If you showed me a lineup of 10 guys and asked me which one ran a worm farm I feel like I would get it right 100% of the time.
14d 8h ago by lemmy.zip/u/doomslang in showerthoughts
You can probably get to 99.9% accuracy by just saying "none of those guys run a worm farm" every time.
I was assuming it wasn't a setup.
and it wouldnt be. the chances of 1 of 10 randomly picked individuals running a worm farm is very low.
They never said random.
I was assuming that most scenarios where you're asked to spot the worm farmer are bogus.
That's just what Big Worm wants you to think.
they never said a preselected group either. ah the ambiguities of the english language =)
They did, it’s implied, heavily.
Asking “which one” means one is.
It’s not ambiguous, you just missed important detials.
implied doesnt mean required. you can think what you want but nothing in that statement means one of them will be a worm farmer. and no I didnt miss any details. you just think an implication means fact. which it doesnt. i suspect you're often mislead by people exploiting this bias you have.
in order for you to be correct they would have had to state the selection mechanism for the group being considered. since they didnt, its ambiguous and you cannot infer anything from the statement.
It’s okay to admit you were wrong.
You assumed wrong, when they provided all the information you needed.
It could be what you’re saying, but you would need to intentionally ignore the context of “which one”.
It’s funny you speak of bias, when you’re the one being biased and assuming based of everything being “randomly selected”. I read what the person said and parsed it, you didn’t.
It’s like having a police lineup where one person is a crook, it’s not some survey lmfao.
again you're making assumptions about what information is actually in the text. im moving on I dont really give a shit that your reading comprehension is lacking. =)
No, I’m reading the words that they said and parsed them, without any previous knowledge, why would the assumption be random? That’s adding details that aren’t even there lol.
You realize that resulting to insults you mind as well just wave a flag saying you’re wrong.
No, I’m reading the words that they said and parsed them
yes, its your lack of comprehension about what you parsed that is the problem.... the fact you can't see that the information you're asserting isnt actually in the text is literally my point. aka: your reading comprehension problem.
you're the one insisting that the alternative parsing is incorrect while simultaneously admitting that the information you're claiming as part of the text was 'inferred'.
hint: inferences are not the same as facts. both random selection from the population and selecting 1 worm farmer and 9 randoms are valid inferences of the sentence.
I never claimed you had an incorrect understanding of the sentence. only that it isnt the only possible meaning of the sentence.
now move on.
A lineup (like a police lineup) is exactly that. One is the suspect and the rest are there to ensure that you can accurately identify the actual suspect to be used later in court.
You realize that a police line is literally random selection (including the perp) right? thats kind of the point. There is no guarentee that the 'perp' is the actual criminal despite the officers or the witnesses opinions on the matter.
"Literally a random selection except for the person not randomly selected"
Lol you have to be joking, right?
you fucking morons.
😂
You realize we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don't want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you've been terribly wrong this whole time. I can't wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren't real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you're right.
You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right?
feel free to re-read the thread as many times as it takes for you to understand where you fucked up. =)
They fucked up by responding to you.
I honestly find this person's compulsion to never admit they're wrong to be mildly fascinating. They just keep digging and creating the most outlandish reasons for why they think everyone else is wrong including the very person who asked the question to begin with.
No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.
The suspect, along with several "fillers" or "foils"—people of similar height, build, and complexion who may be prisoners, actors, police officers, or volunteers—stand side-by-side, both facing and in profile. There is crucial information that should be conveyed to the eyewitness prior to viewing the lineup. It is necessary to inform the eyewitness that it is possible the perpetrator is not present in the lineup.[1]
You just aren’t all there are you?
Because you dont actually understand what random is.
I didnt bring up police line ups that's someone else in this thread. Im just happy to point out how those are essentially random selection as well.
My original point was that the OP was ambiguous on the selection process used for the population. thusly assuming a random selection process from the overall popullation is just as valid as assuming 1 worm farmer + 9 randoms.
Now: randomness.
Given a random population of N entities, assume you want a sample of M where M < N and you decide to filter by Y to get X sample.
