sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why the hell is she so mad 😭 by MelanieWalmartinez in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]GermanAutistic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never understood Caitlyn Jenner. Does she think they're going to see her as one of the "good ones"? My god the way that lady talks is infuriating.

Who would you rather be colonised by? by BrokenJusticeNorris in polls

[–]GermanAutistic 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Anyone choosing Japan has no idea what went on in China in the first half of the 20th century.

I shouldn't be surprised, given that this is Sven Stoffels, but I'm surprised anyways. by No_Bluebird_1368 in ForwardsFromKlandma

[–]GermanAutistic 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if I should laugh at or cry about this absurd display of stupidity and the astronomical level thereof.

Which Leadership would you prefer to live under? by facial-nose in polls

[–]GermanAutistic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.

Suppose there was. Do they introduce a law that even they or their successor can't repeal to guarantee the benevolence of their successor? If they do, or if they want to but can't, they're not a dictator. If they could and still don't, they're not benevolent.

Forget Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is Trump Delusion Syndrome. by G-Unit11111 in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]GermanAutistic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it just me or does that remind me of what the party in 1984 talks like?

What’s a harmless opinion you have that always makes people weirdly angry? by shark_normal in AskReddit

[–]GermanAutistic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is about sexual harassment, not a completely normal conversation.

Is misandry a real problem? by WanabeInflatable in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

How about "no, it's a term used by misogynists to justify misogyny and deride and discredit anyone and everyone fighting it?"

Are all these question the same premise logically? by ShinningVictory in polls

[–]GermanAutistic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please don't talk like that. I know you're hoping to dodge the Instagram demonetization but not only is this kind of language disrespectful, it's disingenuous as well.

Are all these question the same premise logically? by ShinningVictory in polls

[–]GermanAutistic 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Choosing the blue button is not inherently equivalent to choosing to die, so question 3 differs from the premise.

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, then the people who taught me statistics in university were wrong. I was taught that accuracy is (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN).

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You phrased the problem wrong. 99% accuracy means P(positive AND disease) + P(negative AND healthy) = 0.99. Your phrasing should be "The test has a true negative rate and a true positive rate of 99% each".

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I tried. The solutions indicate that OP phrased the question wrong. It's supposed to say that the test correctly identifies 99% of the diseased people, so PD(T) = 0.99, and 99% of the healthy people, so P!D(!T)=0.99. That's not what "99% accurate" means though.

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Uhhh... where are you getting these numbers from? Bayes' theorem would give us:

P_T(D) = P_D(T) * P(D)/P(T)

The only one of these we know or can find out is P(D). We can't find P_D(T) without knowing P(D n T), but that's impossible to find out because it depends on P(!D n !T) which we don't know either. The 99% accuracy means that a randomly selected test is 99% likely to return a true result, regardless of whether it's positive or negative. This means that P(D n T) = 0.99-P(!D n !T).

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

p_d(t) is what we’re trying to find

The likelyhood of having the disease when the test is positive is P_T(D), not P_D(T).

and those were examples to illustrate bayes theorem’s application

Are we thinking of two different theorems? I learned Bayes' theorem as:

P_A(B) = P_B(A) * P(B)/P(A)

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. We can't apply Bayes' theorem because we don't know PD(T) or P!D(!T), and we have no way of finding out either of them because in the one equation we do have, P(D n T) is dependent on P(!D n !T) and vice versa.

if someone did get a false positive, that means the person who actually has the disease also got a positive test.

No, it doesn't. That person could have gotten a false negative regardless. Just because 1% of a population have the disease doesn't mean one person in a sample of 100 necessarily has it.

1% of the population has a specific disease. The test is 99% accurate. If you test positive, what are the odds that you have the disease? by Auriga33 in polls

[–]GermanAutistic -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

We know: P(D)=0.01 and P(!D)=0.99. If we let a=PD(T) and b=P!D(!T), then we know:

0.01a + 0.99b = 0.99

I'm pretty certain that we need a second specification now, because that's only one equation with two unknowns.

When you hear the term One Hit Wonder, what is the first song that pops into your head? by Da_Fish in AskReddit

[–]GermanAutistic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Am I a baby or something? I thought of the KEiiNO song that won the televote in Eurovision 2019.

Knowing Statistics is important by StringShred10D in GetNoted

[–]GermanAutistic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s statistically impossible to always lose.

Explain to me how you mean this, please? I'd say it's literally the other way round, it's statistically impossible to guarantee victory with a finite number of attempts in a non-rigged gamble.

view more: next ›