billsfan89

The proposals for using algorithms have been illustrated to be open systems that anyone can have access to. I fail to see how that's a closed system. If you have an algorithm deciding redistricting on parameters set up by a Democratic process that removes human digression and bias from redistricting. Yes not everyone can read code and the technology solution is not perfect but I pose to you should this be in the direct hands of legislators who have a conflict of interest in deciding 10 years of Congressional elections? I have faith in the citizenry to vet an open algorithm. I don't have faith to leave the system the way it is and just go after corruption as though there isn't any inherent conflict of interest in the pols deciding the districts to begin with. Yes not everyone can read code but everyone can have their voice on how the simple parameters are set up (What are the voter registration numbers and other forms of data that should be set) those factors you can have a direct voice to your representative. I understand your concerns about technical limitations of the electorate but the code and parameters being out in the open makes it much harder to hide corruption than any system where people with little restrictions decide based off of their own digressions behind closed doors. That's why I ask what's the alternative because even if you had a hardline stance on corruption and somehow eliminated corruption you still are handing over massive power to partisan legislatures to decide Congressional districts with little guidelines on how to do so. Independent commissions are probably the best in-between but as you said there is a limit to just how "Independent" commissions can be (Although I would take the Colorado and California model over most others.) Once again I don't think this is a perfect solution as I am not sure a perfect solution exists. But out of all available options taking the drawing of the lines out of the hands of the pols who stand to benefit from how the lines are drawn and putting it into the process of an open algorithm makes it a much better system.

I will believe Tom Brady's decline when I see it, to me Brady still looks like a top 5 QB. Father time is undefeated I don't doubt Brady will start to decline at some point and maybe that point is now, I don't think there has been a QB that has played well beyond age 40 so it possible he has started to hit the wall or at least the beginning of the wall. But Brady's numbers still are good, over 2 to 1 TD to INT ration, 67% plus completion percentage and on pace for right around 4000 yards. So even if Brady's are strength is starting to become limited it hasn't shown to be a problem for him in any meaningful way during games. That's not to say that it won't be a problem in the future as maybe teams get more tape and figure out ways to make them pay for it. But I also think BB will gameplan around any limitations.

That's kind of the way I looked at it. The team put Peterman in way over his head and he played like a player in way over his head. That's not to say that Peterman would have been anything special had he been a third stringer for 3-4 years to start his career, but rather that his career would have stood a chance at some sort of progression had he been handled like a standard mid round QB.

Dude was put in a bad position and he just wasn't good enough to cut it at a pro-level at least not without many years of development. I think Peterman's biggest issue was his lack of arm strength and how in over his head he was in general which led to bad decision making. McD's biggest flaw as head coach has been how poorly he has handled the QB situation. He made a panic move by taking out Tyrod when they hit a tough part of the schedule and Tyrod had a ***** receiving core which made his limited play even more limited. Peterman was overexposed and it clearly shell shocked him the rest of his career. McD then made a 3 way QB competition (which was a mistake, AJ should have just been the starter and given Allen the other reps, McD should have known that Peterman's good off-season play wasn't going to translate to the NFL one year later.) Then there was the lack of a veteran QB after the AJ trade and the fact that he got fooled twice by Peterman's pre-season play. McD's bad handling of the QB situation was evidenced by Peterman's career being historically bad but I do think that Peterman would have stood a chance at a NFL career had he been treated like a 3rd string QB for at least his first 2-3 years in the league. Instead McD overvalued him twice and that put him in vastly over his head.

First off in what most people propose the algorithms would be publicly available and free for anyone to challenge line by line. The parameters to which the algorithms work would also be available and set through a democratic process (Thus being a completely open and Democratic process.) You extrapolate that because I said either party can (keyword can) challenge the way the algorithm is written isn't to say that they are the ONLY ones who can. Any interest would have equal access to the technology. You have failed to provide me with a logical reason as to how this is less transparent and what the alternative is other than some vague generality about corruption. So this process is not about giving more power to the two party system but rather about taking out corruptible human digression as much as possible from the process or redistricting and making the process of redistricting more openly available to the public. I fail to see how you have illustrated that this proposed process is not dramatically better and addresses critical issues. Step by step I have illustrated how this process would improve a critical part of Democracy and be more transparent than any system that would rely on politicians or direct human digression. I think having publicly available technology with Democratically set parameters is much more accountable to the public. Any citizen could look up and have access to the technology and understand the parameters to which the code is set. Yes not everyone is computer literate enough to understand the code or has the time to comb through all that code but most people don't have access to the people and pols that decide the redistricting currently. You act as though every citizen has such a direct hand in the process that is currently used or that a human discretionary system would give people more access to the decision making. I have illustrated that it is simply not the case. The technology proposed is thought to be openly available to the public and open to any legal challenges from anyone, the parameters to which the algorithm is set are decided through a Democratic process. This is as open to the public as a system could possibly get.

