Sure. But at least when they are actually whistleblowed (by people who "just" work for the company) there is a law which can be used to call to a court the theople who are legally accountable for the company
Are you able to specify the sources based on which you are supporting these claims, namely that elections are not not decided by "undecided" voters but rather by pushing your supporters to the election polls?
The last piece has a short summary of the salient point:
> In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”
> While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.
> [...]
> The conventional wisdom holds that the parties need independents to win general elections, but the reality is that they’re increasingly devoting their resources to getting their own voters—including their “closet partisans”—out to the polls rather than trying to sway the dwindling number of genuine swing voters. “We’ve seen a huge increase in technology and the ability to turn out the vote,” says Smidt. “So in terms of a cost-benefit analysis, the parties and candidates see that it’s much easier to turn out people who agree with them than it is to change someone’s mind. And then there’s also the question of how many of us are even open to changing our minds.”
> I suspect it was a simpler use case - they would group users into segments, and then craft different add strategies for each one (maybe based on other research or just expert opinion).
It is in this last process that it is individual-based. It is in this last process that AB tests are done individually as a function of the specific strategy applied to him/her
Multicriteria value decision analysis theory and methods are able to provide the solution to model the need (utility).
For instance, in reinforcement learning the payoff (goal) function is always a given without any depth consideration about its construction. It can be modeled by using the methods referred previously.
Multicriteria optimization is distinct from multicriteria value decision analysis. The former does not model the value/utility of the criteria, while the latter does. If you do not model value/utility (what you need) then you cannot solve the underlying multicriteria problem.
No, unless I've mistaken the phrase, they're not the same. I'm thinking of the problem when competing criteria can't be satisfactorily combined as inputs to a function with a scalar output. This comes up in ethical paradoxes, for example.
