Cracking The Code On Trump Tweets (time.com) 330
jIyajbe writes: From Electoral-Vote.com: "A theory has been circulating that the Donald Trump tweets that come from an Android device are from the candidate himself, while the ones that come from an iPhone are the work of his staff. David Robinson, a data scientist who works for Stack Overflow, decided to test the theory. His conclusion: It's absolutely correct. Robinson used some very sophisticated algorithms to analyze roughly 1,400 tweets from Trump's timeline, and demonstrated conclusively that the iPhone tweets are substantively different than the Android tweets. The former tend to come later at night, and are vastly more likely to incorporate hashtags, images, and links. The latter tend to come in the morning, and are much more likely to be copied and pasted from other people's tweets. In terms of word choice, the iPhone tweets tend to be more neutral, with their three most-used phrases being 'join,' '#trump2016,' and '#makeamericagreatagain.' The Android tweets tend to be more emotionally charged, with their three most-used phrases being 'badly,' 'crazy,' and 'weak.'"
reifman adds: In an excellent forensic text analysis of Trump's tweets with the Twitter API, data geek David Robinson demonstrates Trump authors his angriest, picture-less, hashtag-less Android tweets often in the morning, while staff tweet from an iPhone with pictures, hashtags and greater joy mostly in the middle of the day. Robinson's report was inspired by a tweet by artist Todd Vaziri. As for why Robinson decided to look into Trump's tweets, he told TIME, "For me it's more about finding a really interesting story, a case where people suspect something, but don't have the data to back it up. For me it was much more about putting some quantitive details to this story that has been going around than it was about proving something about Trump's campaign."
I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead. We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days. They're dying out with the newspapers given that people only want to pay for news they like.
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Funny)
Its the dishonest press. Trump would be such a great president, and they just spread lies about him!
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Funny)
Just like if you believe in evillootion. It has "evil" right in the name!
Re: (Score:2)
How is it wrong to understand how God builds things?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, here we go...
0. The FBI doesn't charge, prosecute, convict, or imprison (for very long, anyways, mostly) anyone.
1. The Justice Department would be the most common agency to charge and prosecute Hillary.
2. By delaying interviews, and the FBI's accommodation of her, Hillary successfully delayed the FBI's completion of its investigation until the campaign reached a point where legal action would raise significant questions of tampering or interference on the part of the FBI, whether these would be warranted or not.
3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked. This meeting;
- was plainly improper, actually unethical, and should be grounds for removal of Lynch as AG on any of several legal grounds - witness tampering, ex parte communication, obstruction of justice (see next point) among others.
- was calculated to cause an obvious conflict of interest on all parties' part, save the FBI, which was impacted by it.
- was therefore crucial in forcing the FBI to reconsider how it would proceed with the disposition of its investigation.
4. With this meeting exposed, FBI Director James Comey was left with;
- Referring the case to Justice, where he knew Lynch would recuse herself, force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and delay prosecution until after the election, prompting widespread claims of tampering and a potential Constitutional crisis.
- Refusing to disclose details, which no matter how he proceeded from there would result in denunciations and outrage from all quarters.
- Or, as he did, disclose sufficient details to expose Hillary's apparent guilt, but then claim that the case was not sufficiently obvious for a 'reasonable prosecutor' to pursue. This is the way he chose to avoid referral and the problems that would cause.
- And bottom line, Comey may well have wanted to avoid the FBI being accused of any of several impacts on the election, for he would not get support from the Administration if he did refer the case to Justice.
5. Congress could refer an investigation to Justice, demand they charge Hillary, and then impeach Lynch and/or Obama, but at this stage that would be seen as petty, too late for meaningful results, overreaching their authority, manipulative of the election, and would likely fail. Not that any of these accusations are
accurate or not, that doesn't matter, for this would be a political act also. All of this would be correct, legal, and devastating to the Republican Congress, as we are in an era where truth is unimportant.
Director Comey was in an untenable situation, not of his own making except for the delay in completing the investigation. And he was on an island with no support from his boss or his bosses boss.
