4 ms·

This is like the people talking about throwing away their scales or only weighing themselves every few weeks while trying to control their weight. The solution

This is like the people talking about throwing away their scales or only weighing themselves every few weeks while trying to control their weight. The solution isn't fewer data points, it's to collect the data frequently and rigorously, and the post process it into a trend. That's how testing should be done. You get a long series of measurements that are post processed into a coherent picture of the reality.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
No, this is like people telling others to weigh themselves only once a week - because they know that members of the general population can't be bothered to understand "mathy" concepts like running average, or (gasp!) low-pass filter. It's recommended because otherwise a lot of people end out freaking out over noise in the data. And this is exactly the topic here - laymen freaking out over data they're not equipped intellectually and emotionally to comprehend. Now the other point - that moar data is always better; in principle, yes, if you follow rigorous rules about collecting, analyzing and integrating it into the existing body of evidence. Which is not what usually happens outside research conditions. As you said, > [the solution is] to collect the data frequently and rigorously, and the post process it into a trend. The thing is - we've having big problems with the "rigorously" part, as well as no-bullshit post-processing. The current wave of companies selling "health" sensors ain't helping - they push on frequent collection in a totally non-rigorous way, using half-assed measuring equipment. And giving that data to normal people first (besides taking it and monetizing it), many of whom will obviously be freaking out. This is not helping to form "coherent picture of the reality" much. It's just helping those companies line their pockets.

4 ms·

This is like the people talking about throwing away their scales or only weighing themselves every few weeks while trying to control their weight. The solution

by bobdole1234 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago
No, this is like people telling others to weigh themselves only once a week - because they know that members of the general population can't be bothered to understand "mathy" concepts like running average, or (gasp!) low-pass filter. It's recommended because otherwise a lot of people end out freaking out over noise in the data. And this is exactly the topic here - laymen freaking out over data they're not equipped intellectually and emotionally to comprehend. Now the other point - that moar data is always better; in principle, yes, if you follow rigorous rules about collecting, analyzing and integrating it into the existing body of evidence. Which is not what usually happens outside research conditions. As you said, > [the solution is] to collect the data frequently and rigorously, and the post process it into a trend. The thing is - we've having big problems with the "rigorously" part, as well as no-bullshit post-processing. The current wave of companies selling "health" sensors ain't helping - they push on frequent collection in a totally non-rigorous way, using half-assed measuring equipment. And giving that data to normal people first (besides taking it and monetizing it), many of whom will obviously be freaking out. This is not helping to form "coherent picture of the reality" much. It's just helping those companies line their pockets.