Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Thanks to computers it has been down out to thousands of virtual coin flips (or maybe billions, mathematicians are like that).
Which isn´t the same because there is not exact randomization in computing, they always pull the first number from somewhere unrandom ie the time, date etc.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Which isn´t the same because there is not exact randomization in computing, they always pull the first number from somewhere unrandom ie the time, date etc.
Not when you're a professional working with statistics they don't. Those computers typical measure the decay of radioactive isotope, which would defy the laws of physics if it wasn't truly random.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not when you're a professional working with statistics they don't. Those computers typical measure the decay of radioactive isotope, which would defy the laws of physics if it wasn't truly random.
Why would it defy the laws of physics if the decay of radioactive isotope was not random. That sounds interesting to me.
Originally posted by silver_tears
It's more like 11 percent and it's young people who were asked ✅http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, understand that and it was covered in Stats "101" by our professor, but was a measure done on events that occured after, say, 5 heads in a row? Shouldn't the "average" make it seem skewed?I guess it wouldn't since it's always 1/2 cause the flips have already occured. (If you had a very large number of people each flip a coin, the only 1/32 people would flip five heads or five tails in a row...but the chance of flipping a head or a tail after those five clips is always going to be .5..always...always...always...cause the flips have already occured.) I just thought that it would average itself out but I guess that's why they call it the gambler's fallacy.
Edit: I never gamble and i've never gambled (with money or anything like unto it.)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And those 10% aren't in the 5% that gets 95% of the money.
I don't know, some of them may be.
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.....we are justifying his insane stat....I mean...how do you even measure that...which may be his point....people should elaborate a bit since this thread is about stupid statistics as well as good statistics 😐
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, some of them may be.WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.....we are justifying his insane stat....I mean...how do you even measure that...which may be his point....people should elaborate a bit since this thread is about stupid statistics as well as good statistics 😐
True. There is a big problem in judging how much work a person is doing to begin with. CEO are usually cited as people that don't do much work and get tons of money for it, but they're still vital to the efficiency of many companies.
The only places I can see a statistic like that being gathered would be on an old farm or a modern office, where each person makes clear contributions to the work done at the end of the day. Hard to get that data in other settings, an elite doctor might see two patients in the course of the day but work harder than a nurse who sees two dozen.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True. There is a big problem in judging how much work a person is doing to begin with. CEO are usually cited as people that don't do much work and get tons of money for it, but they're still vital to the efficiency of many companies.The only places I can see a statistic like that being gathered would be on an old farm or a modern office, where each person makes clear contributions to the work done at the end of the day. Hard to get that data in other settings, an elite doctor might see two patients in the course of the day but work harder than a nurse who sees two dozen.
Well, I mean there's two things I could think of one like you said there's some unknowable number of "work that's done" and 10 percent of the people create 80% of that. Not sure if that's measurable in any ways, seems subjective.
Now on the other hand perhaps you could do actual work hours vs leisure time (or, more importantly actually, and somewhat unfair completely unemployed time)...that would be somewhat interesting but ultimately pointless.
Originally posted by King Kandyi dont know but i am really interested. but, the commericial didnt want to clarify since it was enforcing the no cell phone law in my state.
What causes the other one?
thinking alcohol, drugs suicide by cars and random accidents even when you(the driver) are paying attention, weather?