uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 12:33 pm
My mistake, you are that stupid. Seriously Skepdick, show us how you get this:
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 12:06 pm
There were three options, so you calculated the odds as 1 in 3.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 2:59 am
Oh please. There are 3 options: murder rates go up, they stay the same or they go down. You can stare at that until the cows come home but there will only ever be those 3 options, and you in your 'I'm a cor-blimey computer scientist' brilliance has concluded that the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.
Dude. Must I get you a shovel?
The murder rate could've gone up.
The murder rate could've remained steady.
The murder rate could've gone down.
Or it could've gone up, up, up, down, down, down, down, up, up, down, down, down, up, down, up, down, down, down, up, down, up, down, down, up, up, up, down, down. Oh! Wait! That's what it ACTUALLY did!
When you abstract away time, you are ignoring the significance of your sample size, which is a function of your sampling frequency.
You are insisting that 1 in 3 odds calculated from 5 datapoints ( 5 hours ) is "exactly the same thing" as 1 in 3 odds calculated from 5000000 datapoints (500 years).
The entire notion of confidence intervals and sample sizes is foreign to you.
To use Harbal's vocabulary: imbecile.