kgwgk

36 ms·

781.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Ok, so we agree that probability is not a part of physics. I also agree that the question of how to apply probability in physics is interesting. I’m not sure about the “nobody knows” though. I would say that statistical mechanics has been q
782.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Why does probability seem to follow an arrow of time, it doesn't seem symmetrical like the rest of physics. One cannot really oppose probability to "the rest of physics". Probability is not "a part of" physics.
783.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Depending on what you mean by “discontinuously” it always does: the microscopic world is “discrete”. Instead of thinking of “temperature” you may think of “inverse of temperature” and then there is no issue with that number going “continous
784.
by kgwgk 2y ago
No need to apologize! I was joking, I think I get what you mean.
785.
by kgwgk 2y ago
I agree that thermodynamic relations - and Legendre transformations - are fascinating. I don’t think I ever fully understood them though - at least not to the point where they became “intuitive” :-)
786.
by kgwgk 2y ago
It has the same “units” (if you mean “energy”) as mc2 as well and that doesn’t suggest anything to me… Your intuition is much better than mine - or it’s informed by what you know about temperature.
787.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> 1. The benchmark for hedge funds is not the sp500, it’s the bond market There is not _a_ benchmark for "hedge funds" as they are not really _a_ thing. In some cases S&P 500 may be an appropriate benchmark. Unless Bill Ack
788.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Or just be a duelist and attribute it to a soul or whatever. Best typo I’ve seen in some time.
789.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Looking at it this way it’s not too hard to see why the R2 is bad. It barely explains any more difference in the individual behavior than the basic guess. Right. R² is 1% because the prediction is bad - only marginally better than the
790.
by kgwgk 2y ago
That seems more or less what I said in the comment you replied to: the prediction of individual votes remains quite bad even if the state is taken into account. That's why the relative reduction in MSE is low. That's why the R² is
791.
by kgwgk 2y ago
When I wrote "In this case it measures the relative reduction in MSE" I meant exactly that. The mean squared error of the baseline model which doesn't include the state as a regressor is 0.25 (it predicts always 0.5 - it&#x27
792.
by kgwgk 2y ago
I don't understand what you mean. I'll just note that the value of R² in this case is 1% as the blog post explains and the code below confirms. > data <- data.frame(state = rep(c(0, 1), each=20), pref = c(rep(0, 11), rep
793.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> Either way, the point stands... the improvement in using a full linear model (that predicts 0.45 or 0.55, depending on state) is marginal compared to the baseline model that always predicts 0.50 Yes, I think we don't disagree. I w
794.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> I think that you are using here a different definition of R^2 Different from what? According to wikipedia: The most general definition of the coefficient of determination is R^2 = 1 - SS_res / SS_tot ( = 1 - 0.2475 / 0.25 = 0
795.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Your calculation is not directly related to the model (and associated R²) discussed in the article which are about the prediction of individual votes using the state as predictor - not state averages using the state as predictor. Maybe I&#x
796.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> there simply isn't much residual variance left for the linear model to explain. I'd say that there is still quite a lot of residual variance to explain. You need a baseline - the worst choice would be to predict 0 (or 1) and
797.
by kgwgk 2y ago
R² is a measure like any other. In this case it measures the relative reduction in MSE - which is low because the prediction of individual votes remains quite bad even if the state is taken into account. Does another measure give substanti
798.
by kgwgk 2y ago
For what it's worth, the "blogger" is an statistician.
799.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Not sure about the "R squared" name, but the use of this quantity as "coefficient of determination" (the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable from the independent variables) can be tra
800.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> In the case where someone ran the sesame buns on third shift it very much wasn't a rounding error afterward. If it is a rounding error compared to the level that you find acceptable now it was a rounding error compared to the lev
801.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Swiss court bans ‘racist’ Mexican food brand ‘Bimbo’ https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multinational-companies/swiss-c...
802.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> The manufacturer will dial the measured sesame so that it will be large enough that "cross contamination" will be a rounding error. Sure, the "completely uncontrolled" amount present before - in the "may contai
803.
by kgwgk 2y ago
They will be measuring the sesame that they are adding as an ingredient. That's on top of whatever unmeasured amount of sesame was already present due to contamination.
804.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> If you have a mild sensitivity, the added sesame may be below your threshold. Now you know that the sesame is controlled so you can always buy the product. If you can buy the product with the added sesame you could also buy the product
805.
by kgwgk 2y ago
> 0.2% of the current US population is 6.6 million people. Math doesn't check out. > If you hosted an event of 500 people, you could expect around 10 people to have a sesame allergy. Same. > 65,000 [...] ~1,300 Again.
806.
by kgwgk 2y ago
People are going to buy the cheapest option that satisfies the regulation. If giving shit about other people means systematically buying more expensive options they won't give any.
807.
by kgwgk 2y ago
One may read "for every possible combination of allergens" as "for every combination of allergens present in the range of products being manufactured".
808.
by kgwgk 2y ago
"Because it can be difficult and expensive to keep sesame in one part of a baking plant out of another, some companies began adding small amounts of sesame to products that didn't previously contain the ingredient to avoid liabili
809.
by kgwgk 2y ago
This is from Feller (vol. II), not exactly a high school text. Definition 3. A random variable X is a real function which is measurable with respect to the underlying sigma-algebra. The function F defined by F(T) = P{X < T} us called
810.
by kgwgk 2y ago
Ok. Consider the age in days or microseconds of my cousins if that makes it sound more similar. The point is that the random variable is about mappings to general numbers. “The random variable X is a function mapping the outcome to its prob

More ›