X is still random despite the filtering. all you've done is biased the N random population towards Y. but unless you remove the initial randomness (somehow... which is almost impossible btw). this is why so much of science is predicated on collecting large datasets because we have to make sure enough of the data has the attributes we want that it'll show up for study once we apply our faulty filtering mechanisms. and its why we spend so much effort creating better and better filters. its also why algorithm that leverage randomness are so powerful, because they match the reality of the problems being solved.
Using the line up as an example:
- witness says the individual they saw had a long wide nose and a blue shirt.
- reality: witness had a blue shirt.
- reality: The detective has very different definition of what a wide/long nose is than the witness.
applying those two faulty filters to population N is still going to result in a random population because the initial candidate selection before applying those two (faulty) filters is random.
That you’ve been provided proof that lineups are purposely selected from criteria
no, i havent. and in fact anyone asserting this is absolutely moronic and has no idea what they are talking about for reasons I've already mentioned.
im not doubling down you dunces just dont know what you're talking about. again as I've stated repeatedly.
lets start over so you can understand:
If you showed me a lineup of 10 guys and asked me which one ran a worm farm I feel like I would get it right 100% of the time.
you have:
- a line up of 10 guys.
you are asked:
- which one ran a worm farm
facts:
- nothing in the original statement mentioned any criteria for the 10 guys selected. you chucklefucks are just hallucinating worse than an LLm.
- the only mention of a worm farmer is in the problem being posed to the OP (or you) which is entirely independent of the fucking line up.
chucklefucks:
- morons asserting that the question asked about a set has anything to do with how the set was generated.
So how many people need to explain the same thing to you before you realize that you’re wrong? There’s already 4.
There’s no one here supporting you, I wonder why that is?
If you run into an idiot in the morning, you ran into an idiot. If you run into idiots all day, you're the idiot.
;)
Well done
I’ve read it multiple times, the only one who needs a clue is you. Take the hint dude, seriously.
You're right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You're wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn't always appoints the perpetrator at random
You're right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case.
That person still isn’t randomly selected, they are selected because they look similar to the suspected perp.
This person is thinking they’ll just grab anyone walking in front of the police station, that’s just wrong on every level.
That person still isn’t randomly selected
And this is exactly what I said
police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
they (and people like yourself) believe they do, but errors in information/how they interpret information that led to the selection of any given individual makes even the perp brought in by the police potentially random.
the 'intent' of the police is immaterial to the facts of how the process actually unfolds. when your high confidence witness' produce a 12.5% error rate on a line up between 6-8 people. you are literally in the realm of a coin toss. in that study the %ages for when the witness selected a filler were worse than random.
now agreeably the police are often essentially running a drakes equation for selecting the perp. but thats still entirely reliant on the quality of the information they are using for their identification. and often the line up is run early in the investigation. where they may only have eye witness information.
and since none of that information was provided by the OP you dont get to assume anything about it.
And that's why just reporting to give the right guess most of the time isn't enough. We need a full confusion matrix to evaluate any classification skill :D
In a way, isn't every farm a worm farm?
Distinctly, no, as insecticides and fungicides are still widely used and very very bad for worms.
This makes me wonder what everyone's mental image of a worm farmer looks like.
My intuitive association was Steve Urkel (I mean, the suspenders!) but a Google search suggests a more hirsute look for the average vermiculturist.
I have a worm farm.
Red wrigglers
You don't have to tell me, buddy!
The Cadillac of worms.
What are the signs of running a worm farm?
You just gotta feel it.
"Excuse me?"
"They said you just gotta feel it."
"I don't think this is what they meant."
"You don't know that.'
"Fair enough. Carry on."
(the conversation I made up in my head, now typed out for you all to share)
I should do this more often.
They just wiggle out of everything
Do I run a worm farm?
Gimme 9 other guys and OP can tell ya.
I volunteer as tribute.
Does a compost pile count?
This is very close to being oddly specific.
Plus, oddly, I agree with you.
I've only ever seen one in movies.
Is it bcz most people don't run a worm farm?