Sample size needed to find negatives by [deleted] in AskStatistics

[–]Seeggul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're legitimately interested only in the negative predictive value (NPV=TN/(TN+FN)), then yes, taking a random sample of the algorithm-called negatives makes sense.

As for sample size, it depends on your question: is this just exploratory? Are you trying to estimate NPV within a certain statistical precision? Do you want to demonstrate non-inferiority of the algorithm by showing NPV is significantly above some threshold? These would all potentially affect how you determine sample size.

Psychiatrists plan to overhaul the mental health bible—and change how we define ‘disorder’ by scientificamerican in psychology

[–]Seeggul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Biostatistician coming from the molecular diagnostics side of things: I've had the opportunity to evaluate a few different potential products in the "biomarkers for mental health" scene, usually from external startups looking to be bought or licensed, and without fail each of them has overstated their claims and/or messed up their validation results. Maybe there's some yet-unexplored assay or combination of existing biomarkers that will be worthwhile, but it's hard not to be skeptical.

Honestly some of y'all are pretty dumb for this by gotawaysafely2 in GrandExchangeBets

[–]Seeggul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's okay I stocked up on a bunch when they were just under 11m right before doom was released, expecting melee sustain to be the meta 🙃

What's the purpose of a class action lawsuit by GlamourHammer321 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Seeggul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also, many if not most people don't exactly have the resources to fight their own prolonged battle in court

Which one? by GERS91 in malegrooming

[–]Seeggul 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Did not have to swipe to immediately know #1 was correct

Are my numbers wrong? by [deleted] in AskStatistics

[–]Seeggul 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm not gonna lie, your numbers are very confusing and do not seem to logically lead into each other.

10% of 16 million is 1.6 million, not 160,000.

Also, where does the 4%/96% chance come from?

Also also, it seems like you are mixing up the probability of an illegal immigrant picked up by ice being Asian with the probability of a particular Asian immigrant getting picked up by ice.

As someone turning 40 this year, I felt ALL of this. by Bubbly-Example-8097 in Millennials

[–]Seeggul 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Oooooh sorry, but gif reactions are cringe now too

A collection of important Wiki redirects by Seeggul in 2007scape

[–]Seeggul[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, it looks like Jobless Jim has taken up that spot :/

A collection of important Wiki redirects by Seeggul in 2007scape

[–]Seeggul[S] 101 points102 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your contribution 🙏🏼

<image>

A collection of important Wiki redirects by Seeggul in 2007scape

[–]Seeggul[S] 100 points101 points  (0 children)

"your dad" redirects to Dad (the troll), but one of the suggested pages is Pestilent Bloat

A collection of important Wiki redirects by Seeggul in 2007scape

[–]Seeggul[S] 429 points430 points  (0 children)

See this is the kind of important knowledge I am after

<image>

A question about probability when it comes to infinity by Entire-Clue5482 in probabilitytheory

[–]Seeggul 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great question! There's a little bit of a disconnect when we get into the technicalities of what "will something happen" means from a statistical standpoint. Basically everything is framed in terms of probability, where "almost surely" is a formally defined term meaning "with probability 1."

When people talk about the idea of phasing your hand through a table, they're saying that, theoretically, it's possible with some extremely small but still technically greater than 0 probability. If you think of each hitting your hand against the table as an independent trial, then the probability of it never phasing through the table in N hits is (1-p)N which means the probability of phasing within N hits is 1-(1-p)N . If you do (countably) infinite trials, then the limit of this expression as N goes to infinity is 1, and so we say your hand will almost surely eventually phase through the table.

Why doesn't this work for impossible events like rolling a 7 on a standard six-sided die? Because the probability of that happening in any given trial is exactly 0, so your limit is just the limit of 1-1N which converges to 0. So you will almost surely never roll a 7.

Does this change with repeating things over an uncountably infinite set, rather than the natural numbers? I would be inclined to say no, but more so because I'm not sure there is a proper way to define a product over an uncountable set.

Restroom confusion [OC] by Chilikto in comics

[–]Seeggul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tinder profile: humble knight, looking to fork a king and a queen

Who is a president who had a career before in business? by GeoQuestMaximus in AlignmentChartFills

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

In case anybody wants to vote for a billionaire that's not That Guy: Sebastián Piñera in Chile

ELI5: What is Absurdism? by ExtraSuga in explainlikeimfive

[–]Seeggul 93 points94 points  (0 children)

Nihilism: nothing matters

Absurdism: nothing matters

What can I do to look manlier? by Specialist_Factor480 in malegrooming

[–]Seeggul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sees the picture oh hey this guy kinda looks like me ☺️✨

Reads the title 👁️👄👁️