3 ms·
This take is just wrong statistically. First, there are far more than a few murders in large cities. Second, murders rising in ALL large cities by a large perce
by babesh 6y ago
This take is just wrong statistically. First, there are far more than a few murders in large cities. Second, murders rising in ALL large cities by a large percentage is unlikely. Third, the total murders across the large cities rising by a LARGE percentage is unlikely.
The equivalent to the second is tossing heads every time. The equivalent to the third is tossing far more heads than tails when you toss many times.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago> First, there are far more than a few murders in large cities. From the chart apparently linked in one of the sources, half the cities listed had under a hundred. Only two had one a day, Chicago and Philadelphia. That's "a few" in this kind of statistics. >Second, murders rising in ALL large cities by a large percentage is unlikely. When ~10 events can constitute a large percentage, it's not that unlikely. I won't say there wasn't something that was worse this year compared to most, I put forward my guess as to a primary cause in my first post. Using metrics like "percentage change" hide the actual events that happened, and makes the problem sound more terrifying than it actually is.
- babesh 6y agoThe definition of high percentage doesn’t matter much here just as it doesn’t matter much if a coin is a little head or a lot head. You can also measure the probability of murder doubling for each city using statistics if you are so inclined. The number of tosses matters. As the number of tosses increases, it is increasingly unlikely to toss all heads and increasingly unlikely to toss a great more heads than tails. This is probability and the central limit theorem.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoI have no idea what you're trying to say, as trying to compare these statistics to a 50% chance just doesn't work. Is the number of tosses the number of people or the number of murders?