Democrats have infected every branch and level of government, even co-opting the Republican congressional leadership. The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one. This will take more than one election cycle, as around 43% of the electorate is entirely satisfied with Democratic rule, and around 30% of the electorate is at war with itself. True undecideds and independents have little hope they can change things, and are not unified in any case, so sadly we either face the truth of our nation's condition or continue devolving into something other than what is constitutionally permitted.
I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left, or deliver insurmountable control to the Left, which will result in further unconstitutional rule and eventual collapse of what constitutional foundation for our government is left.
We will regre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: DEMOCRATS HAVE INFECTED THE FBI (Score:2)
The Left is unified at the voting booth. That is more important than anything.
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump makes a joke, media says he attacked someone.
You know, I'm sick of Trump claiming everything he says is a joke when he gets called out on his bullshit. You're not a fucking comedian, Donald, you're applying for the most powerful job in the world - so act like it. Whether it's calling for Clinton's assassination or claiming Obama founded ISIS, this "it was a joke" bullshit gets old.
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone with half a brain knows that was just a sardonic comment
No it wasn't. Trump and his supporters keep on claiming this because they know the comments are inexcusable, but facts show he was serious.
First, nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until two days later before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:
From the Washington Post:
1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.
2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit Ã" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.
3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.
4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government Ã" Russia, China, anybody Ã" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand how people take anything the man says seriously.
Because he's running for President, and being President is serious. Not only that, but there are a substantial amount of people who take him seriously and actually agree with him.
I don't understand how you don't understand that.
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days.
There is no evidence that this is true. News reporting in the past was often highly inaccurate: ask anyone old enough to remember the Vietnam War, or, heck, even the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. There are way more fact-checking organizations today. News reporting today is far from perfect, but there was never a "golden age" when journalists were infallible angels.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and I remember lots of people checking the facts being promulgated in the mainstream news. That didn't stop them from promulgating falsehoods anyway, but anyone who actually cared about the facts could find them checked easily in plentiful other sources.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's partially right. Another part is that there's been a tremendous consolidation among the "traditional media" such that their voices are controlled by a small number of very wealthy people whose primary interest is not news.
This is not to claim that the news in general was ever trustworthy, but it is to claim that news organizations used to be mainly interested in news, and only secondarily politics or public relations. That this was never reliably true is witnessed by the Hearst Press, which e
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have moved into a post-factual era now. There was a lot of fact checking going on, and people didn't like reality, so politicians have started trying to move beyond it.
Crime stats are down, but people "feel" like there is more crime. It's factually untrue, but politicians and the people who vote for them treat it as the truth. If you believe it, then it's true and you should vote based on that feeling, they say. Same with the Brexit thing in the UK, one of the leading Leave politicians said that "people in this country have had enough of experts", and went on to argue that they should vote with their hearts and their gut feelings (mostly bigotry and xenophobia) rather than with reason and overwhelming expert advice.
We got better at fact checking, so they just moved beyond facts.
Re: (Score:2)
People called this The Information Age. A better description would be The Bullshit Age. Everything is tainted with perspective intentionally. Attempting to remove bias is not even considered.
Ever heard the phrase "sell the sizzle, not the steak"? Bias IS the sizzle in journalistic endeavors and newsrooms all over the US. People make choices about which news outlet to frequent based on the particular flavor of bias the news outlet ascribes to. The news makers carefully construct and curate their bias,
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY - the supposed lack of fact checking is a left wing lie to try to discredit right leaning less traditional media sources they don't control. This idea that fact checking is dead is easily tested.
Look back on the massive conspiracy to conceal what was going on in Vietnam so that LBJ could defeat Gold Water and push a bunch of Great Society bullshit through before the shit hit the fan. There was plenty of available evidence to suggest that either there was going to be a total victory for the Communi
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when the audience cared more about the honesty and accuracy of the journalists
No there wasn't.
or at least there was a belief that the audience felt this way.
Who believed that?
