PhysGuy

I love technology, physics, and mathematics. Concerned about the future.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@Couldevbeenking @RealAlexJones You walk up to a polar bear. You kill one of its cubs, you kidnap another and then hit it with a stick. It comes to your house and kills you, your spouse, and your children. It then goes door to door in your neighborhood, killing everyone it encounters. Still make sense?

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@nicksortor Yeah that's just wrong

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@robynngarfield Trump politicized it for points. People are dumb for continuing to politicize it. It will be politicized again by the right if they fix the problem. It's all noise. Stop paying attention to it.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@Citizen__J @sleepy_devo Small, isolated cases of fraud is different than widespread, systematic fraud. That's why that distinction is important. If you can only win your argument by name calling and reductionism, then go for it. You aren't going to convince people outside of your bubble that way.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@jebarne @RepRobertGarcia Nice AI response. Unredacted documents showed potential client names being redacted. What has been released was forced through, with massive Republican opposition. The files were dangled in front of us for political points by the admin. These factors erode trust in the admin.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@AngelaBelcamino Epstein files, Iran War, and Inflation. Americans have been flopping between both parties, because neither have been able to show that they can fix the problem. If you think this presidency is going well, you need to leave your bubble.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@MediumJim @liberscravola I’ve seen no evidence that paid harvesting is widespread, or organized by any political party. I have seen legal consequences for these schemes though. Signature attestation is checked for consistency with voter registration, which requires government ID.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@Citizen__J @sleepy_devo Sounds like they’re catching what fraud does exist. That being low level petty crime. Where’s the evidence that fraud is systematic, organized, and perpetrated by the Democrats?

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@xXSwaggolaXx @sleepy_devo @HSsai If they are associated with a registered voter, and that voter hasn’t voted yet, then they will be counted. If they don’t meet those conditions, they won’t be counted.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@damintoell Remember, percentages are calculated a different way now. RFK Jr taught us the new method.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@jebarne @RepRobertGarcia They’re supposed to release the whole thing. Bill Gates and the Clintons should be prosecuted if they are confirmed to have participated. Unfortunately, the evidence has been concealed and the government refuses to investigate further. That’s the problem here.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@DerrickEvans4WV In out system, consequences follow from a rigorous legal process. During this process, prosecutors present evidence to support their claim. You confidently claim fraud, but provide nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Your position needs development.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@liberscravola The legal system adopts philosophical terms, like burden of proof, because of their logical foundation. Lack of transparency isn’t proof of fraud. No one is required to prove you wrong, or explain anything to you. You’re trying to assert fraud as the default position. It isn’t.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@rockthatketo @aimeeterese He found one instance. That’s not evidence of systematic fraud.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@Rockprincess818 Or it’s become a massive story and more assets have been put towards the counting process. Neither conclusion is proven or disproven by an increase in counting speed.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@Heminator There are mischaracterizations going both ways. People are also claiming that being suspicious of claims of fraud is the same as claiming total confidence in the system. Break out of the brainwashing.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@liberscravola @JohnPhi7056453 The system is fraudulent I just can’t prove it

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@CharlestonSC294 @WallStreetApes Does your model assume a "coin-flip", or binary, probability distribution? On the merit of CA being a blue state alone that model falls apart. I imagine there is an assumption that democratic candidates are equally likely to receive votes by mail, which would be incorrect.

[PhysGuy @KevCestbon]

@CharlestonSC294 @WallStreetApes Your assumption of a uniform random system is flawed. Votes are collected, compiled, and are entered into some master database for presentation. We don't know exactly how this occurs, but that means your probability model is, at best, unjustified. There's more complexity here.