This one person. And I was talking about that specific scenario.

It wasn't a statement about "strategic voters" in other scenarios.

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

#659

Post by ClayShentrup »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #658
ClayShentrup wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that person is STRATEGIC VOTERS, who are about 90% of the electorate. even if you want to vote honestly, you're still subject to the whims of other voters. indeed, practically the only thing that matters in a voting method is the aggregate affect of what it achieves in light of other voters. YOUR vote will almost never make a difference. you could upgrade voting methods in exchange for giving up your right to vote, a…

> that person is STRATEGIC VOTERS When I said "I" I meant me. This one person. And I was talking about that specific scenario. It wasn't a statement about "strategic voters" in other scenarios.

i know. and my point was, that's irrational. other voters determine the election result YOU have to live with.

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

#660

Post by maximinus_thrax »

AlexeyBelov wrote: post #633
drysine wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Russia ... have been at the "worse and worse" stages for decades and there is no "better" in sight What do you mean? In the last 25 years life expectancy in Russia has risen by almost 10 years [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locat...

Why is this account still not banned

Because it's futile. This person was banned before, this is their new account.
Post reply on HN