this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
305 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59235 readers
4009 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Less than 1%? Did they forget to flip a boolean condition?
Like that's worse than random, it's worse than if you intentionally wanted to be wrong.

[–] deranger@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How do you figure that’s worse than random? Randomly attempting to predict crimes would likely be 0% accurate. I’m not supporting predictive policing at all, just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

There are near infinite failure conditions and few successful conditions.

If you randomly selected a citizen as the culprit every time a crime was committed the only percentage of accuracy it wouldn't be is 0%, because it's inevitable you would be right at least once.

[–] three@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

would likely be 0%

shut the fuck up lmfao all you gotta do is say the black dude getting out of prison headed to the halfway house is going to rob the cornerstore and you're at 97-98%

this dude just asserted 0% like he has a doctorate in predictive policing j*sus chr*st

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Somebody used a > when they should have used a <