This. You can also get near 98% accuracy with vw and one quadratic interaction over the pixel space. It takes seconds. But that last .8%, forget about ever getting there with infinite training time.
Maybe the assertion that the WaPo is lying is a little bit extreme for some readers. But they do seem to be overstating the case based on the available sources.
> Excited for the unknown and the prospect that he might shake up the establishment.
A lot of people say he isn't part of the establishment. The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me. Why do you have this perception? I am honestly curious.
> The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me.
People usually mean "political establishment" as "people who entered their party's youth org at 14 and since then never left working for their party". Which is bad because a politician who never had to do a real-world job in his life can neither understand nor empathize with the problems of the average population.
The realities of a politician job are wildly disconnected from a "real world" job, though. No "fire/hire at will", for example - once a politician is elected, he/she can serve the term without having to fear unemployment on the next day. No matter how he/she performs, the only way to get rid of an elected politician is criminal behaviour (and as seen with Arpaio, sometimes even openly defying judges is not a reason to be forced to quit).
In Germany, all members of parliament also get a pretty pension package - minimum of 1.682€ per month, which is FAR more than many old people ever get.
Politicians NEVER have to experience the worries of "normal people" like "how am I going to survive as a pensioner?", "how do I feed my kids when I don't have any money left?" or "how am I going to pay rent this month?" - and with a greater and greater rate of "working poor" or unemployed people, the disconnect will rise accordingly.
If being part of the 'establishment' means that you never had to worry about being fired, never had to worry about money, never had to worry about feeding your kids or paying rent -- then Trump is part of the establishment.
Being rich doesn't automatically make you part of the establishment. Leaders of the establishment are often rich as a result of their connections, but the two things are not synonymous.
> I don't live in the US (anymore), so it doesn't really affect me.
Nor do I, but this person is the standard bearer for the stable world order that has helped lift many of us out of poverty, and has promised to continue doing so.
That world order is pretty chill, in comparison to historical standards. It seems rash to claim maintaining it doesn't matter, and that's exactly what this rich white man has campaigned on.
This long perspective is hard to ignore. It feels like we are walking the same historical path now. Let's hope things move slowly enough with respect to security that the trading networks stay intact.
The left has almost no political power. It is also the popular majority. There are more registered democrats in the us than republicans. Clinton is likely to win the popular vote. The system is physically designed, by districting and the electoral college, to support the political minority. You are conflating the actual demographics with the electoral system, which is lending more power to an oppressive point of view that is precisely what the political elite cultivates.
Just because he's leading in the popular vote now doesn't mean he won the popular vote. The New York Times projects that Clinton will win the popular vote once all the ballots have been counted.
Right now it's projecting a margin of 0.7% It's pretty hard to call that a mandate from a clear majority. I think we've got to accept that what we have is a deeply divided country, not a highly vocal minority.
There are many people such as myself in places like NY or California that don't vote because we know our votes don't matter, so it may be that in a popular vote election we'd see a greater margin for Clinton.
I wonder what it would look like if you took the percentages that voted for each candidate and scaled it to the population of the state, and then used that to total the scaled popular vote?
Of course, there's many problems with that, foremost being that you can't assume that those that didn't vote did so in the same relative percentages of support that those that did vote. For example, I imagine there's a higher percentage of Democrats/Clinton supporters in CA and NY that didn't vote compared to the alternatives, and the opposite is likely true of predominantly red states.
When will people learn that polls and "projections" from mainstream media etc are ridiculously wrong on this.
They were wrong on Brexit. They were wrong on Trump. Maybe once more countries have results like this the polsters and media will start actually engaging with real people.
I don't mean to sound offensive but you do understand how the US election system works, right?
It is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election. I don't think anyone is spinning the fact she won the popular vote to mean she should've won.
The President is elected by the electoral college who aren't directed by popular vote but by electorates.
Given current tallies, Trump will probably lose the popular vote by over a million. And he won't break 300 in the Electoral College. This is a very, very narrow win.
This is the third-closest result in the electoral college since 1960 (first that included AK and HI). The next two were G. W. Bush's two wins. It's the second-tightest in the popular vote since then (the results I see have Clinton ahead by about 200K; JFK beat Nixon by ~100K).
Our most recent president, Obama, absolutely destroyed Trump's results as far as having a "mandate", if that's what winning is considered. He got twice as many electoral votes as McCain and a margin of 7% in the popular. The win over Romney was tighter but still in a different order than this election.
Reagan got a mandate in 1984. The talk of "mandate" this year is utter, complete, uncontestable political horse puckey.
In this case the popular result is very likely the opposite of what you assert. That is, Clinton will probably win the popular vote and lose the presidency.
So popular sentiment is actually in support of an open, connected world. The political structures in the US systematically oppress this majority, due to its concentration in cities and the legacy of a voting system that respects territory over people.
Is it really sustainable? I guess at this point that's as much a question about the future of world culture as anything. Are we going to continue feeding their machine?
They have 1.79 billion monthly actives. See any threats on the horizon? I don't. Snapchat for example is more likely to remove a chunk of Twitter's audience than harm Facebook. I can't name a single fast rising Facebook competitor, anywhere in the western world (China obviously has its own social juggernauts).
It's likely to continue to be the only social network in the west that is truly wide, spanning almost everyone. That will probably be worth $40+ billion in ad sales in two or three years.
15 years ago, who thought a search engine could scale to $80 billion in advertising? Essentially nobody. Microsoft at the time had $23 billion in sales. You would have been laughed off the planet if you forecast Google's search engine to be worth so much.
Have you seen how many people use ad blockers? I'm finding people on Reddit and Imgur who talk about using NoScript and uMatrix! People are learning, but as with all things, it takes time.
Except there is no evidente that anyone would care. They are sharing huge amounts of data on individuals with third parties. People continue to use and pay for the service.
Businesses have a tendency to protect themselves in a much more proactive way than individuals seem to do. Most people react when companies abuse their relationship. Businesses have IP to protect along with consider the implications for insider trading? What if a publicly trading company used this platform for their employees and conversation eluded to something which gave anyone someone at Facebook access to this information.
People don't feel comfortable sharing their pictures of cats and such but businesses have their livelihood to protect.
