There is a rampant tendency in any industry where someone is trying to sell something with a bunch of data, where they cherry pick a little bit... bias a little bit. This becomes quite easy when there is an enormous amount of data to cherry pick from.
I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible.
Smartphones can relay patients' data to hospital computers in a continuous stream. Doctors can alter treatment regimens remotely, instead of making patients come in for a visit.
Emotion AI uses massive amounts of data. In fact, Affectiva has built the world's largest emotion data repository.
Liberty Through Strength II is simply aimed at retaining data that was already available. It has already been collected lawfully.
The job of the data scientist is to ask the right questions.
It is clear from all these data that the interests of teenagers are not focused around studies, and that scholastic achievement is at most of minor importance in giving status or prestige to an adolescent in the eyes of other adolescents.
With customers' permission, fintech firms have increasingly turned to data aggregators to 'screen scrape' information from financial accounts. In such cases, data aggregators collect and store online banking logins and passwords provided by the bank's customers and use them to log directly into the customer's banking account.
Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows one's focus and increases confidence, but it also blurs dissenting views until they are no longer visible, thereby transforming data collection into bias confirmation and morphing self-deception into self-assurance.
At Deloitte, our programs for veterans are bringing new approaches to the table. For instance, we're helping veterans' organizations use data analytics to sift through streams of information about veteran needs.
National data on evictions aren't collected, although national data on foreclosures are. And so if anyone wants to, kind of, get to know any statistical research about evictions, they have to really dig in the annals of legal records.
There has been a substitution of ideology for fact and scientific and engineering data in this administration.
Carrier networks were originally built for connecting phone calls. Now they're getting swamped with bandwidth-hogging data applications. Keeping up will require huge investments. Who's going to pay for that?
We went out and tagged 17 sharks and watched where they went. The data was amazing.
I was always a data guy, not a theorist. Theorists can maintain total purity. The data are always messy.
The National Tracing Center is not allowed to have centralized computer data.
Ukip had undertaken a survey on why people wanted to leave the E.U. or not, and they also had membership data. So we were able to build personas out of that. That was work that would normally be paid for.
Over the years, online, we've laid down a huge amount of information and data, and we irrigate it with networks and connectivity, and it's been worked and tilled by unpaid workers and governments.
Just because you're right-wing shouldn't mean you don't believe climate science data. They're unrelated.
Creating more direct relationships with consumers, utilizing the resulting data and insights, is increasingly more valuable - and an evolution of the traditional competency of ad-supported television networks.