You are experiencing false nostalgia for a golden age of journalism that never existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's [cjr.org] an article about CNN firing another group of reporters, despite making more than enough money to pay them. They've had several rounds of this in recent years, firing their investigative staff, with the stated reason being a realization that they just weren'
Re: (Score:2)
You are experiencing false nostalgia for a golden age of journalism that never existed.
Indeed. Joseph Pulitzer - the guy the "Pulitzer Prize for Excellence in Journalism" is named for is most famous for yellow journalism.
The "yellow" referred to the color of the paper, which was literally the cheapest they could use; the headlines were carefully crafted to sell a newspaper. These days, we call the practice clickbait.
Think about that for a second: The guy whose name has become associated with the best in j
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Funny)
Facts have an anti-Trump bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems is that Hillary tends to have normal or slightly above normal levels of problems for a politician. If the media would focus on her problems, her polling would suffer. However, any time they begin to focus on her, Trump loudly spouts something so outrageous that they can't help but focus on him. If he'd keep his mouth shut for a bit, Hillary's own scandals would get front page treatment. It's like the two are swimming in shark infested waters, Trump keeps tossing chum in the water by
Re: (Score:2)
...any time they begin to focus on her, Trump loudly spouts something so outrageous that they can't help but focus on him.
It's almost as if Clinton, Trump, and the media planned it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not totally a believer in the "Trump is a Clinton plant" theory, but I might get on board with "The Clintons baited him into running and then his ego took him from there."
The scary part, though, are the number of people who cheer when he says extremely outrageous things that would tank any normal politician's candidacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how we have gotten to the point where every word a politician speaks has to be vetted, crafted, and teleprompeted before it is acceptable.
We have a nice little box of expectations on how we expect our leaders to act and talk. We expect them to lie to us. We expect them to abuse their power. We expect them to get away with it. We expect them to attack our rights, to push the envelope of their power over us. We expect every year it will get worse. We expect them to start wars with people we don't
Re: (Score:2)
function hasReporterFactChecked()
{
return false;
}
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's less likely today than in the past. Why? Because it's so easy to fact-check nowadays. Take just 20 years ago when the Intenret was in its infancy and when you read a news report, there wasn't much in the way of resources - you could go to your library and do the necessary background research and then try to find other sources. In short, it would take a while to check and a lot of effort, so it'll be easier to pull it off.
These days, a few clicks of the mouse gets you the basic research, a few more clicks often will get you source photos and descriptions A few clicks after that gets you all the conspiracy theories, which again, are easier to search and see through. So anything wrong generally gets called out
The only thing that's still missing is engaging the brain and thinking critically given the volume of information.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead.
Ask an you shall receive
int has_story_been_fact_checked(&story) {
# Determines if a story has been fact checked before posting
return 0;
}
Re:I wish they could do that for news... (Score:4, Interesting)
The NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc. regularly run stories fact checking speeches and other bloviatations from candidates. Hell, the WP even gives out Pinocchios from 1 to 3 (or is it 4?) for extremely bad lies and untruths.
That said, the Truth seems to have been demoted in the general electorate who seem to believe whatever they want can be their own private Truth because they refuse to believe, or do enough background reading to recognize, the Truth as not being anything but merely opposing belief.
It stems from a stupidity to which the American people have fallen prey. Ask anyone on the street anything that smacks of mathematics or science and a good number will proudly proclaim all that sophisticated stuff is too far above them. They usually do not go as far as saying they are too stupid to understand it all but that is precisely what they should say if they were not attempting to lie to themselves about their intellectual prowess. They know what they believe and be damned if they'll read a book or actually learn anything that might require mental concentration. They have the attention span of gnat and are proud of it.
The result is that people like Trump and Clinton get to be the choices for President. The Greens and the Libertarians orbit even farther out than Clinton and Trump. Hollywood has finally gotten what they have been pushing for a few generations, a public so stupid it cannot reason effectively.
