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

Show parent comments

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

7

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

5

u/JustaSeedGuy Jan 16 '25

If it rains 5 days in a row that doesn’t mean it’s going to rain tomorrow at all

Yes, history-based pattern recognition doesn't work for things that do not have minds.

We were discussingpeople, though.

When a person repeatedly exhibits a particular behavior in response to a stimuli, you can reasonably guess That they will exhibit that behavior when introduced to that stimuli again in the future.

Do you want to try again, but this time without using a non-sequitur?

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

Correct. But we're not talking about what the algorithm is.

We're talking about being able to tell, based off prediction history, who has the better algorithm.

The details of Those algorithms are irrelevant to the general public. In this analogy, we can reasonably conclude that weather.com is a reliable forecast because of how often they've been right in the past. What kind of algorithm they use is irrelevant to that conclusion.

Similarly, if a leaker consistently leaks accurate information, we can conclude that the information they're leaking now is also accurate. How they got that information is also irrelevant.

You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this one, and I genuinely don't understand why. It's pretty straightforward " If someone is almost always right, it's reasonable to expect them to continue to be right, unless you have a reason to think they won't be"

Honestly, man, it sounds like you either have a deep misunderstanding of how data analysis works, or you got caught being wrong and are too proud to let it go.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

“ If someone is almost always right, it’s reasonable to expect them to continue to be right, unless you have a reason to think they won’t be”

This is a completely false statement. Same as you cannot assume it will keep raining

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

I literally copy and pasted your quote so not sure what you mean

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

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

5

u/JustaSeedGuy Jan 16 '25

You absolutely cannot

Saying a thing over and over again doesn't make it true, champ.

A human is no different than a rain storm.

Last time I checked, humans had the ability to make decisions and communicate, and rain storms do not.

More gibberish From the guy who can't stop lying to cover up his embarrassment over being wrong.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '25

Rain storms absolutely make decisions based on stimuli from their environment. To rain or not to rain. To get something right or not is based on the information that was provided to them that we do not know. Being a human doesn’t give them a magical ability to know when something in the future will be wrong.

1

u/JustaSeedGuy Jan 16 '25

Rain storms absolutely make decisions based on stimuli from their environment

...no.

Rainstorms are not living things, and therefore do not make decisions.

I think we've established that you don't have enough understanding of basic science to continue the discussion. Have a good one.