|
90s Cringe Rock posted:People tend to be really awful at understanding and comparing the area of circles, though. That’s not the problem. The problem is the ambiguity; a circle’s diameter grows linearly with the radius while the area grows quadratically. Want to exaggerate a difference? Use the radius as scale. Want to diminish it? Use area. Both are bad because even if you state which you use, some people will intuitively misinterpret it, even if only subconsciously. It’s the same as when somebody presents a difference as a percentage: the absolute difference is probably infinitesimal (gene testing shows you are 20% more likely to get whichever rare cancer 5 people die from yearly) and if they use absolute numbers, it is an insignificant percentage (government spent $20M more on the poor). tl;dr: always use radius1.5 as scale for circles
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Powered Descent posted:The source is linked in a reply, and... I, uh... what? They just really like circles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
klafbang posted:That’s not the problem. The problem is the ambiguity; a circle’s diameter grows linearly with the radius while the area grows quadratically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
klafbang posted:It’s the same as when somebody presents a difference as a percentage: the absolute difference is probably infinitesimal (gene testing shows you are 20% more likely to get whichever rare cancer 5 people die from yearly) and if they use absolute numbers, it is an insignificant percentage (government spent $20M more on the poor). Yeah this is a concept I've tried to explain to my family when they freak out about an ad on tv about food or lifestyle choices increasing their chances of getting whatever disease and it's impossible for some people to get that it's not "You now have a 20% chance of getting this" it's "your already super low chance just got bumped up a bit".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Just do a grid of whatever it is you're measuring. So, if you want to represent 100,000 people, do a grid of 10X10 little people icons, and have a thing at the bottom that says 1 icon = 1000 people Joke answer, do 316x316 icons
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
 https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
So many of the graphs in this thread make me feel like I'm having a stroke, it's incredible
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Were the few generals with -3 and -2 wars to their names peace activists or something? But they weren’t fighting too hard for peace either so it wouldn’t be considered its own kind of war for the purposes of this graph? E: Hold on, why is there enough space for 7 bars between 0 and 5 wars? I thought we were counting in whole numbers of wars, but apparently the correct reading is that more than 3000 generals have between 0 and 5/7 of a war to their names? HerStuddMuffin has a new favorite as of 06:10 on Oct 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
I was so baffled I read the article, and it's not wars, it's WAR - wins above replacement. How he calculates WAR is a bit suspect, but the biggest problem is that as far as I can tell it's an absolute sum of WAR stats, not an average, which means that someone with a long, successful, and above all famous campaign (like Napoleon or Julius Caesar) will have a huge numerical advantage vs. someone for whom only one battle is present on Wikipedia, even if they won that battle handily while at a huge disadvantage. Right after that graph he trash-talks Robert E Lee, so there's at least something good in the article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
It’s “wins above replacement”. It’s a coincidence that the acronym also means “major armed conflict”. Dividing it into bars of 0.7 units width is still whack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:the biggest problem is that as far as I can tell it's an absolute sum of WAR stats, not an average, which means that someone with a long, successful, and above all famous campaign (like Napoleon or Julius Caesar) will have a huge numerical advantage vs. someone for whom only one battle is present on Wikipedia, even if they won that battle handily while at a huge disadvantage. Yes. “Wins above replacement” makes sense for sports teams where everyone is playing the same number of games, or if they aren’t, it’s a problem (like they’re out for injury). It makes a lot less sense for generals plucked from the last three millennia of warfare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
I thought the article was a joke before reading it, but the guy is dead serious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 12:29
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:So many of the graphs in this thread make me feel like I'm having a stroke, it's incredible Same here. I've lost count of the graphs I've looked at in this thread and wondered if I'm about to start smelling toast because they make no goddamn sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:I was so baffled I read the article, and it's not wars, it's WAR - wins above replacement. How he calculates WAR is a bit suspect, but the biggest problem is that as far as I can tell it's an absolute sum of WAR stats, not an average, which means that someone with a long, successful, and above all famous campaign (like Napoleon or Julius Caesar) will have a huge numerical advantage vs. someone for whom only one battle is present on Wikipedia, even if they won that battle handily while at a huge disadvantage. the dude's WAR is more than suspect: in his code he runs a simulation where if an average general has 99% of the air force/infantry/artillery/cavalry participating in a battle, he predicts that this guy would have a 75% chance of winning against another average general. he's literally just adding wins and subtracting losses edit: another gem from his code: the worst general in his data set is "Capital punishment" archduke.iago has a new favorite as of 15:26 on Oct 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yes. Let's calculate the Elo ratings of Alexander the Great and Garry Kasparov to determine who would win in a head-to-head Pong match.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
HardDiskD posted:I thought the article was a joke before reading it, but the guy is dead serious. Yeah. Like if it was a joke it's a really well executed one, but it's not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
archduke.iago posted:he's literally just adding wins and subtracting losses
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
HerStuddMuffin posted:Shouldn’t capital punishment have the best k/d ratio? I mean, when was the last time an executioner lost? technically they were killed by the state, the executioner is just the tool they use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Among other things, I am fond of the insane way in which inconclusive battles, Pyrrhic victories, and victories in minor battles are not only counted as positive but are often more positive than decisive victories against superior forces. E: Napoleon really padded his stats with some garbage time victories in the War of the Sixth Coalition. King Hong Kong has a new favorite as of 17:20 on Oct 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
