Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to StatsPlease's blog Subscribe


Special Features


I can't remember where I read it, but lotto numbers that have come up before have a higher chance of coming up again.

In fact, I believe theres a list somewhere that shows numbers that have come up the most.

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-17 10:12 PM | Reply

This demonstrates the absolutely terrible understanding of statistics people have. Any random string of numbers is going to have repeats. If you see a long, "random" string of numbers without repeats, it is likely not random at all. In fact, one of the ways forensic accountant can use to find faked entries in financial data is an even distribution of starting digits.

Please explain how the lotto machine in the Philippines influenced the drawing in the US. Is this a world-wide conspiracy to rig the lotto?

Talk about long odds! That is, unless lotteries aren't as random as math would have you believe.

#1 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-10-17 09:45 PM | Reply

No, the odds were exactly the same for that string of numbers as it is for any other. That's how it works. As Hatter said in #5, no matter how many heads have come up on a fair coin, the next flip still has a 50% chance of coming up again. The coin has no way of knowing what the result of the last flip was. Each event is independent.

A quote from the article on Coincidence from Wikipedia: "From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, which shows that the probability of two persons having the same birthday already exceeds 50% in a group of only 23 persons.[1] "

This lack of understanding of statistic leads to all sorts of superstition and poor choices. Statistics can be very counter-intuitive. It's why we do the math.

The last comment got cut-off somehow.

Isaac Asimov's article about the "Relativity of Wrong". Read it and comprehend it before bringing out the "Scientists were wrong before so don't believe them now!" nonsense.

It's hilarious having to pay attention to these scientists. "Listen to us!!! Our conclusions are perfect and based off of real science!!!" Then a year later "We changed our conclusions but they are still perfect and based off real science so you have to listen to us!"

The IPCC has changed their conclusions many times over since 2003. They claim it's based on better measurements and more accurate readings. Yet, when other scientists come out with valid conclusions that prove there are flaws in their information and conclusions, they go nuts and say those people can't be trusted and everything they do is wrong. "Peer-review" is becoming another ad word used by whoever is trying to sell the product.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2018-10-08 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not one actual scientist has ever said "Our conclusions are perfect". Ever.

The rest of your rant is equally vapid projection. No scientist "goes nuts" when a fellow scientist comes out with valid conclusions that prove there are flaws in their information and conclusions. When valid information is brought forward, it is evaluated and used to improve the conclusions. Then again, doing that just proves they were "wrong" and shouldn't be trusted according to you. Change the conclusions based on valid data - "Ha! They were wrong, see!". Point out the criticism wasn't correct "Ha! They don't accept valid criticism!" Convenient for you and those who just want to sow doubt.

The conclusion have changed, but not by a lot each year. I think it's a good time to bring out Isaac Asimov's article about

I grew up in smoggy southern california. It's better now, but that's a separate issue from catastrophic global warming. MMGW I believe in; catastrophic, end-of-civilization warming that requires a State takeover of the economy and punishing energy prices that hurt the poor much more than the white middle/upper class activists, not so much.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-08 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:
| Newsworthy 1

And mandating airbags and seat belts destroyed the auto industry. I mean, they said the "state takeover" forcing those safety devices was going to drive prices so high no one would buy cars anymore, so it must have happened, right? Safety is now the one of the top selling points for vehicles in the US, so maybe the fears were overblown. Banning smoking in bars was going to drive bars out of business, except bars did better business afterwards.

The improvements to smoggy Southern California is not a separate issue from catastrophic global warming. The same arguments were made against the mandating of catalytic converters, lower emission of NOx and SO2, and better fuel mileage. They were all going to destroy the economy, except they didn't. A "state takeover of the economy" is a boogeyman, and not what people are actually calling for. Sensible regulation that forces the industries that create the pollution to carry the cost of those externalities is making the economy work to produce the solution, instead of privatizing the profits and socializing the costs like we have now.

By the way, the poor are also hurt the most by that pollution and its long-term health consequences, so let's figure out which cost we as a society thinks is more appropriate to pay. "[W]hite middle/upper class activists" don't suffer from black lung and don't live near the streams polluted by coal ash. How do we, as a society, make it so the costs aren't borne mostly by the poor? Doing nothing isn't solving that problem, so tell me what your solution is.

I didn't see the actual study reference in the article, but this is pretty poor reporting. It is the Sun, so I suppose that's to be expected.

