"On July 6, 2016, WikiLeaks again contacted Guccifer 2.0 through Twitter’s private
messaging function, writing, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic]
days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind
her after.” The Guccifer 2.0 persona responded, “ok . . . i see.” WikiLeaks also explained, “we
think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and
hillary is interesting.”".
No, it only suggests that they did not want Bernie supporters to solidify behind Clinton. The strongest suggestion is that they did not want Clinton to win.
It shows they wanted to prevent Hillary from building supporters to hurt her campaign and were explicitly strategizing how to achieve that end:
"if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters"
They explain their interest in a Bernie angle as a result of Trump, in their minds, having a low probability of winning:
"we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting"
Yes, they were. Fox News hate democrats. CNN hate Republicans. Assange hated Clinton ever since she said "wouldnt it be easier if we just drone striked him?".
He still didnt conceal any leaks in pursuit of that goal and he wasnt a russian spy. Nonetheless, both claims are frequently made in the mainstream media linked to Democrats.
Key phrases being "broad sets of documents" from the comment you're responding to and "reports or answers in writing to specific questions" in the FTC's blurb.
"Specific" doesn't mean "narrow." "What were the ingredients from every meal you've had in your life?" or "What is the current address of every person with the first name 'John'?" is a specific question.
All it means (in English) is that it's clear which information should be included in the reply, not a limitation on the range of information that can be asked for.
I think there's a fair argument that groups attempting to make a specific product are more likely to drive platform development than random individuals who just want to noodle around. This isn't to say that the more individual experimenters won't drive development too, just that when you're dealing with limited resources you do have to make some decisions about allocation.
Just framing it in terms of money and "generating positive press coverage" is a little cynical IMO. Is prioritizing any cool use cases of their technology that push the boundaries of today's technology to create real use cases besides "haha look I can make GPT3 parody VC Medium/LinkedIn articles" just press optics? I don't think so but can also understand the concern especially given this article is about democratization.
I was curious and did some research about the "Everlywell" food allergy test this article recommends, and the evidence behind it seems INCREDIBLY weak. From what I'm reading the product seems to be some Shark Tunk funded non-FDA reviewed no-oversight pseudoscience. Apparently many "at home testing kits" are not FDA regulated at all.
Worse, it seems that many doctors and organizations think they can actually do harm given the misinformation they provide:
......
"Patients who ask Dr. Robert Wood, an allergist at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, whether they have a food sensitivity would never undergo an immunoglobulin G test. Immunoglobulin G tests “are completely useless and do dramatic harm” because they may compel patients to unnecessarily avoid broad swaths of a healthy diet, Wood said.
“In all my years of practice, I have never sent an immunoglobulin G test because they have no ability to predict food sensitivity,” he said.
That’s because immunoglobulin G stems from the body’s normal immune response to exposure to many substances, including food. High levels don’t indicate a problem; they simply point to foods a person recently has eaten.
For these reasons, a 2008 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology task force recommended against testing for a type of immunoglobulin G to evaluate for food intolerance. In the report, the group wrote that the test was “irrelevant for the laboratory work-up of food allergy or intolerance and should not be performed in case of food-related complaints.”" [0]
......
"Dr. Neha Shah, a rheumatologist and immunologist at Stanford University, is one doctor who is skeptical.
"What we don't have is proof that having a high IgG level against a particular food item means that that food is causing your symptoms," says Shah.
"A lot of this kind of huxterist testing is keying off of the placebo effect," says Dr. Norman Paradis, a clinical lab expert who teaches at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, referring to the industry in general and not to a particular product. "[1]
......
"The presence of IgG is likely a normal response of the immune system to exposure to food. In fact, higher levels of IgG4 to foods may simply be associated with tolerance to those foods.
Due to the lack of evidence to support its use, many organizations, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have recommended against using IgG testing to diagnose food allergies or food intolerances / sensitivities" [2]
......
The author should seriously consider removing this from their article.
Yeah, I was also curious and did some research about the "Everlywell" food allergy test this article recommends, and the evidence behind it seems INCREDIBLY weak. From what I'm reading the product seems to be some Shark Tunk funded non-FDA reviewed no-oversight pseudoscience. Apparently many "at home testing kits" are not FDA regulated at all.
Worse, it seems that many doctors and organizations think they can actually do harm given the misinformation they provide:
......
"Patients who ask Dr. Robert Wood, an allergist at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center, whether they have a food sensitivity would never undergo an immunoglobulin G test. Immunoglobulin G tests “are completely useless and do dramatic harm” because they may compel patients to unnecessarily avoid broad swaths of a healthy diet, Wood said.
“In all my years of practice, I have never sent an immunoglobulin G test because they have no ability to predict food sensitivity,” he said.
That’s because immunoglobulin G stems from the body’s normal immune response to exposure to many substances, including food. High levels don’t indicate a problem; they simply point to foods a person recently has eaten.
