Say no to BAYES

Comments

• e0qdk@reddthat.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Is this a Bayeskisser meme? 😛️

  source
• edinbruh@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Say no to statistics altogether. If we form a compact front, we can eradicate the disease of statistics from the face of the earth.

  As motivation, I’ll explain why statistics is only good for stealing:

  • Statistics is used to invest in the stock market, which is stealing by definition
  • Statistics is the foundation of modern AI, which as of now is mostly used for stealing work and intellectual property
  • There is no real statistical research, but every other paper is forced to have a little useless graph and a p-value made by some statistician, who steals fame from the real researchers who made the rest of the paper
  • Statistics is at the core of the gambling industry, which preys and steals from the elderly and economically weak
  • Every fucking formula for calculating probability needs to have a “mathematician’s” name even if it’s always sums and scaling that a toddler could come up with. Remembering those names steals neurons from students
  • Etcetera

  source

  • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Quality shit post, but the naming thing is true of virtually everything in mathematics, with good reason, because otherwise you’d just be talking about “that slightly different combination of arbitrary letters by which we do something very similar, but measurably distinct, from the use cases of the other three equations like it”.

    See:

    • Pythagorean theorem (geometry)
    • Dijkstra’s Algorithm (graph theory)
    • Fermat’s last theorem (number theory)
    • Peano axioms (formal logic)
    • For that matter, the word “Algorithm” comes from the Latinised name of the dude who invented algebra, and the word “algebra” is just an overly a truncated version of the title of that dude’s book.

    This is also doubly true in science, where there are 5000 different “laws” and “theorems” surrounding something like gas behaviour, so at some point, you have to differentiate them based on their history, rather than what they do. Hence “Charles’ law”, “Boyle’s law”, “Gay-Lussac’s law”, “Bernoulli’s principle”, the “navier-stokes theorem”, etc…

    source

    • edinbruh@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I’ll admit that was a bit of a stretch. But I also think the naming thing is a problem. Especially in mathematics, even when it is not named after a person, you often have no clue about what it is from just the name (i.e. what do you think is a magma in mathematics?)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • angrystego@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Oh, they played us for absolute fools!

    source
  • chgxvjh@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Is this a shit post?

    source

    • edinbruh@feddit.it ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      No, it’s my belief. I was forced to do statistics at school from a young age, and it polarized me.

      It all started in kindergarten, when the teacher wanted us to take polls of stuff like favourite colours and such, and find the mode of the polls, and I didn’t want to pay attention to other kids’ favourite colours so mine were always wrong.

      Then it continued through elementary, middle, and high school, and I often failed statistics tests, because they always had you calculate ludicrous amounts of differences and squares and means and I would inevitably make mistakes. My maths average was 9/10 regardless, but I hated statistics.

      Then I had to take a statistics exam for my bachelor degree in computer science, and I failed and had to retake it next year.

      Then I had to take a second statistics exam for my master’s degree in computer science that I’m pursuing right now. And I failed that and had to retake it.

      And this is how I specialised in formal verification and abstract interpretation. Many such cases.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Xkcd 1132 1000019148

  source
• adhocfungus@midwest.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  It’s like 50% of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s personality too, if you need more motivation to hate it.

  source

  • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Is the other 50% smugness and delusions of grandeur?

    source
• Cattail@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I told a guy that a wide variance in data essentially means that results were random then he proceeded to explain p values and I’m like “yeah I’m sure the random values values came from nature”.

  Moral is p values kinda worth less than variance

  source
• 33550336@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I noticed that Soviet textbooks were frequentist e.g. Khintchin, while modern textbook by Murphy is Bayesian. The frequentist approach makes more sense to me.

  source