4 ms·
You responded to a comment about how a case is extremely uncommon, with a suggestion about half the population. All I pointed out is that your argument is less
by totalZero 9y ago
You responded to a comment about how a case is extremely uncommon, with a suggestion about half the population. All I pointed out is that your argument is less than perfectly applicable to the comment to which you're responding, by stating a mathematical fact.
I didn't assume anything, ignore anything, assert anything, or even draw a conclusion about what should be done. Just spreading facts.
Call me Johnny Factseed.
- nightski 9y agoAgain you assumed a Gaussian distribution. There is nothing "factual" about that. Not to mention I was pointing out that your facts were irrelevant because the miss they point (Using population statistics to guide the design/engineering of an experience is doomed)
- totalZero 9y agoI'm not designing the experience. Nor does telling you what a particular distribution would indicate if assumed, imply that I have assumed the distribution. Mathematically we would expect height to be distributed in a somewhat gaussian fashion due to the central limit theorem. Therein lies its relevance. However, nobody is 70 feet tall (yet!), so it would be fair to argue that the tails are characterized differently by a gaussian distribution than by the "true" distribution for height (which would probably divert some of that probability mass from the far tails to the near tails). Still, it is quite misplaced to talk about 50% of the passengers when the discussion is about substantial outliers. Just giving you some information that will help you use more applicable axia in the future. Signed, Johnny Factseed
- nightski 9y agoThat's not how the CLT works. It does not mean every random variable is Gaussian.