3 ms·
Sooooo... You're saying that the chance of a true positive given an alert was much less than 33%? I don't if you meant it as a counterpoint for what I said, bu
by PoignardAzur 2y ago
Sooooo... You're saying that the chance of a true positive given an alert was much less than 33%?
I don't if you meant it as a counterpoint for what I said, but it really isn't.
- IIsi50MHz 2y agoSorry, I meant to say that with only 6.8% of all tests triggering a false alarm (and 0% true alarm), a test operator still found a way to prevent the alarm from occurring rather than being kept on their toes.
- PoignardAzur 2y agoYeah, but again, the problem isn't the high false positive rate. The problem is that given any positive at all, the chance it points to a problem is still virtually zero. If it was 6.8% of all tests as false positives and 2% true positives, probably people wouldn't have silenced the alarm. If it goes off 8 times a day and 2 of them are true positives, then people have recent memories of having to fix problems pointed by the alarm.