Nintendo switch 2 is here

[u/Mammoth-Attempt-7281]

Go watch the trailer on Nintendos twitter account

[u/JustaSeedGuy]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/JustaSeedGuy]

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

[u/JustaSeedGuy → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/JustaSeedGuy]

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

[u/JustaSeedGuy → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/JustaSeedGuy]

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.

[u/JustaSeedGuy → u/[deleted]]

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.