4 ms·
> That was especially true for tweets that include numbers; their accuracy rate of 80 percent more than triples previous efforts. Which is to say that previous
by blattimwind 9y ago
> That was especially true for tweets that include numbers; their accuracy rate of 80 percent more than triples previous efforts.
Which is to say that previous efforts had only half of the true positives a random number generator would have had. Neat.
- notahacker 9y agoSounds like previous efforts might even have been outperformed by a naive algorithm that purely looked for one word sentences like "right", "totally" and "neat" :-)