Totally this (Score:2)
A friend used to send me emails incessantly that was just bat ---- crazy "facts" from right wing nutjobs. I thought anyone would at least google to see if it were true before broadcasting it. I'd be mortified if I repeated such easily checked facts as the world is flat. Nope, she believed it and when I'd send her multiple articles invalidating it, I think she did not believe me. But then this is a woman who I told to make sure she gets a 30 year fixed mortgage and she calls me 2 years after the purchase to
Re: (Score:2)
This was an effect of the internet predicted decades ago. People like to listen to people who agree with them, and when they go to sites that agree with them, they feel that they have confirmed their opinions. I believe that this was called the "Echo-Chamber Effect". I think I read about it around 1995, but I'm not sure the article was new then.
If you think about it, you'll see many examples of it happening long before then internet. E.g. church congregations become firm believers in whatever their cong
Next up for debunking (Score:5, Funny)
It's getting harder for me to take that as completely tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
Re:Next up for debunking (Score:5, Funny)
It's getting harder for me to take that as completely tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
The only question is why would Republican voters be stupid enough to go along with it.
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not to say Trumps goal is to destroy the Republican party. I've considered that for a while.
Re:Next up for debunking (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What if both of them were shills working for the other side? That would explain a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
If he wasn't born rich he's just be considered a crazy person muttering on a street corner.
So some apologists make noise about it just being the deal-making random act he does to confuse enemies - fair enough - but do you understand that if it is true he considers the voters an enemy to be tricked?
Re: (Score:2)
but do you understand that if it is true he considers the voters an enemy to be tricked?
Isn't that true of all politicians?
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason a lot of people don't see Trump as one despite his decades of being mixed up in politics.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's happened before (Score:2)
It's not a conspiracy theory, it has happened before. Bubba Clinton only won against Bush in 1982 because Ross Perot was also running.
Re:Next up for debunking (Score:5, Interesting)
Same here. It seems that shortly after he clinched the Republican nomination, his 'gaffes' have become much much worse from a Republican standpoint.
The stuff that was deemed 'outrageous' used to be just mostly outrageous to Democrats. Some racism, some bullying, kind of run of the mill Fox News-level stuff, basically. But after the nomination he almost immediately went after military folk, parents of a dead soldier, even. If you're trying to appeal to Republicans (and Americans in general), that is pretty much the worst thing to do.
The three theories I actually deem plausible (I'm afraid to admit it, but it's true):
1. Trump doesn't want to win the election for some unknown reason: wouldn't like the (pressure of the) job, thinks the White House is a shitty place to live, etc.
2. Trump is still a Democrat, Clinton asked him whether he'd want to help blow up the GOP and gain lots of media attention in the process, and so they proceeded.
3. Trump is just a total narcissistic fuckwit who has no idea what he's doing and thinks that his stream-of-consciousness primary success somehow translates into "All people love me and how I act"
I deem the latter the most probable.
The 2nd would be both evil and genius at the same time. It's hard to see how they could have predicted Trump's primary success (nobody else did), though.
Also, I still can't believe I'm seriously considering it as plausible. Someone pinch me.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think he cares either way if he wins or loses: there'll be a ghost written book either way that'll sell millions of copies. When Sarah Palin stepped down from office to go make a bunch of money with books and TV shows, it certainly made financial sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is Trump or his political team, Paul Manafort isn't stupid, could make some arguments to salvage even attacking the Khan there are some intelligent and arguments to be made. Trump could argue being a gold star parent should not make the guy immune from criticism. We don't hold children responsible for the sins of the father so why would we allow the father to cloak himself in the virtue of the son? The Constitutional argument Khan makes is incorrect based on a number SCOTUS decisions, and US
Re: (Score:3)
I think HRC would be the worst mistake this country has made in the post war era
Such an exaggeration. I've thought about this a lot and even though I have always been a Bernie supporter and am quite convinced Hillary isn't going to do much about 'money in politics' and about lobbying in general, the truth is probably that she is just very very status quo and slightly progressive.