From a scientific point of view, several important factors seem to have been left out of the article: What was the standard deviation of the measurements for the two populations? A high standard deviation for one or both of the populations would make this less likely to be a useful diagnostic. For that matter, what was the distribution generally for the measurements? Were either of them generally a normal distribution, were there large numbers of outliers or secondary peaks? What other factors were controlled for - generally bad health, obesity, erectile problems? This correlation seems especially dubious since we are talking about less than 1 cm difference, which is less than the standard deviation of penis size in general. (Study here in BJU International. I'm not familiar with the journal, so I don't know how good it is, but at least it gives some better statistics)

I know, people would rather make jokes - but I hate bad science reporting like this because it undermines credibility when the next study comes out that says this one was wrong. At best, there is likely a confounding variable that leads to both small penis size and infertility. It reminds me of a study that "showed" short people were more likely to die young, but it didn't make any effort to determine if the short stature was due to something like malnutrition or other disease. It was especially strange since similar studies indicated tall people were likely to die younger, probably equally flawed.

Sorry, off my soap box, and you can get back to the jokes.

I haven't looked at the actual complaint yet, but I'm fairly certain it will be related to the "I've secured funding to take Tesla private" debacle. He's also being sued by some short-sellers who claim he lied about the plan to take Tesla private to artificially inflate the stock and damage the short-sellers. See this article as an example: Reuters

I'm afraid he may be in for a rough road ahead on this one. He didn't have the money in-hand when he made the statements, and he had been ranting about short-sellers trying to ruin the company.

Confirmed, that's what they are going after him over: Washington Post

f you have no skills, your productivity is not worth more than the minimum wage. It is up to the employee to increase their skill level. In this sense, skills does not mean getting an advanced degree or learning a trade, it means having a documented record of showing up for work, following manager instructions, having a positive attitude towards customers and co-workers, and most importantly, doing a good enough job that you will have a reference for your next application. If you can do these very basic, minimal things, you absolutely can negotiate a salary increase by switching employers. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit the people that are multiple years in the workforce but still earning minimum wage have done things on the job that have kept them at that level and limited their outside employment opportunities.

#65 | Posted by econprofessor at 2018-08-27 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

... or maybe you were forced to sign a non-compete clause to work in a sandwich shop; or there were "no poaching" agreements between fast food chains or high-tech companies.

Also, companies have tried to prevent employees from discussing pay so you can't know what the company is willing to pay. There is a massive imbalance of power between a single employee and a company, especially large ones. It's funny how "free" marketeers forget that the theory depends on everyone having complete, perfect knowledge; knowing the outcomes of each choice, and choosing the optimal path. Homo_Economicus doesn't exist. The people who are the closest to that "ideal" are sociopaths. Not a pleasant world to live in.

"Labor-as-a-commodity" theory is about as realistic as a spherical cow in physics.

my last paycheck in july of 2o17 compared to my last paycheck in july this year...$50 to $200 more take home. i'm not an economist but I have a good grasp on what i have available to spend.

#11 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-08-14 01:09 PM | Reply

I recommend everyone get a copy of their latest paystub (along with their spouses') and use the IRS Withholding Calculator. As Danforth said, many people are not withholding enough and will owe considerable amounts come tax-time. There is real potential for some in the upper-middle to owe enough there would be penalties involved. In my own case, my total tax liability looks to be slightly higher this year than last, but my withholding was hundreds of dollars less. I would have been subject to penalties had I not upped my withholding.

Don't wait, or it will get much more painful if you have to adjust.

I merely said there are other causes other than those mentioned by the article.

I guess you missed the part where I said "I'm sure there's vast improvement that can be made by hospitals..."

#16 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-07-29 07:05 AM | Reply

Why are those other causes so much worse in America than, say the UK? Do you believe Americans are inherently more prone to drug use? Lazier about getting "free" per-natal care?

When you propose alternate causes, think through what your implications are and what the likelihood of those differences being so much worse in the US than the 38 countries ahead of it on the list.

Here's another article on the topic that delves a little deeper into the data: ArsTechnica

A quote: "At dozens of hospitals in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas, fewer than half of mothers were given prompt medication for dangerous blood pressure levels that put them at risk of having a stroke or seizure, the documents revealed. At some hospitals, the rate was less than 15 percent. For instance, at Women's Hospital in Greensboro, one of the largest birthing hospitals in North Carolina, staff failed to give timely blood pressure treatment to 189 of 219 mothers between October 2015 through June 2016, according to internal documents.

While high blood pressure is one of the top causes of maternal deaths and complications, experts estimate that up to 60 percent of hypertensive deaths are preventable."

Here's another:
"In a 2015 webinar hosted by influential trade association the American Hospital Association, a trainer talked bluntly to hospital maternity staff about maternal deaths and injuries. 'What we know about those deaths is that most of them were absolutely preventable," the trainer said. "They were from causes that we could have done something about. We could have prevented it if we had recognized the emergency early on.'"

This is a health care delivery problem, pure and simple.

By the way, the Guardian article you quoted in #6 is from 2008 - well out of date. As it happens, I looked at a few in the Lancet article the USA Today article used for its rankings. Both Belarus and Ukraine are now ahead of the US, as they improved and we got worse. I didn't look at the others.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable