Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:


So did you lie about no human can survive years let alone decades of solitary confinement? If mines a lie then so is yours. Fair? 
 

And I’ve had a very productive day as it happens. You’ve spent the day focusing on my opinion that you can’t prove to be wrong. 

IMG_4604.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Engineman Hicks said:

IMG_4604.jpeg

 

I don’t know if you’re aware but that meme has helped me more than you. I believe that more people on here will believe she is more guilty than innocent. I stated it as a fact without pointing out it’s just my opinion but until you can prove it isn’t a ‘Fact’ you can’t call me a liar. Because as it stands I haven’t lied about anything. 
 

Now let’s consider that meme and your statement about solitary confinement that you stated “as fact” without an opinion caveat. That statement is evidently untrue. So. Will you admit that was a lie? I’ve asked 3 times now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Saying someone is defending a baby killer  can only mean that they think the person defending her actually believes she is guilty. That is very offensive.

So if someone convinces themselves that Fred West is innocent, by your logic it would offensive to call them a defender of a mass murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Saying someone is defending a baby killer  can only mean that they think the person defending her actually believes she is guilty. That is very offensive.

So if someone convinces themselves that Fred West is innocent, by your logic it would offensive to call them a defender of a mass murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, No2 said:

So if someone convinces themselves that Fred West is innocent, by your logic it would offensive to call them a defender of a mass murderer.

Fred West confessed. I would suggest that they were loons.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

 

I don’t know if you’re aware but that meme has helped me more than you. I believe that more people on here will believe she is more guilty than innocent. I stated it as a fact without pointing out it’s just my opinion but until you can prove it isn’t a ‘Fact’ you can’t call me a liar. Because as it stands I haven’t lied about anything. 
 

Now let’s consider that meme and your statement about solitary confinement that you stated “as fact” without an opinion caveat. That statement is evidently untrue. So. Will you admit that was a lie? I’ve asked 3 times now. 


I didn’t think I’d get an answer here. Oh well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Code said:

There is absolutely no evidence of her being guilty, just accusations from people not understanding statistics and people trying to cover their own mistakes. 

In fairness, your average person doesn't understand statistics. I cannot get my head around The Birthday Paradox at all.

 

*You might expect that a group would need to be quite large for a shared birthday to be likely. However, it only takes 23 people for the probability of at least two sharing a birthday to exceed 50%, and 70 people for the probability to exceed 99.9%.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

In fairness, your average person doesn't understand statistics. I cannot get my head around The Birthday Paradox at all.

 

*You might expect that a group would need to be quite large for a shared birthday to be likely. However, it only takes 23 people for the probability of at least two sharing a birthday to exceed 50%, and 70 people for the probability to exceed 99.9%.


Code doesn’t understand statistics unless they suit him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, A Red said:

Fred West confessed. I would suggest that they were loons.

I wasn't aware he confessed, it's not a case I followed closely. I recently watched the beginning of a program on him and in the early stages he wasn't confessing to anything. He said he had no idea how they ended up under his patio, all seemed very plausible to me, he came across as warm individual with no reason to lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, No2 said:

I wasn't aware he confessed, it's not a case I followed closely. I recently watched the beginning of a program on him and in the early stages he wasn't confessing to anything. He said he had no idea how they ended up under his patio, all seemed very plausible to me, he came across as warm individual with no reason to lie.

He took them to his patio, basement and a field to show them where he'd buried the bodies.

 

There was a drama depicting what happened called Appropriate Adult with Dominic West playing Fred. Well worth watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, A Red said:

He took them to his patio, basement and a field to show them where he'd buried the bodies.

 

There was a drama depicting what happened called Appropriate Adult with Dominic West playing Fred. Well worth watching.

Oh God, that scene when they found the Head & Shoulders in the bathroom!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

In fairness, your average person doesn't understand statistics. I cannot get my head around The Birthday Paradox at all.

 

*You might expect that a group would need to be quite large for a shared birthday to be likely. However, it only takes 23 people for the probability of at least two sharing a birthday to exceed 50%, and 70 people for the probability to exceed 99.9%.

That's mental, as it must take another 296 people to get the extra 0.1 %. 

Doesn't make sense but it's true.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

In fairness, your average person doesn't understand statistics. I cannot get my head around The Birthday Paradox at all.

 

*You might expect that a group would need to be quite large for a shared birthday to be likely. However, it only takes 23 people for the probability of at least two sharing a birthday to exceed 50%, and 70 people for the probability to exceed 99.9%.

 

It's not really that complicated- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

 

Quote

The birthday paradox is a veridical paradox: it seems wrong at first glance but is, in fact, true. While it may seem surprising that only 23 individuals are required to reach a 50% probability of a shared birthday, this result is made more intuitive by considering that the birthday comparisons will be made between every possible pair of individuals. With 23 individuals, there are 23 × 22/2 = 253 pairs to consider, more than half the number of days in a year.

 

That should be (23x22)/2 rather than how it's come out.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, A Red said:

He took them to his patio, basement and a field to show them where he'd buried the bodies.

 

There was a drama depicting what happened called Appropriate Adult with Dominic West playing Fred. Well worth watching.


He was scarily the spitting image of him as well. If you’d told me he was Fred’s son I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

It's not really that complicated- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

It only makes sense if you are autistic - no offence.

 

It's like that twat on LBC trying to make a fool of someone the other day by stating that 49% of people are of below average intelligence. That intuitively is correct, but statistically, is not.

 

That's my only point here, that a lot of more complex statistics are counter intuitive and your layman wouldn't get them without delving into it.

 

*I make no comment on this case, because I know nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

It only makes sense if you are autistic - no offence.

 

It's like that twat on LBC trying to make a fool of someone the other day by stating that 49% of people are of below average intelligence. That intuitively is correct, but statistically, is not.

 

That's my only point here, that a lot of more complex statistics are counter intuitive and your layman wouldn't get them without delving into it.

 

*I make no comment on this case, because I know nothing about it.

 

With that kind of stat I always like to ask whether that's mean, median or mode. Usually shuts them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, No2 said:

I wasn't aware he confessed, it's not a case I followed closely. I recently watched the beginning of a program on him and in the early stages he wasn't confessing to anything. He said he had no idea how they ended up under his patio, all seemed very plausible to me, he came across as warm individual with no reason to lie.

 

He doesn't care how much you admire him, bumsies is extra.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

It only makes sense if you are autistic - no offence.

 

It's like that twat on LBC trying to make a fool of someone the other day by stating that 49% of people are of below average intelligence. That intuitively is correct, but statistically, is not.

 

That's my only point here, that a lot of more complex statistics are counter intuitive and your layman wouldn't get them without delving into it.

 

*I make no comment on this case, because I know nothing about it.


Care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

It only makes sense if you are autistic - no offence.

 

It's like that twat on LBC trying to make a fool of someone the other day by stating that 49% of people are of below average intelligence. That intuitively is correct, but statistically, is not.

 

That's my only point here, that a lot of more complex statistics are counter intuitive and your layman wouldn't get them without delving into it.

 

*I make no comment on this case, because I know nothing about it.

I saw a clip of that, he’s a fucking idiot. Imagine if 99 people have a £1 and one has a £1 million, the average of the group isn’t £50. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite maths problem is the Ferrari and goats game. You go in a game show, there are 3 doors. Behind 2 are manky flea ridden goats, behind one is a brand new Ferrari. The host knows which is which. You pick 1) and he opens 2) to show you that’s a goat. Do you change your pick to 3) or stick at 1) ?
 

p.s - Arthur Anderson used to use this question at their graduate interviews 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...