Her presidency would probably just be boring same old same old classic Democratic politics; Simply uneventful; Just slow, slow progress. Especially if the House and Senate do not flip to the Democrats and it's
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take Trump's trade wars over Hillary's shooting kind any day. Hillary is an interventionist. She is essentially Bush Jr in every respect when it comes to international policy. She is boosum buddies with Ghouls like Henry Kissinger. Both Libya and Syria were as ill informed and badly executed as Iraq and Afghanistan. Only they were more illegal because congress never approved either. As far as I can glean from any public statement HRC has made her position is "Would do again."
Electing HRC means sp
Re: (Score:2)
Electing HRC means spreading more human misery and unnecessary death around the globe.
This is really the only thing I am slightly worried about with Clinton.
The foreign policy of the US in the last couple of decades is definitely not something to be proud of and if she is indeed as hawkish as they say, more of that would be a bad thing. I'm quite sure she will be much, much more diplomatic than Trump, but even then a lot of damage can be inflicted on the world.
They are both despicable characters, the difference is Trump is at least more transparent about it.
The transparency doesn't really help, now does it?
Given his temperament, the chances for catastrophic escalation of whatever internat
Re: (Score:3)
I'd vote for Abu Baqr al Baghdadi as president before I vote for Hitlery Rotten KKKlinton
I've always suspected that Trump supporters were like ISIS supporters. Different team, different ethnicity, but equally hateful and violent at heart.
Re: (Score:3)
It's parts 1 and 3, although the reason you suggest for #1 I don't think correct. Everything he does is about increasing his brand's worth. Becoming President, he'd have to at least put his personal control of the brand into someone else's hands. Generally Presidents haven't continued to run global corporations while also running the country (although maybe that's why he offered the latter to Kasich).
I think his inner narcissistic fuckwit wants to be president up to the point where it stops increasing his b
Re: (Score:2)
3. Trump is just a total narcissistic fuckwit who has no idea what he's doing and thinks that his stream-of-consciousness primary success somehow translates into "All people love me and how I act" ... I deem the latter the most probable
I've been fairly certain of #3 for a couple of decades now. In fact, roughly 8 years back when I needed a self-centered, power-mad, casino-owning, billionaire tycoon type to be the ultimate villain for the superhero computer game I was working on, I put in several nods (subtle, so as to avoid lawsuits) to The Donald as being just that type. Players of Twilight Heroes have been (unwittingly, for the most part) beating up his caricature over and over for almost a decade now.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Although I do think the McCain comment was much less incendiary. McCain is still alive and could easily I see a lot of people thinking that soldiers who 'let themselves be captured' are weak. Few people would boast about (someone) being captured, whereas sacrificing yourself for your buddies is undoubtedly heroic.
But your point stands. It was definitely a stupid thing to say unfriendly to the military (especially for a Republican).
Re: (Score:2)
This is why McCain is staunchly anti-trump.
Speaking of somebody else who became unaccountably ridiculous during his run for president...
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing was misreported. It was the mother who voluntarily stepped out on her own when the baby started crying as a courtesy to the other guests, and to pacify her kid. She stepped out, was w/ the security while the baby calmed down, and once the baby got a pacifier and was perfectly quiet, she returned to her seat.
Something completely different from protesters at rallies who had to be evicted
Re: (Score:2)
But everybody hid the fact that Khizr Khan actually has an immigration business where he promotes Muslim immigration
The thing with this is that so many people always picture Muslims immigrating to the US as some kind of evil intruders.
Consider being an intellectual (or just a sane person in general) living in a country with lots of religious oppression, anti-intellectualism, ridiculous corporal punishments, etc. Given that situation, I'd yearn for a country of freedom and opportunity, where I could be who I wanted to be. Shouldn't Americans then be proud that people yearn for the US as being that country? As vindication
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine for a Muslim 'intellectual' or MINO to want to come to a Western country. It's equally fine for him to want the same opportunity for his or her compatriots. But it's not something any Western country owes them - which is the point that Trump haters - both Democrat & Republican - miss!
