6 ms·

I get that your comment is coming from a good place, because the threat of misinformation is real. But this is an “Appeal to Authority” argument. I’d rather hav

by gdubs 7y ago

I get that your comment is coming from a good place, because the threat of misinformation is real. But this is an “Appeal to Authority” argument. I’d rather have an informed discussion among smart people, even if they’re not experts in the specific field. I’d rather be able to weigh the input of many people. Especially in a case where the experts haven’t done a great job at communicating or understanding the severity of this. Rather than admonish people to shut up, it would be more constructive to point out the flaws in their methods, so we could all learn and make better judgements.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Thank you. To me, that's what it's about. I'd rather try and fail and learn from that, but people just telling me to put a sock in it isn't something I can learn from.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
andrepd 7y ago
>I’d rather have an informed discussion among smart people Yes, but that's the thing isn't it? We're not informed, and fitting ke^x to data doesn't make us informed. This reeks of Dunning-Kruger. I get that the intention is good, but we have to have some humility and not go all "hold on! I'll save the day!"
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Original poster here. > and fitting ke^x to data doesn't make us informed Well, yours is an interesting post but let me ask if curve fitting doesn't make us more informed then what does? There's an update to the data for the US in the past few hours and it doesn't improve things. I very carefully stated out my limitations, and then pointed them out again when someone critiqued my approach (see edit on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22645793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22645793). I have done my best to accept my limitations, but still I get people like you hammering me. So the question is why are we even posting anything on HN? Bottom line is what is HN for - non-factual debate, or factual debate? I strongly get the impression that much criticism isn't based on my admittedly trite analysis but because a lot of people just don't know how to handle really bad news and are trying to blank a nasty reality. Doubly so when I'm accused of of "hold on! I'll save the day!" which is purely your invention.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    > I strongly get the impression that much criticism isn't based on my admittedly trite analysis but because a lot of people just don't know how to handle really bad news and are trying to blank a nasty reality. No, you just made a large number of flaws in your initial analysis, and it made people despair of going to the effort to point out where you went wrong. E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22648730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22648730 You're producing a future estimate, assuming that all properties of your dataset are consistent (they aren't) and will continue to hold (they won't). As a few examples: (1) varying ratio of confirmed cases to actual total, (2) % increase in testing per day, day-over-day, (3) varying time offset according to disease progression and symptoms presentation (aka testing). You seem to be of the opinion that any information is better than no information. In scenarios like this, I'm of the counter opinion that bad information is actively harmful and inferior to no information.
    - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
      > No, you just made a large number of flaws in your initial analysis Seeing as you don't have access to my analysis, you can't say that. > You're producing a future estimate, assuming that all properties of your dataset are consistent (they aren't) and will continue to hold (they won't). This is just vague stuff to put me down. I worked by confirmed cases in publicly available data. > varying ratio of confirmed cases to actual total I'm not sure what this mean but I went by the total confirmed cases, day by day. As for your 'increased testing', I'm fully aware the US is finally getting going. > varying time offset according to disease progression and symptoms presentation (aka testing). Why would the progress at different rates at different times in different individuals make any difference? I'm going by confirmed cases anyways so unless you know of a new strain with different characteristics that's starting to distort the figures (and there are possibly 2) then it makes no difference. No, save your slapdowns for the people who push garlic as treatment. You are objecting to me for psychological reasons, not logical ones. You can go to the wiki page and see the growth day by day but you don't want to because it's bad news and you don't like that. Well, get used to it. Your life is going to change, nothing will stop that and the sooner you face it the safer you and your country will be. Hard times ahead. Good luck.

by gdubs 7y ago

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago

Thank you. To me, that's what it's about. I'd rather try and fail and learn from that, but people just telling me to put a sock in it isn't something I can learn from.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

andrepd 7y ago

>I’d rather have an informed discussion among smart people Yes, but that's the thing isn't it? We're not informed, and fitting ke^x to data doesn't make us informed. This reeks of Dunning-Kruger. I get that the intention is good, but we have to have some humility and not go all "hold on! I'll save the day!"

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Original poster here. > and fitting ke^x to data doesn't make us informed Well, yours is an interesting post but let me ask if curve fitting doesn't make us more informed then what does? There's an update to the data for the US in the past few hours and it doesn't improve things. I very carefully stated out my limitations, and then pointed them out again when someone critiqued my approach (see edit on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22645793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22645793). I have done my best to accept my limitations, but still I get people like you hammering me. So the question is why are we even posting anything on HN? Bottom line is what is HN for - non-factual debate, or factual debate? I strongly get the impression that much criticism isn't based on my admittedly trite analysis but because a lot of people just don't know how to handle really bad news and are trying to blank a nasty reality. Doubly so when I'm accused of of "hold on! I'll save the day!" which is purely your invention.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > I strongly get the impression that much criticism isn't based on my admittedly trite analysis but because a lot of people just don't know how to handle really bad news and are trying to blank a nasty reality. No, you just made a large number of flaws in your initial analysis, and it made people despair of going to the effort to point out where you went wrong. E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22648730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22648730 You're producing a future estimate, assuming that all properties of your dataset are consistent (they aren't) and will continue to hold (they won't). As a few examples: (1) varying ratio of confirmed cases to actual total, (2) % increase in testing per day, day-over-day, (3) varying time offset according to disease progression and symptoms presentation (aka testing). You seem to be of the opinion that any information is better than no information. In scenarios like this, I'm of the counter opinion that bad information is actively harmful and inferior to no information.
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    > No, you just made a large number of flaws in your initial analysis Seeing as you don't have access to my analysis, you can't say that. > You're producing a future estimate, assuming that all properties of your dataset are consistent (they aren't) and will continue to hold (they won't). This is just vague stuff to put me down. I worked by confirmed cases in publicly available data. > varying ratio of confirmed cases to actual total I'm not sure what this mean but I went by the total confirmed cases, day by day. As for your 'increased testing', I'm fully aware the US is finally getting going. > varying time offset according to disease progression and symptoms presentation (aka testing). Why would the progress at different rates at different times in different individuals make any difference? I'm going by confirmed cases anyways so unless you know of a new strain with different characteristics that's starting to distort the figures (and there are possibly 2) then it makes no difference. No, save your slapdowns for the people who push garlic as treatment. You are objecting to me for psychological reasons, not logical ones. You can go to the wiki page and see the growth day by day but you don't want to because it's bad news and you don't like that. Well, get used to it. Your life is going to change, nothing will stop that and the sooner you face it the safer you and your country will be. Hard times ahead. Good luck.