Dougald Lamont
@dougaldlamont.bsky.social
Recovering politician, writer, editor. Orwell-Keynesian.
Read my stuff here: https://dougaldlamont.substack.com
Read my stuff here: https://dougaldlamont.substack.com
it's pseudo-information. ridiculous.
November 13, 2025 at 8:15 PM
it's pseudo-information. ridiculous.
This is absolutely, 100% because someone decided that a Google tool would be a useful shortcut to analyzing all the documents, without considering that you might want to check your assumptions.
If you don't the result is no better than a ChatGPT hallucination.
If you don't the result is no better than a ChatGPT hallucination.
November 13, 2025 at 7:12 PM
This is absolutely, 100% because someone decided that a Google tool would be a useful shortcut to analyzing all the documents, without considering that you might want to check your assumptions.
If you don't the result is no better than a ChatGPT hallucination.
If you don't the result is no better than a ChatGPT hallucination.
The "we've already heard this" or "most of this was already known" miss the entire point. Even if it was known, these emails blatantly contradict months and years of statements by Trump and his administration.
That includes an e-mail from Epstein, to Maxwell, about Trump and Virginia Giuffre.
That includes an e-mail from Epstein, to Maxwell, about Trump and Virginia Giuffre.
November 13, 2025 at 7:12 PM
The "we've already heard this" or "most of this was already known" miss the entire point. Even if it was known, these emails blatantly contradict months and years of statements by Trump and his administration.
That includes an e-mail from Epstein, to Maxwell, about Trump and Virginia Giuffre.
That includes an e-mail from Epstein, to Maxwell, about Trump and Virginia Giuffre.
No one has bothered to ask whether this statistical analysis has any validity, which it doesn't.
Because it is counting mentions, it treats every mention as of equal value. It can only generate a meaningless answer.
This mistaken conclusion is then used to dismiss real context.
Because it is counting mentions, it treats every mention as of equal value. It can only generate a meaningless answer.
This mistaken conclusion is then used to dismiss real context.
November 13, 2025 at 7:12 PM
No one has bothered to ask whether this statistical analysis has any validity, which it doesn't.
Because it is counting mentions, it treats every mention as of equal value. It can only generate a meaningless answer.
This mistaken conclusion is then used to dismiss real context.
Because it is counting mentions, it treats every mention as of equal value. It can only generate a meaningless answer.
This mistaken conclusion is then used to dismiss real context.