Sentences with phrase «n't fake data»

Further, they are highly visible as allies of the activists and residents, and that visibility makes them an easy target; hence, they won't fake data or let laypeople do so.

Expect the comments below to be filled with changing goalposts, poisoning of the well (something along the lines of «scientists shouldn't be investigating scientists», even though what they were investigating was Dr. Mann's scientific conduct), distractions, diversions, and just general noise — anything to bury the cold fact that the scientists involved with modeling global warming did not cheat, did not fake any data, and the bigger issue that climate change is real.

Not exact matches

(Yes, there are some questions about fake likes, but since I'm interested in comparative data, we don't have to worry about those right now.)

According to reports, Macron's digital team created dummy accounts, or honeypots, that looked like an individual's account with top level information from the campaign, but much of the contents was fake — planted specifically to render a data dump confusing, if not useless, since it would take a tremendous amount of time for reporters and citizen journalists to sort out the real from the fake.

At a similar panel in New York earlier in January that was dedicated to technology and media in the 2016 election, top journalists from legacy media organizations like the Associated Press and new media organizations like the data - journalism website FiveThirtyEight picked over the carcass of the election, pondering why data analysts misjudged Trump's electoral strength and how readers themselves often didn't necessarily possess the media literacy to sift through fake and poorly reported news.

«Most reputable data firms are using proven predictive modeling techniques on an individual level, whereas Cambridge was guilty of using fancy fake science terms on unwitting politicians who do not understand how data analytics work.

Other issues raised by the committee included why Facebook does not provide an overall control or opt - out for political advertising; why it does not offer a separate feed for ads but chooses to embed them into the Newsfeed; how and why it gathers data on non-users; the addictiveness engineered into its product; what it does about fake accounts; why it hasn't recruited more humans to help with the «challenges» of managing content on a platform that's scaled so large; and aspects of its approach to GDPR compliance.

Tufekci offers up a number of recommendations for Facebook, including sharing data with outside researchers to better understand how misinformation spreads and the extent of filter bubbles, 1 acting much more aggressively to eliminate fake news like it does spam and other objectionable content, rehiring human editors, and retweaking its algorithm to favor news balance, not just engagement.

Just as with other recent large - scale data manipulations, from the recent Strava app fiasco to the widescale distribution and spread of fake news on social media, Cambridge Analytica didn't «hack» our internet usage and our Facebook information so much as exploit the way the system was naturally designed to work.

The company isn't facing one scandal — it's facing two: one about Russian disinformation and fake news, and one about user privacy and data security.

[Note: the interviews for this poll were conducted prior to recent stories about Cambridge Analytica's data mining of Facebook user profiles, which, while not directly a «fake news» issue, is related to the topic.]

This fluctuation could be exploited by someone who knew the fake scare was coming, but we do not have access to the data that would allow us to know whether this happened.

If it weren't for data privacy, fake news and hate speech taking up so much air time, this year's Facebook conference would've probably centered around a far less controversial topic: augmented reality.

Weekly Axis Of Easy # 45 In this issue: Krebs: Don't give up historical info about yourself online Drupalgeddon2 critical patch update Largest Black Lives Matter page on Facebook is actually fake Google's dossier on you is much larger than Facebook's YouTube illegally collects data on children Wozniak deletes his Facebook page Apple to kill iTunes... [Read more]

«But it's clear now we didn't do enough — focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people could use these tools to do harm as well, and that goes for fake news, foreign interference and hate speech, in addition to application developers and data privacy.»

«We didn't focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people could use these tools to do harm as well, and that goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, hate speech, in addition to developers and data privacy.»

btw, «I do nt know for the first 4», and «it's all fake for # 5», is not a response that provides data explaining anything...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please don't use your opinion (which is an opinion — not a fact) to shame or scare people into doing or not doing something; especially if you do not have any factual evidence (as opposed to «fake» evidence — the foundation for the entire anti-vaccinne movement has been debunked as scientifically inaccurate, so there is no data which backs up the claim that vaccines cause autism) to back up your stance.

He was referring to Clinton's assertions during her talk that fake news about her was spread on Facebook, and that the Democratic Party, unlike the well - funded Republicans, did not have a sophisticated data system.

A news piece from NY Post where, on the basis that one Census employees that performed the data collection (so, a low level position) admitted adding fake interviews (not for political reasons but to reach «productivity» objectives).

