5 ms·

12/10000 is noise.

andrepd 11y ago
The number of black women is 12, not 0. I don't understand what you wish to gain by egregiously twisting the numbers. Yes, it's a low percentage. No, it's not zero.
- aristus 11y ago
  What do you wish to gain by being painfully pedantic? Black women are 5-6% of the population, but 0.01% of funded founders. That is a rounding error, effectively zero. Why not focus on the actual point of the post instead?
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    Because the title primed me to expect one thing, and then the post body rapidly contradicted it by providing twelve vetted examples of the class that the title claimed should not exist. My mind does not get over being misled and confused like that easily, especially when the fix to improve it is so trivial (like saying "virtually none" instead of "statistically zero").
    - aristus 11y ago
      OK. So... that's you entire comment? That's it? Problem solved?
      - CydeWeys 11y ago
        You asked a question and I answered it. What's your deal?
        aristus 11y ago
        The deal is that targeted pedantry like this completely derail the discussion, which is not 12 ≠ 0, but how and why black women are being excluded from tech.
  - jfidmemdj 11y ago
    Okay, but "effectively zero" != "statistically zero" The "actual point" of the post is a lie.
    - aristus 11y ago
      So there's no discrimination, the entire post is a lie, because you found a point of math to be pedantic about. Got it.
      - jfidmemdj 11y ago
        The post is "statistically" a lie and you just used a straw man argument. Congrats.
  - jsnell 11y ago
    I've got a great way of increasing the percentage by an order of magnitude! Doing the math correctly would immediately boost the number to 0.1% from your stated 0.01%. See, being painfully pedantic has already paid off handsomely. (And don't worry, at least you were only off by a factor of 10. The original article is off by a factor of 100).
CydeWeys 11y ago
The margin of error is too high to say what the true value is (or should be), but in no way does that imply that the true value should be ZERO. A small number does not automatically mean zero. You could make up similar lies and say that "statistically, the amount of lead in your drinking water is zero", and have it be well less than 12 parts in 10,000, and it's still non-zero, and at neurologically toxic levels. Just because a number is small does not mean that we cannot accurately measure it, nor does it mean that the expected value is zero. Claiming that the expected value is zero when there are twelve in your (large) sample is a horrible misuse of statistics.
bradhe 11y ago
In the US there are 12/100000 suicides annually. So is the suicide rate in the US zero?

12/10000 is noise.

The number of black women is 12, not 0. I don't understand what you wish to gain by egregiously twisting the numbers. Yes, it's a low percentage. No, it's not zero.

aristus 11y ago
What do you wish to gain by being painfully pedantic? Black women are 5-6% of the population, but 0.01% of funded founders. That is a rounding error, effectively zero. Why not focus on the actual point of the post instead?
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  Because the title primed me to expect one thing, and then the post body rapidly contradicted it by providing twelve vetted examples of the class that the title claimed should not exist. My mind does not get over being misled and confused like that easily, especially when the fix to improve it is so trivial (like saying "virtually none" instead of "statistically zero").
  - aristus 11y ago
    OK. So... that's you entire comment? That's it? Problem solved?
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      You asked a question and I answered it. What's your deal?
      - aristus 11y ago
        The deal is that targeted pedantry like this completely derail the discussion, which is not 12 ≠ 0, but how and why black women are being excluded from tech.
- jfidmemdj 11y ago
  Okay, but "effectively zero" != "statistically zero" The "actual point" of the post is a lie.
  - aristus 11y ago
    So there's no discrimination, the entire post is a lie, because you found a point of math to be pedantic about. Got it.
    - jfidmemdj 11y ago
      The post is "statistically" a lie and you just used a straw man argument. Congrats.
- jsnell 11y ago
  I've got a great way of increasing the percentage by an order of magnitude! Doing the math correctly would immediately boost the number to 0.1% from your stated 0.01%. See, being painfully pedantic has already paid off handsomely. (And don't worry, at least you were only off by a factor of 10. The original article is off by a factor of 100).

CydeWeys 11y ago

The margin of error is too high to say what the true value is (or should be), but in no way does that imply that the true value should be ZERO. A small number does not automatically mean zero. You could make up similar lies and say that "statistically, the amount of lead in your drinking water is zero", and have it be well less than 12 parts in 10,000, and it's still non-zero, and at neurologically toxic levels. Just because a number is small does not mean that we cannot accurately measure it, nor does it mean that the expected value is zero. Claiming that the expected value is zero when there are twelve in your (large) sample is a horrible misuse of statistics.

bradhe 11y ago

In the US there are 12/100000 suicides annually. So is the suicide rate in the US zero?