For these reasons, a 2008 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology task force recommended against testing for a type of immunoglobulin G to evaluate for food intolerance. In the report, the group wrote that the test was “irrelevant for the laboratory work-up of food allergy or intolerance and should not be performed in case of food-related complaints.”" [0]
......
"Dr. Neha Shah, a rheumatologist and immunologist at Stanford University, is one doctor who is skeptical.
"What we don't have is proof that having a high IgG level against a particular food item means that that food is causing your symptoms," says Shah.
"A lot of this kind of huxterist testing is keying off of the placebo effect," says Dr. Norman Paradis, a clinical lab expert who teaches at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, referring to the industry in general and not to a particular product. "[1]
......
"The presence of IgG is likely a normal response of the immune system to exposure to food. In fact, higher levels of IgG4 to foods may simply be associated with tolerance to those foods.
Due to the lack of evidence to support its use, many organizations, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have recommended against using IgG testing to diagnose food allergies or food intolerances / sensitivities" [2]
......
The author should seriously consider removing this from their article.
Hey, the website that you use to host your report you cite (quark.cards) has an expired certificate, and a whois shows it belongs StackFrame, just FYI since I saw you listed as working there.
I noticed the "Wikipedia's list of American supercentenarians" you cite to cross reference which describes itself as "a list of the longest lived American supercentenarians according to the GRG." [0] is not an exhaustive list of all supercentenarians. For example, the wikipedia page only lists 4 people who are currently alive, but looking at Wikipedia's underlying reference [1] there's at least 7 who are validated and currently alive, and I see around another 9 who have passed away since ~2019.
Additionally, looking at Wikipedia's underlying source [1] it says "The total number Supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued in the news media as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over. The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. For the USA, we predict something like [60 - 75] Supercentenarians".
This seems like it means Wikipedia's underlying source predicts they're capturing at best ~10% of all who exist in the US.
I'm wondering if theres any census data or other sources that could help with this- guessing not since Wikipedia would likely cite that instead if it existed. Could use their extrapolation (60-75) of expected # of Supercentenarians to Florida along with the fact that Florida has an older population to just get a gut check if the # you found seems reasonable.
I find the idea and approaches looking into the voting data interesting, and I'll definitely look more into the the other reports you released when I get a chance.
> "found some fraud."
As a final note, I'd just suggest that we all be super careful when levying charges like this given 1) it seems you just found some circumstantial non-peer reviewed evidence of fraud 2) how important trust is in our electoral systems to the function of open societies and 3) the vast majority of research points to voting fraud being almost non-existent.
Questioning these institutions is incredibly important and part of an open an effective democratic system, but we have to be careful and specific with what we assert and our evidence.
This is true especially now, with political factions across the US actively seeking to undermine our faith in electoral system using bad-faith and non-fact based arguments for political gain.
This is addressed in the Wikipedia page under "Criticisms of quadratic voting mechanisms".
Potential solutions include giving everyone the same amount of starting artificial "money", using one-person-one-vote when issues are polarized along wealth-lines, or making votes more expensive for the wealthy.
To me, the first option of delegating everyone the same starting votes seems the most reasonable. However, I think allocating vote prices based on wealth could create some interesting incentives and resulting politics.
What the wikipedia criticism doesn't mention issue flooding/packing. Quadratic voting works, on paper, when applied to set piece issues. It doesn't address the reality of legislatures, that "issues" are not fixed pieces on a chessboard. Issues can be split across multiple referendums. Whoever is in control can use splits to dilute votes, causing voters to spend their votes repeatedly winning a minor issue until their are depleted. Then those who 'lost' the first rounds now have the votes to win the last round. Giving everyone equal footing on every vote stops this.
I had the same thought. This system does not account for the introduction of legislation that can be voted on. Who decides which legislation to consider. Surely the party in power could sway the outcome by stacking the decions against each other.
This is equivalent to gerrymandering political districts. Spread out the votes on the issues based on the electors in favor of a predtermined outcome.
That's essentially the solution to this problem. Or you can think of it another way. Every person gets x votes (we'll say 100, but it should probably change dependent upon the ballot, which can get confusing but we'll ignore that). You can go all in on one candidate and designate all 100 votes to that one, but you forfeit voting elsewhere. Like on the general election ballot you will have the president, senators, congressional rep (what's the preferred gender neutral term?), governor, etc. You can assign all 100 votes in the presidential race and forfeit voting in the other races.
Of course, this brings a difficult problem on a national scale. Often many seats are run uncontested, even in large areas. So if we had a minimum of 1 vote per candidate, that would give certain areas and certain elections more power. You could then "hack" the election simply by running extra candidates and make it seem more contested. While I like cardinal systems, I think quadratic gets extremely complicated as soon as you try to expand it outside of a localized election and maybe it isn't worth it.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download