Tim Walz has taken on a leveled-up approach in a race to the finish of the 2024 election, after a more cautious and buttoned-up start as Kamala Harris' running mate.

Tim Walz has taken on a leveled-up approach in a race to the finish of the 2024 election, after a more cautious and buttoned-up start as Kamala Harris’ running mate.

In the weeks following the vice presidential debate, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz has been sounding more like the aggressive campaigner who got the role than the buttoned-up figure he’s cut since joining the ticket.

Dressed in khakis and a navy Harris-Walz sweatshirt Monday, Walz delivered some of his sharpest attacks yet against former President Donald Trump. Walz appeared more natural in his latest appearances on the trail, including in his signature flannel in rural Pennsylvania, after shedding the blue sport coat and white collared shirt he’s favored for the last few months.

He’s also getting back on the TV circuit, with appearances coming up on “The View” and “The Daily Show,” according to a campaign official, after Walz went viral pre-running mate selection with his labeling of the GOP ticket as “weird” in a cable news interview.

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    110·
    30 days ago

    By what basis do you consider a comment abusive or trolling?

    Its part of how the hypothesis is set up. You can read the paper I cited here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02078

    So specifically for that question the hypothesis “The author of this reply {} Biden.”, with h0 being “is being abusive, or trolling.” and h1 being “is being honest and genuine.”

    And on your second point, since I’ve still got the data up, we can address that specifically. We’ll address the following hypotheses. ‘The author of this reply {}’: ‘is accusing someone of being a russian asset.’, ‘is accusing some one of trolling.’, ‘is accusing someone of being a bot.’, ‘is accusing someone of engaging in bad faith’, ‘is having a normal conversation’.

    you make a bunch of charts that don’t really prove anything instead.

    Only if you lack reading comprehension.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
      10·
      30 days ago

      No, you’re pretty much stating you created a tool to detect trolling better than any tech company has and you’re using it on me.

      Or you’re just drawing random graphs.

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        62·
        30 days ago

        You’re trying to say 50% of my comments are accusing people of arguing in bad faith?

        I think I’d test the model if I were you.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          17·
          30 days ago

          Sorry I should have been more clear. That was for the “high confidence that the conversation is around Biden” cohort of comments. So within a subset of about 5% of your overall number of comments., so maybe 2.5 - 5% of comments in total you are making one of these kinds of accusations, or about 1:20 or 1:40. I ran a frequency analysis, and at several points you just spam the same comment over and over again, so that might be skewing things. I’m not sure that should be filtered out, because it is trolling.

          And yes, I think more testing is required, but most importantly, I think I need to get more of a context window around comments. I want to do this using the whole comment chain or thread. That gets more complicated because now you have ‘identities’ (speaker A, speaker B, C… etc), which is where the graphical approach is going to show its benefits. Again, work for another time. At least at a first pass, a few minutes of work adjacent to some other work I’m doing level of effort, its more than sufficient to make my point.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            4·
            30 days ago

            Ok.

            I’d be selling it to Google, Facebook or Reddit for many millions but keep using your amazing moderation tool on me buddy.

            I’m curious what would happen if you use it on UniversalMonk?

            But I almost guarantee there’s a reason why you can’t or won’t.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              16·
              30 days ago

              I’m putting dinner together but I’d be happy to run UM if you would like me to. In exchange would you read the paper so you can understand how the sentiment analysis works? Its important for hypothesis testing. You need to set up good hypotheses for this to be effective.I’m going to down load their comment database now. You work on coming up with some hypotheses.

              UniversalMonk

              @satansmaggotycumfart@[email protected]

              I’m downloading the data and will save it to disk, but am about to sit down to dinner. I’ll save the output and either drop the hypotheses you want to test here or dm me, but I may not respond tonight.

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                3·
                30 days ago

                Oh, that’s the reason you won’t, right?

                Because I’m not a computer scientist so I can’t understand the sentiment analysis and come up with appropriate hypotheses?

                You were able to for me so why aren’t you able to again?

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  16·
                  30 days ago

                  The fuck are you talking about. I literally said I was doing it in my response.

                  Bruh this is why you come up as a troll in so much of your comments.

                  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                    3·
                    30 days ago

                    Maybe work on your reading comprehension.

                    I’m glad you proved my point that you are unwilling or unable to perform the same analysis that you claimed you did on me.