Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't we have enough of these that we can use machine learning to create a profile and probability number to predict when these things will happen?Sorry, the "still at work" part of my brain is on. I don't like the spying on American People thing. 😐
But it seems that you could build profiles based on internet activity and get a strong result on people who are at a great risk. Maybe I'm not aware of how many types fit this profile and they would be drowned in a sea of hundreds of thousands to millions who match a profile like this.
How would you separate the real ones from the Chairborne Rangers who would never actually do something? Cos I'd wager the ratio of legit attackers to eWarriors is hundreds of thousands (or more?) to one.
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Look at this person losing it
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not implying anything, you silly retard.Now do you have anything to say on the topic or are you just here to derail and complain as usual because my post had the word "Trump" in it and you knee-jerked as you're known to do with any concerning your tangerine god?
Originally posted by RobtardWell that didn't take long.
I just invited you to discuss the topic/shooting, you retard.
Is this the kind of lowest common denominator scumbaggery we can expect out of Beni in 20 years?
Originally posted by Robtard
How would you separate the real ones from the Chairborne Rangers who would never actually do something? Cos I'd wager the ratio of legit attackers to eWarriors is hundreds of thousands (or more?) to one.
And I'd wager your wager is correct.
However, what if both of us are wrong and there is a clear pattern that can be gleaned from online activity that has a strong correlation to attack or soon to attack?
This is not science fiction. We can do this already with certain types of AI that can eerily predict what you want to purchase next (lead a project like that...dude...it gets scary, sometimes...humans feel more and more like decision tree machines and less...."sapient" the more you get into these things).
This is Minority Report levels of prediction. If we could predict, with an accuracy, of even 25%, would you support spying on online activity?
I don't. I draw the line. Innocent until proven guilty. Freedom. 4th Ammendment, etc. But it is an interesting concept. And, obviously, I want to stop mass murders before they happen.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not saying it's absolutely wrong or impossible, I'm asking how it would actually work in real-time cos it's interesting to me.ie How is a computer going to distinguish from legit psycho talking about shooting up a building and an eWarrior who would never actually do it doing the same?
Well, for prediction, it would come up with profiles that match particular variables. But it would have to be good at identifying those profiles which is the hard part. A certain combination or a certain saturation in each profile would hit a tipping point that would "flag" the user*. A "trigger." Then you would get a warrant for that once the AI flagged the online user as a potential threat.
And there should be profiles that can be created that can separate out the shit-talking, small-penis, "day turk er jeerrbz!" types from real threats. There will be clear distinguishing behaviors between the two.
The unfortunate thing is, we'd have to collect enough information on attackers to calibrate those profiles. That means people have to die to make this system work. 😐
Also, this is all high-level theory and it assumes these profiles can be created to begin with: could be there is too much variance and this is a bullshit endeavor.
*For instance, you have profiles x, y, and z. And in order to hit a tipping point, based off of previous attackers, you'd have to experience a 60% total saturation across x, y, and z or 90% in just x, or any combination that would be discovered doing calibration and analysis.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, for prediction, it would come up with profiles that match particular variables. But it would have to be good at identifying those profiles which is the hard part. A certain combination or a certain saturation in each profile would hit a tipping point that would "flag" the user*. A "trigger." Then you would get a warrant for that once the AI flagged the online user as a potential threat.And there should be profiles that can be created that can separate out the shit-talking, small-penis, "day turk er jeerrbz!" types from real threats. There will be clear distinguishing behaviors between the two.
The unfortunate thing is, we'd have to collect enough information on attackers to calibrate those profiles. That means people have to die to make this system work. 😐
Also, this is all high-level theory and it assumes these profiles can be created to begin with: could be there is too much variance and this is a bullshit endeavor.
*For instance, you have profiles x, y, and z. And in order to hit a tipping point, based off of previous attackers, you'd have to experience a 60% total saturation across x, y, and z or 90% in just x, or any combination that would be discovered doing calibration and analysis.
Hmmm. Yes, I see, dadudemon. hmm
You're either completely talking out of your ass or you may be onto something. hmm
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hmmm. Yes, I see, dadudemon. hmmYou're either completely talking out of your ass or you may be onto something. hmm
It's actually sort of both. I have no idea what I'm talking about as it applies to criminal profiles and my big data and predictive analysis crap comes from the business world, not criminal sciences. So, yes, talking out of my ass for the most part.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Is this true ? I've never looked into this leech's program but I do recall Adam exposing him. Just can't recall the details.
Originally posted by quanchi112
He touched a nerve. I may Google or pm Adam.🙂
Ask, and you will receive:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In order to enroll in CountyCare, one must be receiving Medicaid. This is because CountyCare is merely the Cook County Medicaid provider. In order to be Medicaid-eligible, one must be a child, a senior, pregnant, disabled (you claim you are not), and/or destitute (you also claim you are not). So how are you receiving CountyCare if you were lying about receiving public assistance for being both disabled and poor?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since you are not a child, a senior, or a pregnant woman, the only way you would be eligible to receive it, is if you were already receiving disability or welfare. That is the whole point. It does not matter whether CountyCare qualifies as public assistance—it does—rather, that you must already be receiving public assistance to even qualify for it. By acknowledging you receive CountyCare, you are inadvertently revealing that you are receiving disability, welfare, or both. Which means you lied when you said you lied about being on public assistance across the board, no matter which way you look at it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a "gotcha," because you said that you lied about being on both disability and welfare. You then admitted you receive CountyCare, which you are not eligible to receive unless you are on disability and/or welfare. You just proved that you lied. You are on disability and/or welfare, and you lied when you said you were not.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, he was lying.And HOW is it abusing the system? You haven't explained?
No, I was not lying. In fact, I do not lie. Why lie, particularly in this instance, when the truth is so much more unflattering?
The State of Illinois and Cook County Health & Hospitals System (CCHHS) operate a Medicaid program for uninsured adults in Cook County called CountyCare. This is a Medicaid program through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -snip
Just hilarious that it's a branch off of Obamacare. You know, that evil thing ruining the country; which needs to be torn down. Oh Trumpers...
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, it does. Cos you can't be on CC unless you're already on disability. Was Adam lying now, cos he also lives in Chicago.Not sure. But how does that excuse abusing the system?
In Illinois, there is a one-stop portal for public assistance. Meaning, that if you apply for one public assistance program, you are automatically enrolled in other qualifying programs.
For example, if someone is so low-income, e.g. 133% below the federal poverty level in the case of CountyCare, that he cannot afford medical care, he automatically qualifies for SNAP, i.e. food stamps. Because someone who is so poor he cannot afford insurance, by the same criteria cannot afford food.
And Illinois, being a blue state, does not want to burden its poor citizens even more, by making them find and fill out dozens of separate applications with the same information. So if you fill out an application for one public assistance program, e.g. CountyCare, you are automatically applied for every program you qualify for.