-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Pelosi announces formal Impeachment Inquiry into President Trump
- Thread starter Brewm0nt
- Start date
User Banned (3 Days): Trolling Over Multiple Posts in this Thread
Sor
Sorry you don't understand. I can try to use smaller words next time?
If I tell you that the next roll of a dice has a 16.6% chance of coming up "6" and the roll comes up "6", would you say that my prediction was far too low?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Have you tried digging up, instead?
Obviously you had a 100% chance of landing on a 6 because that is what happened.
*hits head with iron pan and cartoon birds fly around me*
Yeah, your prediction was too low. You would be either correct (it's a "6") or incorrect (it's not a "6") and therefore you had a 50% chance, not a 16.6% chance.
50-50 chance I'm either trolling or not trolling.
EDIT: to be clear, there was a strong /s implied in the previous comment.
Okay I see, let's roll the dice and decide.
*rolls*
It landed on a picture of a fish, I think that means I win?
You had 100% chance of landing on that fish. You were a winner all along.
Damn, they are out in full force on every single network trying to scream about Joe Biden at the top of their lungs.
Then it ceases existence and you have to buy a new die.
The chance of being correct or incorrect are not the same because there are 5 incorrect results and 1 correct
I think this is too subtle for the guy.
Edit: Someone already beat me to the video
I think I understand what he is trying to say. Don't really agree, but here it goes.
He is saying that an election is not random, aka the results are complete before we go to the polls. This is of course not really accurate, because people can change their minds over time, but whatever.
So, given that information if we have 10 people, 6 for Trump and 4 for Clinton, then there is a 100% chance Trump wins. Now if we ask 4 of them months before and happen to ask 3 Clinton and 1 Trump, we would say it is 25% chance. But since the results were already determined, that is incorrect.
Ok, now I might be crazy.
He is saying that an election is not random, aka the results are complete before we go to the polls. This is of course not really accurate, because people can change their minds over time, but whatever.
So, given that information if we have 10 people, 6 for Trump and 4 for Clinton, then there is a 100% chance Trump wins. Now if we ask 4 of them months before and happen to ask 3 Clinton and 1 Trump, we would say it is 25% chance. But since the results were already determined, that is incorrect.
Ok, now I might be crazy.
That's not how any of this works and people damn well know what megatron is saying. The 25% chance was building in Margin of Error. And guess what? The results were within THE MARGIN OF ERROR. More accurate to say as an example, you had 10 people 3-4 for Trump 6-8 for Clinton, for Trump to win, he'd need 4 and Clinton would need 6, and Trump's four have to be the exact right 4 people, and Clinton's 6 would need to be the exact wrong 6. but it wasn't certain that Trump would hit his high end and Clinton her low, in fact it was unlikely. Thus, the unlikely result we got was Trump losing the popular vote and winning the electoral college by a minuscule amount of votes.
Back on track,
it sure is convenient that Trump is holding his press conference at the same time the Intel committee gets the whistleblower complaint.
it sure is convenient that Trump is holding his press conference at the same time the Intel committee gets the whistleblower complaint.
I legitimately feel bad for further derailing the thread, but come on folks, did that really need a /s thrown on there? I'll leave it be at this point, but just wanted you to walk away not actually thinking I was being literal or sincere.
How about saying that the statistics says Hillary will win and there's a 25% chance of these statistics being wrong?
I fully understand this. Was just trying to understand the mind of a madman.
Confidence intervals not even once.
Guess what? When somebody has a 33 percent chance of winning, they will win 1/3 times. People need to deal with statistics. Blows my mind nobody can grasp it.
Oh my fucking God
Edit: You actually come off worse admitting that you were joking.
Depends how much of a modifier her emails add, and if we need to convert from metric to imperial.
I'm so dumb when it comes to this stuff and I feel like - especially today - the news is moving incredibly fast...but...do we have any details of what is actually in the whistleblower report or is that what we're waiting on? How many people (in positions of importance) have now read it and when can we expect anything to come of it?
Thanks!
Thanks!
that's what we're waiting on. it was just released to the committee and we're waiting to see what it is and how much of it was released
I know people with doctorates who got them in fields where they never even took a single college course on statistics who get the absolute basics wrong. It's incredible. It almost needs to be a high school course or something.
Sometimes I like to use the example of shuffling cards. Any time I shuffle cards, the final shuffle had an 8x10^67 chance of winding up that way. And yet, those results are meaningless. It doesn't tell you anything. I use that a lot of times when people try to get metaphysical with stuff like "What are the odds that Earth would have wound up in the Goldilocks Zone!?"
We know the call was a trigger, and we have a massive amount of public information on this situation- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/24/full-trump-ukraine-timeline-now/
Unlike the Russia stuff with Mueller, this was all basically in plain sight because they're stupid.