3 edits
Originally posted by sh76If I had already thrown my dice 10^12 times and I got roughly 1/6 of the times a 6, I must still increase my likelihood of it being rigged whenever I draw a 6. It increases only marginally, but it still increases and so it's still...evidence. However, this is not contradictory to saying that when I draw this 6 I can affirm that it was highly likely that this was the chance of the draw. You seem to think these statements are contradictory or you'd agree with me from the beginning.
The possibility that Barack Obama really thinks that that costs can fall 3,000% percent or that he traveled to 57 states in the US is so remote as to be functionally nonexistent. The odds of that being the case are "about the same as discovering that the entire roster of the Baltimore Orioles consists of cleverly disguised leprechauns." United States v. Eisenha withstanding, you can rest assured that it is a mathematical certainty that I am not stupid.
For you to make that statement of near negligibility you must be taking into account the history of his past statements.
Originally posted by PalynkaYes. Of course I'm taking into account his past statements.
If I had already thrown my dice 10^12 times and I got roughly 1/6 of the times a 6, I must still increase my likelihood of it being rigged whenever I draw a 6. It increases only marginally, but it still increases and so it's still...evidence. However, this is not contradictory to saying that when I draw this 6 I can affirm that it was highly likely that this ...[text shortened]... ment of near negligibility you must be taking into account the history of his past statements.
Just as Bush's past statements also indicated that his similar misstatements were misstatements rather than true misunderstandings.
Perhaps I was imprecise; as you were when you said that there was no evidence of Bush's lack of stupidity.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I didn't say there was no evidence, I said that in there was more evidence supporting the alternative for Obama, but not for Bush.
Yes. Of course I'm taking into account his past statements.
Just as Bush's past statements also indicated that his similar misstatements were misstatements rather than true misunderstandings.
Perhaps I was imprecise; as you were when you said that there was no evidence of Bush's lack of stupidity.
I'm not going to discuss how you evaluate your evidence, though. We can agree on Obama, but for me it's clear Bush was very likely an idiot propped up his entire life by his family.
Moreover, if his past statements are evidence (because you take them into account), then surely this one is also evidence.
1 edit
In statistics, oftentimes they use the smaller of the two amounts to calculate the "percentage change". This allows a "50% decrease" followed by a "50% increase" to result in the original amount.
*edit* more commonly, however, is using the average of the "old" and "new" values to calculate percentage difference in this way. {i.e. |x1 - x2| / ( (x1+x2)/2 ) }
Under this meaning, Obama's statement would mean that insurance premiums could be as low as 1/30 of what they are currently.
I'm not sure that's what he means, but I certainly didn't see the "3000% decrease" number and immediately find it to be ridiculous just because it was greater than 100%
Originally posted by FMFYou are correct FMF,,
No one is denying he said it Sam. Good grief. It's a verbal flub. The whole point of verbal flubs is that they undeniably happen! 🙄🙄🙄
things happen, words spill out we wish we could pull back.
It sucks to be him. Wrapped up in one of the messiest bills I can remember.
I hope something good comes from this past year of fighting. A bill perhaps scaled back in some areas, one we can pay for without mortgaging the future.
Originally posted by forkedknight"insurance premiums could be as low as 1/30 of what they are currently"
In statistics, oftentimes they use the smaller of the two amounts to calculate the "percentage change". This allows a "50% decrease" followed by a "50% increase" to result in the original amount.
*edit* more commonly, however, is using the average of the "old" and "new" values to calculate percentage difference in this way. {i.e. |x1 - x2| / ( (x1+ ...[text shortened]... r and immediately find it to be ridiculous just because it was greater than 100%
who's paying for that?
Originally posted by forkedknightI agree with Palynka on this. This practice is mathematically awful.
In statistics, oftentimes they use the smaller of the two amounts to calculate the "percentage change". This allows a "50% decrease" followed by a "50% increase" to result in the original amount.
*edit* more commonly, however, is using the average of the "old" and "new" values to calculate percentage difference in this way. {i.e. |x1 - x2| / ( (x1+ ...[text shortened]... r and immediately find it to be ridiculous just because it was greater than 100%
I cringe when I hear someone talk about something decreasing by 300% or 400% when they should be saying that it's decreasing by 67% or 75%, or that only 33% or 25% remains from the previous amount.
In Obama's case, I think he meant to say 30% or $3000. Even if he was reading from a teleprompter, I can easily see this kind of error being made.