Since 2001, there have been some thousands of Jihadi attacks worldwide, including the US. These have come from Muslims of a variety of races & countries, from a variety of backgrounds. The one at Orlando
Re: (Score:2)
The faster it burns down, the faster we rebuild it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, just the other day I was thinking about that. Decades ago, maybe it made sense that you could curry fame via publicized debates, but now the idea of two anonymous people squabbling on the internet (no matter how articulate) and gaining enough fame to become a leader is just absurd. One, there are so many articulate voices it's impossible that any two would stand out among the crowd, and two, there's so many more inarticulate voices (unclear, confused, uninformed, shills, trolls, outright lies, con
Am I the only one (Score:4, Funny)
who suddenly feels embarrassed to be using an Android?
Re:Am I the only one (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.
Re:Am I the only one (Score:4, Interesting)
I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.
Sadly I'm not that shocked, I think Trump supporters and MRAs have a pretty high overlap, and MRAs have been swarming any /. thread referencing women for a while.
That being said I wonder if it's possible to see how many of these /. posts have been written with an Android...
Re:Am I the only one (Score:5, Interesting)
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
It's been apparent for quite some time now there's a group effort to attempt burying these "Trump made an ass of himself again" stories under a mountain of garbage posts. I assume the goal is to make Slashdotters (the ones who aren't sociopathic, anyway) annoyed enough to quickly move on from the thread.
Re:Am I the only one (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Those things are not entirely connected (and some of them not even slightly connected), so your point seems to be that there are some small revolutions attempting to be started. This is business as normal for mankind, and not some harbinger of future troubles.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's choice of platform (Score:2)
One thing that struck me - after the San Bernardino massacre, when Apple refused to come up w/ a backdoor to the iPhone4 (which ultimately got cracked anyway), Trump called for a boycott of iPhones. People pointed out how Trump was a hypocrite for resuming its use after a few days.
But this story seems to suggest that he does practice what he preached. If the tweets that are actually his come from an Android, then that's his companion/choice of phone/tablet (does he really use a phone to tweet? Or does h
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Good Lord. (Score:2)
Has it occured to any of the "researchers" that his apps on Android and the IPhone are different and may be configured differently? ( Mouse's law on configuration if yiou have N devices you are supporting at least N+1 configurations ).
differnt configurations mean different looking posts. Especially since these are rapidly written posts.
I don't think that's the point (Score:2)
Basically, a sizable por
More Interested in His Code (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm one of the two submitters. I submitted this story because I am intrigued by his methodology, and not because of the political angle.
In my submission, I included a reference to the fact that he coded up his analysis in R, and that his code is right there on his website for all of us to inspect. I was hoping that that was what would catch Slashdotters' eyes. The editor deleted that part, unfortunately; oh, well.
I know a little about statistical analysis, a little bit about coding, but nothing about R. Can anyone knowledgeable about R comment on his code, and/or his analysis? Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
All I hear about nowadays is Trump / Clinton. I came to the comments hoping to see SOME discussion of the content of the article.
Why is he so angry? (Score:2)
Excellent work (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we now get an analysis of all the bat-shit crazy posts on this article. A number of things that could be investigated.
- Is this one crazy person, or has an entire neighborhood of crazy town come visiting?
- Do these crazy people think that crazy shit like this helps persuade voters to vote Trump?
- Or is it a false flag effort designed to show Trump supporters as bat-shit crazy people?
- Does anyone care?
Wiretapping charges? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Phony news site Slashdot, that nobody reads, makes up story about phones and tweets. STUPID EDITORS! #CrookedHillary #Trump2016 #makeAmericaGreatAgain
ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
Sad!
Let me guess...sent from your Android? (nt) (Score:5, Funny)
nt
Re:If Trump Wins (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact there are only two actually viable parties and that they have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as their candidates is already proof enough that the american voting system is completely broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If Trump Wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, both parties are controlled by extremists, who do their best to steer the nomination process hard right or hard left. The further right one party goes, the further left the other party can go while still being virtually guaranteed that one of their nominees will be elected. And vice versa. The entire process effectively disenfranchises the middle 49.99999% of the voting population, leaving government in control of the fringe 25% whose nominee happened to win.
