It is Uber week over at Motherboard, so there will be a lot of articles there
I am reminded of the cocaine contaminated currency
Except this is like testing a beneficiaries wallet and cancelling their benefit if cash tests positive. This is not to be taken as a suggestion, it is to be taken as an illustration of how stupid the policy is.
‘Worst Pun on an Award Winning Blog; Comments Section’ category
I thought there were already awards for pundits? :)
Especially the question about the level to which scientists should gain power.
I think it was called the Enlightenment.
But more seriously, there are a bunch of sources of unease that have come and gone over time- the Cold War nuclear anxieties, seeing the generalisability of science as linked to globalism, modern suspicion of climate science from the right, from GM from the left.
But I see great hope in open data and reproducible research for a vast strengthening of "evidence based ..." So even if so think the opinions of scientists are as easily bought as lawyers, the weight of knowledge is apparent to all.
p.s. These are the polls I was talking about
Colour me embarrassed at the misspelling, though since the poll favoured Trump, it should probably be a strange shade of orange result.
There was that Reuters/Ipsos poll just released where Trump was in a dead heat with Clinton, but that is (at the moment) assumed to be the occasional rouge poll that just happens.
There is also the percentage of murk- where a company or trust is the immediate owner, that falls into the "doesn't count towards the 3% because we don't know the ultimate owners".
That would greatly affect the results, but in this case this you can get a ballpark of the size of the problem,. Possibly naively I would suggest you could:
1) take an old snapshot of the property titles database.
I assume political parties researchers have been doing this. If I can, people who get paid to do so should be able to.
2) take a current snapshot.
3) find all the titles that have changed ownership
4) find what percentage are companies or trusts.
This could be done through data matching, but does lead to the potential problem of "inhuman sounding names" where Mr Transpacific Megacorp Holdings Limited is confused with a similarly named company,. Rather than get into a fight over the classification of a tiny number of properties owned by the Trust family (rather than a family Trust) , I would just classify those as "couldn't tell if owned by a human"