4 ms·
LOL we may need to update the title of this post, half the top level comments right now are assuming the study confirmed the hypothesis. > With a mighty Pearso
by macrael 2y ago
LOL we may need to update the title of this post, half the top level comments right now are assuming the study confirmed the hypothesis.
> With a mighty Pearson's correlation of 0.091, the data indicates that this could
> be true! If you ignore the fact that the correlation is so weak that calling it 'statistically
> insignificant' would be quite generous.
- lostdog 2y agoThe more generally interesting a topic is the more likely a HN user is to read the article. A study.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tialaramex 2y agoI am definitely guilty of sometimes clicking "reply" and then reading the linked article to check that I'm not about to essentially tell you what you'd have read or worse, tell you something the article actually debunks.
- AlienRobot 2y agoI only read articles with headlines that describe informative content, not with headlines that sound funny or thought-provoking.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- daotoad 2y agoWould it help if I were to chime in with a response about the benefits of kebab case over train case?
- btown 2y agoHi there, inventor of the kebab plugin for traindeck here. I'm afraid I was the one who introduced the concept of kebab case, way back in the early 1990s. Back then, trains didn't have enough processing power to handle full cuts of meat, so I thought I'd introduce kebabs as a hack, and it ended up taking off! Didn't expect anyone to still be using it. It's always fun to share stories on HN - you never know who you'll meat here.
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoEasy fix: just add a ? to the end.
- Buldak 2y ago"study" is already in scare quotes
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoHa ha I had my coding eyes on. I removed the quotes mentally as the entire title starts with one.
- gwerbret 2y agoHeh. You've just captured the reason why (the better) clinical journals explicitly and specifically forbid having a statement of results in the title of a paper.
- cloudbonsai 2y ago> be true! If you ignore the fact that the correlation is so weak that calling it 'statistically insignificant' would be quite generous. I actually came to a different conclusion than the author. Here is the way I'm thinking about the presented statistics: 1. There is 17 Kebab shops (out of 400 samples) with a google review lower than 3 stars. Let's call them "bad kebabs". 2. All those "bad kebabs" actually located within 500m from the nearest station. No kebab located in further than >500m is bad. 3. So if you've ever gotten a bad donor kebab, we can safely assume that you have purchased it from a kebab shop near a train station. Maybe there are so many kebab eaters near a train station that a mediocre kebab offering becomes profitable?
- magicalhippo 2y ago> with a google review lower than 3 stars At least here, the majority of 1-2 star reviews are actually complaining about third-party delivery services like Foodora[1]. Of course the fries will be soggy and the burger luke warm when you got a guy who had to pedal a bike for half an hour to deliver it for you. Like what did you expect? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodora
- randomNumber7 2y agoI expect this guy to keep it fresh for me.
- mort96 2y agoI don't know if you're joking or not but in case you're not, you can't really keep fries "fresh". Regardless, the point remains that the quality of third party food delivery services shouldn't be considered when studying the quality of restaurants.
- devilbunny 2y agoI always open fries. They will get cold. Fine. Cold fries can be reheated; they won’t be as good as fresh, but soggy fries are much harder to fix.