Who crafts the laws? Who narrowly defines what corruption is? Who enforces the criminal penalties? Who polices the police? These types of hardline corruption fights have been used to enforce one party rule. These solutions can cause more problems than they solve. Once again your reductive form of questioning can be used to undermine anything involving humans and politics. You need a more concrete and specific plan of action and better reasoning to state why the technology available to help the problem shouldn't be used. Just to be clear I agree that there is an issue with corruption in America. I am for taking money out of the political process as best we can do it and harsher penalties and enforcement of political corruption. But on this one particular issue of gerrymandering I have failed to see any argument you have put forward that isn't a general reductionist claim (that could be applied to almost anything) that actually states why there shouldn't be the use of this technology in this process.

What's your solution? Other than a bland we have to fight corruption? How do you fight corruption? Who appoints the police of corruption? Who polices those police? How do you get people in power to check their own power? You can reduce anything involving humans to those types of basic questions. Fighting corruption has been the charge that dictitors have used to drive away opposition. Fighting corruption results in more problems than it solves. Now I don't actually believe those questions about corruption but I am stating that you can use that line of reductive "Who will police the police" style of questioning to make a general undermining of any argument. You stated that no solution is perfect. I am offering a better idea as to how technology can be used as a tool to better do this process. You have not provided me with a sensible solution as to how the tool of algorithms and technology shouldn't be used in the process of redistricting. You also have not provided me with how algorithms aren't transparent? If one party has questions about the algorithm they can hire their own tech experts to question and scrutinize the code and parameters. That's much more concrete process than trusting human intuition.

I am making the argument that there is a proven non-hypothetical solution to the problem using technology. I am making the argument that there exists technology already developed that uses raw data to develop districts which results in better districts that actually make sense. Technology is not impervious to corruption but the tool of technology in this instance is more transparent and more accountable. It allows humans with political bias and motivation for corruption to be just enough removed from the process to avoid corruption even further. You said yourself that no solution is perfect but the technology proposed provides a better tool and better solution to root out corruption in a process that is integral to Democracy. I agree that the problem is corruption the use of technology to make a less corrupt process is a good solution. The only other solution is to have independent commissions as they do in California and Colorado but then you still have the same reductive questions of who is on the commission, who puts the people on the commissions, won't the people on the commissions have their own bias,. and who sets the criteria they have to follow? Those same reductive questions you have about algorithms you can have about any solution to the problem. So I fail to see how using the tool of an algorithms is a non-sequitur. I also fail to see how an algorithm is less transparent and less accountable? You can check each line of code, you can check the parameters, and check the results and how they were calculated. Each party and each entity interested can challenge the algorithm with their own tech experts. What is your solution other than a general we have to fight corruption? I am proposing that you fight corruption with the use of technology, I am not sure you even have a non-generic solution.

Many programmers have made prototypes for redistricting algorithms. The algorithms use public data (probably because that's the only data available to them, assuming you had "official" data available the process would improve) like census data, voter registration data, average distance between a voter and the center of their district, and other metrics involving physical location and population to draw the districts. Rather than the current model of whichever party is in charge just decides the lines with very little guidelines as to how they have to draw the lines. You can see one of the algorithms prototypes on the website below where they compare their model to the lines drawn in 2010. So these aren't exactly hypothetical ideas and you can see that the lines drawn on the site below both make more sense and the standard metrics also add up much better. As to the who develops these algorithms and sets the criteria of the algorithms I would trust independent commissions and other control mechanisms such as enforcing certain criteria that lines must be drawn on. The algorithms are just a tool to help remove some of the human element that is so easily corrupted. Its not a perfect solution as humans still have to handle and develop algorithms but the solution is much much better than what we have and much better than trusting the human element. https://bdistricting.com/2010/

The 2017 draft is already a very good draft class regardless of how Zay pans out. White is a top 5 player at a critical position while Milano is already a borderline pro-bowl player, Dawkins is a high end player at a critical offensive position. Zay being a bust would prevent it from being a great draft class but if Zay panned out even as just a good slot receiver that class is a great draft class. The early returns on 2018 are good but mixed. Edumonds, Phillips and Johnson are 3 good young players on the defense all of whom look like they could be high end starters or even pro-bowl players on the defense. Teller could be a starting guard on the offense which would be another solid addition. Obviously you are right about Allen he is a big wildcard. But if (and this is a big IF) you in two drafts get two players on the offensive line, a good receiver, your franchise QB, two starting linebackers, a starting DT, and two corners that's building quite the foundation of your team. That's literally 4 starters on offense and 5 starters on defense in two drafts. That's the type of drafting that starts dynasties. Once again still a long way to go on a lot of these players and your most important piece is still a huge question mark.

