> The point they're making is that fewer than 30% of monkeys would still be positive after so many years if it were random chance I'm not sure that's the argum

> The point they're making is that fewer than 30% of monkeys would still be positive after so many years if it were random chance I'm not sure that's the argument being made, but if so, it's a terrible argument. I'll let the statisticians figure out of randomly ~50% should beat index or not.