Carl Americ

proud patriot. hater of the liberal agenda!

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@mehdirhasan Ok Hadji

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@JamieBonkiewicz Yeah? 2020 let you fucks put in CA like voting rules across the country due to COvid, since repealed! These cheating rules allow votes to be gathered and fraudulently filed till Dems win!

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@reelingblazejoe @yechielleiter No country in the world would take ballistic missiles being launched at them and not retaliate! So fuck off!

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@Zoomer_Doomer_ Smear????? He has admitted it all and has refuted nothing!! Are you a complete dumb fuck?

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@hrkbenowen I would because the shithole is going to burn again and the dumb fucks in LA keep doing the same shit and electing shit!

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@billybinion Hey dipshit…Raman’s vote gain is statistically impossible! What do you not get about that dumb fuck?

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@MatthewChapin87 @JeremyCom Hey dumbass, the variance is already factored in the prior samples(votes) received in thus far! In other words dumbass the std deviation of the sample has already been established and this vote drop is so improbable it defies logic. Fucking moron

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@mightyXla @JeremyCom Say you are stupid without saying you are stupid

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@FBIDirectorKash @FBI @dojphofficial

[Jeremy Padawer @JeremyCom]

The odds of Nithya Raman receiving 40% of the vote yesterday are “LESS LIKELY than picking ONE GRAIN OF SAND on Earth dozens of times in a row.” I believe elections tend to be fair. Someone help me make sense of math that seems impossible…

I ASKED CHATGPT -
“What is the statistical likelihood that 40% of votes from a “new batch” of ballots go to a candidate who received 24% of votes from all other batches that represented 95% of counted electorate. Give me a % odds.”

The Answer (Part 1) -
“Assuming the candidate’s “true” share is 24%, the odds that a random new batch lands at 40% or higher depends on batch size:
50 ballots
0.88%
100 ballots
0.028%
200 ballots
0.00004%
500 ballots
~0.00000000000018%
1,000 ballots
~0.0000000000000000000000000035%”

My follow up -
“Assume 40,000 ballots. Are the odds one in a billion? One in a trillion? Worse? This seems to be happening in Los Angeles Mayor’s race between Mayor Bass, Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman.”

The Answer (Part 2) -
“If the 40,000-ballot batch were drawn from the same population that produced 24% support in the other 95% of votes, then seeing 40% support in that batch would be far beyond “one in a billion” or “one in a trillion.”

75 standard deviations is in an entirely different universe.

The probability is approximately:

~10⁻¹²²⁰

or about

1 chance in 10¹²²⁰

That’s a number with roughly 1,220 zeros after the 1.

Statistically, if the batch were truly a random sample of the same electorate, the odds are so small that statisticians would effectively treat the event as impossible. The usual conclusion would not be “wow, what a lucky fluctuation,” but rather that the batch is not representative of the earlier ballots—for example, it came from a different geographic area, voting method, demographic group, or subset of voters.

So yes: much worse than one in a billion, much worse than one in a trillion, and vastly smaller than any probability encountered in ordinary statistical analysis.”

My follow up -
“More grains of sand on earth than the likelihood of this?”

The Answer (Part 3) -
“Yes. Much, much more.

Estimated grains of sand on Earth are often put around 10¹⁸ to 10²⁰.

Your odds example was roughly:

1 in 10¹²²⁰

So this is not just “less likely than picking one grain of sand on Earth.”

It’s more like picking the right grain of sand on Earth correctly over and over again dozens of times in a row.”

Sincerely,
Jeremy Padawer
https://t.co/POrFyAfNhH

@spencerpratt @BoredElonMusk @Hotshot_Movie @415FirePhoto
#losangeles #la #fyp #mayor

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@nicksortor Jail them all

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@uspolitics1111 https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@MikeBales Anyone ever see a bigger collection of freaks in their life????

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@IAPolls2022 Does anyone else find it hard to believe that this woman is receiving votes at an exponential rate even compared to Bass! It makes no sense that she could be receiving votes exponentially. Something is very, very wrong g here

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@GovChristie Sure fat fuck

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@marceelias Ahhhh yes, but you keep getting your bald, fat ass kicked

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@RNCResearch https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@Tim_Walz Compared to you dipshit he is a veritable rocket scientist!

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@elonmusk Exactly!!! Makes zero sense!!!

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@lachancenaomi27 https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX

[Carl Americ @CarlAmeric1]

@grahamformaine This is brilliant and it is you in a nutshell you Nazi fuck!!

https://t.co/T8xBzgTnkX