Zay is slowly proving he is worthy of a WR3 or WR2 spot. But the jury is still out as to how high his impact will be. I think the team still needs two receivers either high in the draft or via higher end free agency. But I do think that Zay should at least enter into the season as the WR3 unless he completely disappears the rest of the way in which case I would have him occupy the WR4 spot and make him compete for a top 3 WR spot.

I agree with there needing to be some sort of paper receipt for voting but there is so much technology involved in how we vote and technology is used so much that I don't think there is a sound logical argument against the use of algorithms to help determine voting maps. Algorithms are programmed by humans and the parameters of how the map is drawn is once again defined by humans. The models and prototypes proposed define election maps by using data such as registered voters in areas and municipal boundaries. Once again it is much easier to challenge a line of code than it is to challenge a back door political deal. I just don't think there really exists a sound argument against the use of technology as opposed to politicians to draw our district lines. You know the current model has failed when 47% of people vote for one party but that party only happens to get 23% of the representatives.

The defense should at least have 3 players voted in. Hyde, Hughes, Proyer, Milano, and Tre White all deserve consideration (White is a lock in my opinion any of the other 4 can go either way.) The only player on offense that deserves consideration is Dawkins but that's a stretch despite grading out well he is probably looked at around the league as the best player on a bad or mediocre unit.

Lets assume the best case scenario here and say that Zay Jones is a solid slot receiver (lets assume his play continues to be stronger over the last 6 games of the season) and lets assume that Wyatt Teller is a really good guard (once again if he plays well over the next 6 games you can feel more confident in that) there still exists a lot of holes on the offense. The team needs 2 WR's and a tight end of the future. The team needs 3 starters on the offensive line (C, RG, and RT) and the team also needs a young RB behind Shady. That's 5 starters the team needs on offense plus some youth at older positions. That's a lot of help the team needs. I am hoping that they sign a capable vet WR like Golden Tate and draft at least two WR's in the first three rounds. Then I hope they invest heavily at C and RG in free agency and spend a high pick at RT. Then in the mid rounds where you have extra picks you can draft backups for Clay and Shady while still cherry picking some depth at defense. Bottom line is that if Teller and Zay look like viable pieces on offense that makes things better but it doesn't mean the team is just one or two pieces away from fielding a good offense around Allen.

The government uses machines to count votes, if your argument is that there should be no involvement of technology in the franchise of voting then we are far beyond that point. Having humans draw the lines based off of almost no criteria is not the solution and using technology to help implement the HUMAN parameters of how we should be drawing our representative maps isn't some handing over of sovereignty more than using machines to count votes is. If you want to fetter out corruption in this instance use the technology that is best available to humans to do so. As I said you can check each line of code and how an algorithm is programmed and challenge each and every single aspect of that in a court composed of humans. You can't have that same level of scrutiny with human subjectivity. I am not sure if you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how algorithms and the technology proposed to solve the problem is being implemented or you are just willfully ignorant of why the technology is needed and what human involvement is in the technology.

Your assessment of using technology as a tool to better draw districts in a less corrupt and better representative manner as handing over sovereignty to AI is very hyperbolic and dramatic. The government uses technology as a tool for far more important things and last time I checked Skynet is not in control of our government. Humans would still have control and be able to manage the system. The current model of doing things is so corrupt and we have the technology to use as a foundation to better shape the system so what is the argument against it? As far as banning political parties I am not sure that would solve it. Humans are clique and tribal based. So even if you took the formality out of it, the same things would still happen. If you put 435 people in a work environment there are always cliques and centers of power along with rivalries and other issues that are just inherent to human nature esp in an environment that is power and cooperation based. That's a bit misleading. You can check how an algorithm is programmed and have various controls to it. You can mount a legal challenge as to how an algorithm is programmed and step by step go through each line of code. Whereas the current system has no such paper trail other than this is how the party in power decided to do it.

That's another conversation, I don't have as much of an issue with the Senate since its there to make sure each state has a voice. But in Congress we basically have corrupt parties deciding how people get represented and it has results that are empirically Undemocratic.

What I propose is using algorithms and technology to better draw districts. You can set the conditions to draw districts based on what you think best fits to represent the people. Yes there is some subjectivity to it but as you said there is no perfect solution. So if you want you can use technology to draw districts that are more politically homogeneous if you feel that fits the conditions of the House better you can do that. To not use the tools of modern technology and rely on partisan pols when partisan pols have been shown to draw districts based on what benefits their party as opposed to where populations of people are is not a system that makes sense.