HerStuddMuffin posted:Shouldn’t capital punishment have the best k/d ratio? I mean, when was the last time an executioner lost? There was that civil war doctor that had a 300% fatality rate for a surgery
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:There was that civil war doctor that had a 300% fatality rate for a surgery Are you saying every time he attempted it, he killed the patient and two bystanders?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:Are you saying every time he attempted it, he killed the patient and two bystanders? Wikipedia posted:Amputated the leg in under 21⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright. That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Well, it was only one of his many operations, most of which were successful, but... i remember that dude, he prided himself on being the fastest surgeon around, but didnt give much of a poo poo whether the patient actually lived or not
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:i remember that dude, he prided himself on being the fastest surgeon around, but didnt give much of a poo poo whether the patient actually lived or not Sometimes it backfired, though, as DACK informed us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
"dropped dead from fright" is one of my favorite old timey causes of death
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:i remember that dude, he prided himself on being the fastest surgeon around, but didnt give much of a poo poo whether the patient actually lived or not Mostly because modern anesthesia hadn't been invented yet, and the way to do surgery and kill the fewest patients was to do it as fast as possible before they bled out. After it was invented, he was a enthusiastic early adopter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Unlike most surgeons, however, his knife was clearly an area effect weapon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Too bad they didn’t have youtube at the time. I can imagine his speed run videos. “Ok, so here normally you’d have to cut diagonally along the hand of your assistant who’s holding the leg. But that’s the long way. If instead we cut straight through, it shaves nine frames off the animation, and it shortens the cut just enough that we’ll save an entire stitch later on. The best part is, cutting through the assistant’s fingers does not take any longer than cutting through the patient’s flesh only, so this maneuver is pure profit.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:i remember that dude, he prided himself on being the fastest surgeon around, but didnt give much of a poo poo whether the patient actually lived or not That's not true at all though? Liston was a pioneer of surgery and did a generally good job of keeping people alive in an era where that was the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
The 300% mortality story and the accidentally took the patients balls off story are most likely gossip made by surgeons who were mad at him for daring suggest there might be less infections if they didn't spend all day covered in viscera. Primary sources usually agree he was crazy skilled and genuinely interested in improving the state of the art in technique and anesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Oh, were people meant to take it as fact rather than just a funny story?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 13:58
|
|
|
I like that the idea "maybe you should wash your hands of deadguy juice before delivering babies" was just unfathomable and insulting in that era. Also that doctors wore black and took it as a sign of pride with how much gore they accumulated
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Oh, were people meant to take it as fact rather than just a funny story? It's often presented as such, when it comes up here, and on other sites, some of them more or less reputable news orgs, etc. Edit: even when it's questioned it's usually in terms of "it might not have happened" rather than "it probably didn't." And I've never seen the claim that it was specifically made up to get back at him for suggesting doctors wash their hands. Blue Footed Booby has a new favorite as of 14:17 on Oct 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
A lot of people don't realize that it was only in the 19th century that we got rid of most of the insane medieval bullshit that was still in science (even if the foundations for modern science were laid in the 17th and 18th centuries). For example, the discussion about spontaneous generation wasn't fully put to rest until Pasteur's experiments. It's not that long ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:I like that the idea "maybe you should wash your hands of deadguy juice before delivering babies" was just unfathomable and insulting in that era. suggesting that improvement is possible to a white man who thinks he's important is STILL the worst and most insultingly disrespectful thing how DARE you imply that the incredibly smart important man isn't already using his vast intelligence to do things perfectly
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
groan I know I myself was glibly calling it medieval bullshit earlier, but with a lot of these major advances and discoveries they initially had no data or even cohesive theories to scientifically back them up. In many cases, the necessary framework or instruments just didn't exist yet. You can say people were slow to adopt them when the evidence did start piling up, but it's always easy to go 'lol idiots' in hindsight. We only know what's correct because that discussion happened and a new scientific consensus was eventually reached.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
lol you think I'm wrong and doctors as a profession aren't REGULARLY like "im so smart i cannot be wrong" to this very day about things like "maybe the idea of studying only men because women are too complicated isn't actually correct"? never any issues related to patriarchy in this traditionally patriarchal profession that's groanworthy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
I don't think your observation of 'human pride exists' is wrong, just that it's not the only factor to explain why it took so long to adopt certain views that we now know to be correct. Continental drift is another example, you can think it's insane that it took so long for geologists to accept it, but without the explanatory mechanism of plate tectonics and a way to measure/prove that, it's just another theory. Phlegmish has a new favorite as of 15:52 on Oct 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?quote:Knowledge accumulation — the process by which new research builds upon prior research — is central to scientific progress, but the way this process works is not well understood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
People are people and we're stupid and prideful, news at eleven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2019 16:08
|
|
