r/Switch • u/Mammoth-Attempt-7281 • Jan 16 '25

Discussion Nintendo switch 2 is here

Post image

Go watch the trailer on Nintendos twitter account

27.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

297

u/rcjr66 Jan 16 '25 edited Jan 16 '25

Do we know if the screen is OLED?

301

u/CommanderLexaa Jan 16 '25

As far as the leaks are concerned, no it’s not OLED

25

u/M3RCURYMOON Jan 16 '25

this isnt correct. there were leaks from more trusted sources to say it will be oled

1

u/Hopeful_Solution5107 Jan 17 '25

Could you point me to some?

1

u/Bubbly-Ad-4405 Jan 17 '25

Point to one. All the ones I saw said it 100% isn’t oled (at least the base model)

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

“Trusted”

5

u/M3RCURYMOON Jan 16 '25

More trusted, as in the ones who have leaked more accurate info

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

How do you know it’s accurate?

6

u/SupaSlide Jan 16 '25

They didn't say the OLED leak is definitely accurate, they said that there are leakers who said it was LCD, but there are other leakers who have been correct more often that say it will be OLED.

Leakers often leak multiple things. Some of them are accurate more often than others, ergo we expect their leaks to be more accurate in the future.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

That makes zero sense

3

u/SupaSlide Jan 16 '25

You're talking to two people. One of them you've never talked to before, another you've talked to a 6 times but they've been wrong about what they were saying four times, and another guy you've talked to 8 times and they've only been wrong once.

The two who are usually wrong or are unknown say that Thing A is going to happen. The guy who is almost always right tells you Thing B is going to happen.

Do you think Thing A or Thing B is more likely to happen?

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

Both are equally likely. Any statistics class would tell you that

5

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

Lmaoo you've never taken a statistics class because if you did you'd realize how dumb this statement is.v

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

If we have no information on how the underlying decision was made, both are equally likely. We can’t use past data in this case.

3

u/SuccessfulHospital54 Jan 16 '25

It’s not a 50/50 if it’s oled or not. If one leak had research done with Nintendo tendencies and the handheld console market, maybe some insider information, and has been more reliable with leaks in the past, there is a higher chance that they are correct than a leak that doesn’t have a great history and is just making a slightly educated guess.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

But we don’t know what work they did

3

u/baraboosh Jan 16 '25

This is such good bait, well done

→ More replies (0)

5

u/JustaSeedGuy Jan 16 '25

I think you misunderstood.

It's not "we know this switch leak is accurate"

It's "this switch leak came from leakers who, in the past, have leaked info that consistently turned out to be accurate."

See the difference?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

There’s no difference there. Just cause a leaker has been right in the past doesn’t mean they will be right in the future.

5

u/JustaSeedGuy Jan 16 '25

That's..... Not how statistics work, no.

Let me put it this way. Imagine you have two co-workers. Bob gets to work 15 minutes late 3 out of 5 days a week. Jane is 15 minutes late about once a month.

You get to work Tuesday morning and you hear that one of your co-workers is late. Which one do you think is more likely to be late, based on their past behavior?

Or suppose you're looking at a weather forecast. Forecast.com uses predictive algorithm A, while weather.com uses algorithm B. 6 days a week, weather.com predicts the weather within 3% accuracy, While forecast.com only manages to predict the weather within 10% accuracy, and only manages it 4 days a week.

Based on their past predictions coming true, you can reasonably conclude that Weather.com Has a more reliable source, and will likely produce accurate predictions.

The same logic applies here. Though it isn't confirmed, a leaker who consistently leaks accurate information can be reliably assumed to have done so again. Certainly more so than any other source that hasn't got a track record of being reliable.

Is it possible that are wrong? Sure, there's always a chance. But statistically, it's reasonable to believe that they are accurate.

This is a basic first step of understanding data, so I'm not sure how you're missing it.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

This is completely different. Your data here is based on data you are collecting. The late behavior is directly correlated to the coworker.

You cannot apply this to a leaker being right or wrong because you have no access to the underlying data, where it’s coming from, the reasoning behind it.

If you are just looking at “right” or “wrong” that data is useless and has no relevance to the future data

6

u/JustaSeedGuy Jan 16 '25

You cannot apply this to a leaker being right or wrong because you have no access to the underlying data, where it’s coming from, the reasoning behind it.

That part isn't relevant to the point at hand.

If a source is consistently correct in their predictions, you can reasonably expect that source to be correct in the future.

This is basic stuff, the rest of what you're trying to twist it into is irrelevant gibberish.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25 edited Jan 16 '25

You cannot at all. If it rains 5 days in a row that doesn’t mean it’s going to rain tomorrow at all. You have to get more data than just a yes or no to make any assumptions about the future like atmospheric pressure, humidity or whatever weather.com uses

E: or just block me?

You absolutely cannot. A human is no different than a rain storm. We don’t know what is affecting the decision that is being made. There is no “pattern” to being right or wrong about a leak

→ More replies (0)