3 ms·
This title is pretty misleading and not supported by the tweet. The point it makes is the original simplification to 0.05 as a binary cutoff was for copyright r
by HWR_14 5y ago
This title is pretty misleading and not supported by the tweet. The point it makes is the original simplification to 0.05 as a binary cutoff was for copyright reasons over a century ago. The current use of 0.05 is inertia from that decision. There are no current copyright issues.
- upsidesinclude 5y agoThis should be the example under the definition of pedantic
- HWR_14 5y agoI think that's very important distinction. "Copyright law needs to change because p < 0.05 are legally scientific results that are outside copy protection and can be freely copied" is a different case than "bad facts taught and here's a better solution; oh, and the origin was a historical copyright issue"
- samwillis 5y agoQuite right, I struggled to trim the tweet down in length to make it fit the HN title restrictions. Not ideal, however the trivia is interesting.
- HWR_14 5y agoNot just the trivia of the origin. If we know why it was chosen, and have a better solution, we can start to advocate for it. I had an issue with the title, but I'm glad you posted it.