Quote:
Originally Posted by thethethe
I'll likely read that, but everything I've seen about Cambridge Analytica is BS hype. It's like someone making the right move even though they leveled themselves.
However, Mercer did make billions data mining then-unknown statistical correlations in market variables and he's clearly intelligent when it comes to such things, particularly in a pre-deep learning form. (He was working on machine translation for IBM using similar tech in the 90s, which has been entirely eclipsed by machine translation via deep learning, though some of the underlying methods and data handling/processing, I believe, are similar.)
So, Cambridge Analytica can surely tell you that a 25 y/o unmarried or "it's complicated" woman in NE Ohio who likes basset hounds and gin rummy only has a 48% chance to vote (assuming they can get real names and cross-reference them to voting rolls) and a 35% chance to support Trump (assuming they can get that % via some other demographic data, like exit polls, which aren't accurate at such a granular level. They can't get who you voted for from the state or any other source).
So, great, maybe you know where the non-voters are who are likely to support your candidate, but actually getting them to vote or persuading others to support your candidate is the same old problem that campaign managers/workers/supporters have faced for the last 100-200 years.
There is nothing that I can tell that gives them a significant edge other than puffery and confusing clients and journalists. This is just standard silicon valley-type hype that hopes to explain the "conspiratorial" election of Trump.
Well, I have news for you, Trump was elected because people are racist idiots who down know how government or public policy work, don't understand law or history, are easily mislead by propaganda and flattery, and their own overly-simplistic emotionally-based self-justifying understanding of reality. That will be $1M dollars, tyvm.
Last edited by simplicitus; 03-30-2017 at 07:16 PM.