3 ms·
Are you saying they are no better than chance? Or just that they are not 100% perfect? Because we should deeply care about any source of information that beats
by brookst 3y ago
Are you saying they are no better than chance? Or just that they are not 100% perfect?
Because we should deeply care about any source of information that beats chance, even if it is imperfect.
- tomjen3 3y agoI mean that is two fucking big ones to get wrong, no? Would maybe be interesting to see some data to look back and see how correct they are in general, but to be practically useful it would have to be quite a lot better than chance.