SmartVoting isn’t simply data, however. They have a “proprietary algorithm” that they refuse to share.

Not only that, but if the true goal of the site is strategic voting to keep Conservatives out of office, then you’d think that in a tied race between an NDP and Liberal candidate, with the Cons a distant third, there wouldn’t be a strategic vote recommendation at all.

And yet, in a riding in that exact situation, with a NDP incumbent tied with a Liberal candidate yet to be named, it was recommending people vote for the Liberal up until a day or two ago (Hamilton Centre, Matthew Green’s riding).

Then you start digging a little deeper and realize that the SmartVoting site is mostly (but not entirely - they have their secret algorithm!) based on the projections from 338. Which are reasonably accurate overall. However, in the recent Ontario election they under-projected the NDP’s seat count significantly, projecting 16 seats, whereas they actually ended up winning 27.

I’m not a statistician, but that seems like a remarkable jump. If I had to guess, it’s that 338’s model is not capturing something about the NDP or their voter base, whether that’s the party’s ground game, incumbency, or some other hard-to-quantify aspect.

So I mean, if it were just data then sure, don’t shoot the messenger! But the problem is more that the modeling and recommendations seem like they have real flaws, probably unintentional, but flaws nonetheless. And projections and recommendations can and will influence voter behaviour.

Hey just FYI when you type in alternating lowercase & capitals it makes it impossible for blind or sight-impaired people using screenreaders to understand you

This is an interesting comment, because on the one hand, you’re saying that Carney’s plan is not likely to be very effective, but on the other hand you’re saying he sounds smart and that’s reassuring.

To me that sounds like the definition of an emotional response … no?

“Independent media should be allowed on the precinct, there’s no reason why it should be a small cabal of government approved mouthpieces,” Poilievre said.

Hmm ok yeah that’s a fair point I guess

“I would love to see a scenario where every different kind of journalist from all backgrounds, of all opinions, is given a chance to report on what happens on the hill.”

Interesting, sure, go on

Poilievre’s spokesperson, Sebastian Skamski, did not respond to multiple requests from PressProgress seeking clarification …

Ahhhhhh there it is

“Zuckerberg’s interaction with the page was first noticed by Gazpacho Machine, a man who posts reviews of food he eats while taking showers.”

the internet was a mistake

Not to mention that their napkin math is wrong by a factor of 12

Regardless of what happened on the sidelines, Hawkins added that on the field, there was sportsmanship, as some of the Bow soccer players reached out to the transgender girl on the Plymouth team.

“Some of the fellow soccer players from Bow actually sent supportive letters of love and support and encouraging that student to continue to play,” Hawkins said.

The kids are alright ❤️

You may want to double-check that math ;)

Did no one in the replies happen to notice that this is a loan

I would like to hear you say it

What’s strange about defending people’s freedom to be themselves?

Why not do both?

What’s the problem with drag queens reading to kids, exactly?

With energy companies, you mean? Like, we’ve seen federal governments of various countries cancel (or re-approve) pipelines all the time - Keystone XL comes to mind, for instance

The people stalking our neighbourhoods preying on people’s success

Interesting phrase there. Whole piece was definitely overblown, but this kinda gives away the game.

I recently read a super weird essay written in 2017 2007 by the other Palantir founder, Peter Thiel, called ‘The Straussian Moment’ - and it’s wild how they’re still talking about some of the exact same things.

For anyone wanting insight into the particular brand of fascism coming out of silicon valley these days, it’s worth a read.

I’ll be honest, I have zero sympathy for any landlord here. Rent control is necessary to (hopefully) make sure there is housing that people can afford to live in - and acts as a kind of limit to the extraction of an ever-increasing portion of the paychecks of the working class by the landlord class.

If the renter loses the ability to pay for a home, they become homeless. If a landlord loses the ability to pay for a property, they become a renter. Economic conditions changed? How about this: these landlords should sell, and make property prices drop a little, instead of having renters getting kicked onto the street.

Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn’t read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)

Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, “why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude” - which it sounds like we agree on!

How on earth is it possible for an arbitrator to just override legislation like this?

Ok yeah that’s super interesting, and maybe kinda sums up the whole thing: the devs make tech that reduces the opportunity for thought and engagement, and that frictionless experience results in worse outcomes for users, but better outcomes for profits.

And yet, paradoxically, there are probably plenty more folks like yourself that would prefer to use a different kind of app!