The current system marginalizes people of one political persuasion based off of which party is in power when the lines are drawn. If you have a large urban center that has 50% of the population of the state but only gets 25% of the representation how is that not marginalizing 50% of the state?

So you honestly see no problem with 47% of votes going to one party but only 23% of the seats going to that one party? I don't understand your argument here. I am fine with districts being homogeneous if your premise is to be believed but they aren't drawn that way. Gerrymandering will place 2 large population centers of one party into 1 district that will vote 90% with one party then split the suburbs which have 50% less population into 2 districts that tend to vote 60% for one party. Drawing on partisan lines is fine if it is drawn in accordance to population and reflecting who is being represented. You can't possibly be defending the way lines are drawn to isolate small populations and concentrate large ones. In a Democracy you have to have a system that actually represents the votes of the people and not the power of the party to draw silly and insane lines.

Your argument would have more weight if districts were drawn to have equal partisan representation and algorithms can provide a better way to actually accomplish what you want too. Often times a part will win 47% of the votes but only gain 23% representation because, you can't always expect 1:1 representation but 1:2 shows you that gerrymandering isn't representing people in any way.

Politics and sports are super similar, if the Bills get away with a push off its OK because the Pats cheat all the time anyway or if the Bills do it, its not an obvious push off ***** you. If you are a Trump fan you are going to be OK with almost anything he does because he is your guy. If Obama did something similar to what Trump did with the WWI vets the same people making excuses would be killing Obama and saying that there were 1,000 ways he could have made it and all the excuses would be ignored as whining. It goes the other way around too. When it comes to politics very few people are actually consistent and hold principles. As far as Trump ***** him for missing the event. Trump always rails against his opponents for "Poor Management" yet when he poorly manages a situation like this all the excuses he lambastes other for starts to come out.

Gerrymandering (which is done by both parties, this is not a partisan issue) is one of the biggest and most open forms of corruption and its shocking to me in an age of such advanced technology and algorithms we allow pols of either party to make these horrid maps to their parties benefit. How there isn't an universal algorithm to draw maps in ways that make sense and avoid partisan pols running the system is shocking.

I don't think the Giants are getting rid of Eli until after 2019. I think that the Giants draft a top QB and have Eli be the place holder for 2019. Then they dump Eli for the young QB in 2020. But I do think that if the Giants were to outright cut or trade Eli he would probably land in Jacksonville (They are in desperate need of a QB and his old Giants coach is the President there) or Denver (They too will have a young QB who could maybe use a veteran mentor, plus if that defense adds a piece or two they could be good enough to make a push with competent QB play.) The Cowboys are going to stick with Dak for at least one more season as the starter. He has shown some improvement from his Sophomore season and he still has one year left on his rookie deal. The Cowboys would be more so in the market for a veteran backup which Eli would fit but probably not be interested in. Besides Denver or Jacksonville I am not sure what other QB thirsty teams would want Eli. The teams in 2019 that will probably be in the market for a QB Giants Denver Jacksonville Possibly Oakland if they trade Carr Dolphins Redskins (they are fine with Smith in the short term maybe they want a QB prospect to develop). Bucs (If they are moving on from Winston) I am not sure why the Giants would move on so quickly if they can have Eli be the veteran mentor for a rookie at least for a season. The Giants are a bit of a mess but the potential is there. They have a dynamic running back, one of the best receivers in the league, a young tight end with potential, and a decent WR 2 in Sheppard. Their O-line sucks and Eli might be shot but if you get a QB in there and add 2 pieces to the O-line they might have one of the best offenses in the league. Of course the defense is pretty horrid. Given how the Giants passed on Darnold to take Barkley they want to win asap and I could see them trading for Carr as Oakland with pick 1 could fully reset and take a QB and get a haul for Carr. I could see the Giants trading their top 5-10 pick, plus a couple of mid round 2019 picks, and a 1st in 2020 for Carr, Oakland's 2019 2nd, and a 3rd in 2020. The Giants would still have 2 early 2nd round picks in the draft to address the O-line and they get a young QB on a fairly affordable contract. Oakland swaps a early 2nd for and top 5 pick but also gets some mid round picks to add to their draft and gets a 1st in 2020 only having to give up the Bears 3rd to do so. Of course the Giants could just do the sensible thing and draft a young QB and stick with Eli for one more year but I think the Giants want to win asap for some reason.

The team is 3 and 7, there isn't any saving this season. If Allen is healthy throw him out there. Although I wouldn't be opposed to waiting an extra week on Allen if an extra week is beneficial. I guess what I am trying to say is, if Allen is ready to go 100% play him but I don't see the need to rush him back right away given Barkley played well the last game.