An instant-runoff voting system [wikipedia.org] would put a stop to this, by making the nominee who best reflects the entire voting population (i.e. a centrist) most likely to win. But that's precisely why the two parties (or rather, the extremists who control the parties) will never allow it to happen while they control the legislatures.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the voters' fault.
As long as voters are willing to vote for nincompoops, those are the kinds of candidates we'll get. A runoff system won't fix that (for evidence, see Australia).
Re: (Score:2)
Plurality voting needs to be replaced, but IRV has serious problems with 1. spoiler candidates and 2. central counting (i.e., no votes can be counted until all IRV ballots are collected for an entire state, at least).
Approval voting [wikipedia.org] allows local precinct counting, and always elects the candidate that the least voters disapprove of. How easy is it to implement? Just change the ballot instruction to say, "Vote for as many as you like."
Approval voting satisfies the one ballot per voter criterion (aka, each v
Re: (Score:2)
How could the voters have prevented this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Resulting in idiots voting for idiots? Refusing to vote would not fix this.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of the trump electors are actually voting to him BECAUSE he's awful, like completely government nuking awful.This and fear of Isis.
Re:Thanks Media (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does. What's up with the thousands of work-related emails she didn't turn over? Who's gullible enough to believe she installed a private server to send pictures of her grandkids? Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?
The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson. We're just expected to take the word of a politician with countless lies already under her belt.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
Re:Thanks Media (Score:5, Interesting)
> The reason you never hear about this is not because it didn't happen or because nobody was looking for it.
The reason you "never hear about this" is because your interpretation of those events is nutballs.
If your "liberal media" theory were true, then there are a ton of counter examples. The whole lewinsky thing being chief among them. The obsessive media coverage of clinton "scandals" is beyond dispute. Travelgate, whitewater, vince foster, benghazi, etc. And despite tens of thousands of hours of media coverage, and tens of millions of republican directed tax dollars of investigations, it all turned out to be nothing. Cry wolf too many times and people just start tuning you out, no "liberal bias" necessary.
Re:Thanks Media (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes me wonder where you've been getting your news for the last 25 years.
Of everything that you mentioned, this is the only scandal.
They do it to curry favor with the Clintons. However, I'm 100% certain that the Clintons are savvy enough that everything is totally legal, and that 95% went to the best charities. Unfortunately, we as a nation have decided that direct bribery of politicians is not only legal, but expected, as long as everyone is coy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Thanks Media (Score:3)
"The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true"
I hereby accuse you to be an operative of the Secret Great Lizards Conspiracy that I know all about, because i read it on a web site that had actual ANIMATED GIFS OF LIZARDS AND CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
I may not yet be able to prove my theory conclusively, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson.
Re: (Score:2)
You need the decoder ring to read the real message.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The NYT sleeper cell woke up, that's what happened. After almost ten years of watering down Obama scandals and witholding evidence of criminal misconduct, they were anxious to get back in offensive mode, like a platoon of green berets who got bored of doing UN blanket distribution duty.
Re: (Score:2)
As if you actually care about the shit that Obama has done. As long as he's on "your side" you will excuse everything he or Clinton have done. Happens every time, which is why you are surprised that someone can actually make the claim you are lamely attacking.
As for me, it's Green Party's Jill Stein all the way, just like last time.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't the Age of Obama. It's the Age of Trolls, Shills, and Kool-Aid drinkers.
Re:A wild Investigative Journalist appeared! (Score:5, Informative)
It's more likely a case of you not bothering to seek out investigative journalism (of which there has been an ever-increasing amount), and when some accidentally crosses your path you assume it must be a change in the amount of journalism, and nothing else. Not, possibly, that because you don't care about journalism when you see an article "attacking" someone you like you have to find a reason for the article's existence beyond the person you like fucking up.... naaah. Couldn't be that. It must be some massive conspiracy amongst journalists of all flavours to deceive you. Your arrogance is disgusting. No wonder you are so confused by the world around you.