5 ms·

Interesting level of precision used there...Nassim Taleb would hate it. Whom was whale counting back then?

accountyaccount 9y ago
It's based on the number of whales killed by whalers http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01190.x/abstract;jsessionid=EC6D0DEF83EF0D2B730532B3648DF100.f04t03 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004....
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  > Pre-exploitation population estimate of 239,000 (95% interval 202,000–311,000). > Estimated 1996 population size, 1,700 (860–2,900) Don't use three significant figures when your confidence interval spans 50% of your estimate. "200,000 to 300,000" would more clearly express the data. And be honest about accuracy: if modern satellite, aircraft, and naval technology can't pin the 1996 value down more tightly than "half this number to double it", you can hardly say with a straight face that your confidence interval on the 1800s data is "minus 15% to plus 25%".
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    Sometimes shitty data is all you've got — I was making a simple point, not submitting a paper to a journal. Humans killed these things by the tens to hundreds of thousands and the population is no where near that today.
    - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      Sorry, I was commenting on the numbers in the paper and not on your simple point, with which I agree
      - accountyaccount 9y ago
        No worries. Thanks for being cordial. It's easy to get frustrated when conversations turn this way online.
kirkules 9y ago
Hating precision with no information about where it came from is a bit disturbing to me
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mercutio2 9y ago
At first this was going to be one of those tedious meta-pedantry posts. But then I realized I was about to post one, and remembered meta-pedantry is a thing, so now it's going to be a meta-meta-pedantry post. Basically, it's surprisingly common to point out, in a fun-loving-meant-to-be-helpful way, someone's minor error of style or grammar, and in the process make a different error of style or grammar yourself. That, in turn, spawns a slew of "na, na, stones in glass houses, you're not perfect either" posts. Which are tedious, and often dramatically less principal-of-charity laden then the first instance of pedantry. I'm not sure where this comes from, precisely, it may just be that people reading a pedantic post are less charitable in their reading than than they would be on an on-point substantial post. Anyway. All that is just preamble to "perhaps you meant 'who'? 'Whom' is functioning as a subject, not direct object in your sentence (the reverse of what's grammatically required)" ;)
hammock 9y ago
I agree. Can you link me to taleb's argument on unnecessary/unhelpful precision? Would love to co-opt it for my own purposes

It's based on the number of whales killed by whalers http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01190.x/abstract;jsessionid=EC6D0DEF83EF0D2B730532B3648DF100.f04t03 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004....

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> Pre-exploitation population estimate of 239,000 (95% interval 202,000–311,000). > Estimated 1996 population size, 1,700 (860–2,900) Don't use three significant figures when your confidence interval spans 50% of your estimate. "200,000 to 300,000" would more clearly express the data. And be honest about accuracy: if modern satellite, aircraft, and naval technology can't pin the 1996 value down more tightly than "half this number to double it", you can hardly say with a straight face that your confidence interval on the 1800s data is "minus 15% to plus 25%".
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  Sometimes shitty data is all you've got — I was making a simple point, not submitting a paper to a journal. Humans killed these things by the tens to hundreds of thousands and the population is no where near that today.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    Sorry, I was commenting on the numbers in the paper and not on your simple point, with which I agree
    - accountyaccount 9y ago
      No worries. Thanks for being cordial. It's easy to get frustrated when conversations turn this way online.

kirkules 9y ago

Hating precision with no information about where it came from is a bit disturbing to me

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mercutio2 9y ago

At first this was going to be one of those tedious meta-pedantry posts. But then I realized I was about to post one, and remembered meta-pedantry is a thing, so now it's going to be a meta-meta-pedantry post. Basically, it's surprisingly common to point out, in a fun-loving-meant-to-be-helpful way, someone's minor error of style or grammar, and in the process make a different error of style or grammar yourself. That, in turn, spawns a slew of "na, na, stones in glass houses, you're not perfect either" posts. Which are tedious, and often dramatically less principal-of-charity laden then the first instance of pedantry. I'm not sure where this comes from, precisely, it may just be that people reading a pedantic post are less charitable in their reading than than they would be on an on-point substantial post. Anyway. All that is just preamble to "perhaps you meant 'who'? 'Whom' is functioning as a subject, not direct object in your sentence (the reverse of what's grammatically required)" ;)

hammock 9y ago

I agree. Can you link me to taleb's argument on unnecessary/unhelpful precision? Would love to co-opt it for my own purposes