Great article. But put your "Dilbert filter" on to understand how ten witnesses can hear ten different versions of what a supervisor said to the entire room. https://twitter.com/BraveNew1984ish/status/1335938984870998016 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
True. It's just that one movie is a live video feed, and the other movie is an infomercial trying to get your credit card information.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Logic error. You assume a random sample, when it is more likely that a polarized sample has come forward.
-
Very true. Polarized in a few different ways, which brings out a very *particular* subset of witness.https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/26813/giuliani_s_michigan_witness_mellissa_carone_harassed_sent_sex_videos_to_boyfriend_s_ex …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well, yes. Higher than 90%, of course. If 10% of a data set is bad - bad meaning intentionally falsified - that factor is relevant, but that data itself is not. Folks pretending they have COVID19 for sympathy wouldn't be tabulated with total COVID19 cases, for example.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No. It means 10% of population can lie for President, and Lawyers can easily find 1000 people from that group to get affidavits from. Note affidavits aren’t taken from a random sample of the population, it’s targeted to only those are willing to say election was fraud.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.