Matthew Evans is responsible for placing fake signals into LIGO data to test the system - so he knew right away that the gravitational wave signal wasn't a test

Petigura actually introduced fake planets into the Kepler data in order to determine which ones his software could detect and which it couldn't.

I know I should be nice and not mention too much about faked data.

This kind of news isn't necessarily fake, but I tell students that in an argument, any argument, if we want to be respected for sophistication, we must find ways to gather evidence through true data, not biased opinions.

Those half - a-million exclusive authors should not stand for fake data and merchandising lists.

Now, if I go out on a tangent I definitely can imagine situations where it works: The attacker is using a fake or insecure wifi hotspot to intercept data and you use this wifi hotspot for one part, but not the other.

«The most hideously egregious data fabrication» «In comparison, Mann 08 uses initially questionable data which has not been calibrated to temperature (tree rings), chops the end off of nearly every proxy and pastes fake temperature data on the end as a replacement (I could have previously imagined) calibrates the fake data to temperature using methods which amplify recent trends compared to history and then throws away anything which doesn't fit his pre-determined conclusion.

We all learn fairly early that some of the most arrogant scientists can actually be (often are) right; that an unwillingness to share data does not mean that it is faked; that complaints about colleagues are not usually politically motivated; that dumb ideas are not always acted upon.

Caveats like we may have got one or two proxies upside down, like we may have faked some of the data that did not fit too well.

With the addition of 4 - 5 years more data the fake - skeptics are now proclaiming we don't have enough data.

Each of the comments were put under different category of «conspiracy theory», such as «didn't email deniers», «Warmists faked data», and «Emailed warmists before deniers».

REPLY: Ah typical anonymous warmist, when cornered with facts and data they can't refute, they go down the «faked» and «obsession» route.

Not real - real - fake, real - fake or fake data, Bob.

He knows that he is safe, because if the Fake Skeptics say: Warmist don't have even 0,0000000000001 % of the data ESSENTIAL, for knowing what is the temp; would have exposed that:» their lies about past phony GLOBAL warmings have even less data».

Therefore there's no point to the exercise anymore — they can fake all the data they want, it doesn't matter.

Just because not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the data doesn't make them «fakes».

So, with confidence, Man's conclusion was:» now is 1C warmer planet than 1000y ago» Ian Plimer's Zombies can not say that: -» data for 1012AD is almost non-existent — because at that time the earth was flat — 70 % of the GLOBAL surface area didn't exist»... Because the» Fake Fundamentalist» have being constantly lying that» at that time THE WHOLE PLANET was warmer, Mann and the rest of the Swindlers can rub Fake's noses... on innocent people's expenses.

Tamino has just now shown that RATPAC balloon thermometer data of the lower troposphere does not support a «pause» in warming over the past 18 years as fake skeptics claim RSS data do.

They come to genuinely believe weather equals climate, and all the usual climate myths, because they think AGW is a giant liberal conspiracy, so none of the data can be trusted and you do nt need to apply logical analysis because its all a conspiracy and fake data and equations anyway.

The big point is that the data were not faked.

There's buttons you can click, but all of the data is fake, and it's not going to be as pretty.

While it didn't appear to be stealing data or harboring other malicious code, it's still a fake app being used to make money.

Last month, both Facebook representatives and Nix told the parliamentary inquiry into fake news that the company did not have or use private Facebook data, or any data from GSR.

Last month, Facebook's UK director of policy, Simon Milner, told British MPs on a select committee inquiry into fake news, chaired by Conservative MP Damian Collins, that Cambridge Analytica did not have Facebook data.

The Obama folks did not create a fake Facebook application that would then harvest data about your Facebook friends.

The Obama folks pulled readily accessible information directly from the social graph, they didn't craft any fake apps to harvest your data behind the scenes.

Dropbox may not be mired by accusations of spreading fake news or mishandling personal user data, but it is growing in an environment tainted by a lack of employee diversity.

That the company resorted to fake graffiti suggests it certainly wasn't above using underhanded tactics, though the misbehavior it is accused of in the U.S. — inappropriately harvesting 50 million Facebook profiles to beef up its political - data efforts in 2014 — are a great deal more complicated.

«We didn't focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people could use these tools to do harm... That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, hate speech, in addition to developers and data privacy.»

«We didn't focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people could use these tools to do harm as well, and that goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, hate speech, in addition to developers and data privacy.»