undefined

points

[-]

survivorship bias is a statistical error, why would you invoke planes? especially after saying this:

    Huh? Survival of what? Are you claiming that Democrat fraud was not found only because the perpetrators are all dead?

also, you are the one invoking domestic political factions. I'm merely wondering why a system where it's difficult to attribute fraud to anyone should be allowed to continue. it's probably more likely that a state actor is going to be committing the fraud just to saw chaos and to perhaps one day be too obvious about it.

by hackyhacky1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> why would you invoke planes?

I already told you why planes are relevant. It sounds like you really don't know what survivorship bias is at all. Please read the article [1]. Why are you in such a hurry to a discuss a topic that you don't understand?

Applying survivorship bias to the current "invisible fraud" situation is putting the cart before the horse.

> I'm merely wondering why a system where it's difficult to attribute fraud to anyone should be allowed to continue.

It's difficult to attribute fraud to anyone in most systems, including systems where there is no fraud. Before attempting to attribute fraud, one must first determine that it exists, and that bar has not been met. Does that answer your question?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

by teravor1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

it has been amusing watching you try to pretend that you knew what survivorship bias was. first you assumed it had something to do with death. then you invoked the plane anecdote.

now you link the wikipedia without realizing that over 90% of it has nothing to do with planes.

    > Before attempting to attribute fraud, one must first determine that it exists.

this is an assertion not an argument. I suppose there is no further point to this discussion.

by hackyhacky1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My brother in Christ, you are projecting so hard it hurts. The comment that I responded to simply said "Survivorship bias" in response to a question about only Republicans getting caught doing voter fraud. Your attempt to theorize fraud by imposing the a priori notion of survivorship bias makes no sense. Survivorship bias is an error only when some data points do not "survive", i.e. are excluded from counting. The presuppose the latter part without evidence.

> this is an assertion not an argument

What part of the statement "Before attempting to attribute fraud, one must first determine that it exists." do you disagree with? You are starting from the assumption that fraud exists, then creating a fantasy explanation about who is committing it, without any factual basis at all.