Well I am out and about but staying close to home. I think today we had our first real summer day. In the high twenties, low humidity, a light ocean breeze, not a cloud in the sky.
Yeah, I love those days .... which is why we call it "good weather" .... as it makes us feel better. Good old 'seasonal affective disorder', grumpy in winter and bouncing in summer aka Cabin Fever. My dawgs are doggone muddy but happily so. DownUnda : Spring has yet to sprung and the grass hasn't yet rizz. But it will probably go gangbusters soon enough as we've had tons of rain. Haven't turned on the water valve to street supply for ... oooh .... about 8 months now, it's all coming off the roof and into the tank ie. the one I hid under a tree so the Water Police won't charge me for not buying it from them. :-) :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Well I just checked my Lotto Ticket. I had a approx. 1 in 14 million chance of winning the top prize. I have a 1 in 3200 chance of getting hit by a chuck the UARS satellite expected to renter later this month or early next month. UARS Status
By the way I won ten bucks on a 2 dollar ticket.. The Odds 1 in 56.7
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Well I just checked my Lotto Ticket. I had a approx. 1 in 14 million chance of winning the top prize. I have a 1 in 3200 chance of getting hit by a chuck the UARS satellite expected to renter later this month or early next month. UARS Status
By the way I won ten bucks on a 2 dollar ticket.. The Odds 1 in 56.7
Sometimes I have a problem with stats and the english language or for that matter any language.
Question...
There is 1 in 3200 chance I could get hit with a chunk of this.. and there is a 1 in 3200 chance there could be a human casualty. Are these similar. Something tells me I am missing something.
Edit : I think it has to to do with the difference between a objective stance and a subjective stance. I think only the statistical objective stance is the only reality.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
... between a objective stance and a subjective stance. I think only the statistical objective stance is the only reality.
Generally otherwise known as absolute vs relative risk. If life is good to you for other reasons ( non-spacecraft aspects ) then your risk from said spacejunk event is significant for you as there's not much else cooking on the threat-board. If however you are in imminent mortal decline ( extant mafia hit contract, say ) then space debris is the least of your worries. Either way the absolute risk or odds of a piece of re-entering satellite hardware hitting you vs. not hitting you is the same - because the physics of that risk is the same with respect to your personal circumstances.
.... or at least you'd think so, and this is where it gets squirrelly. You might not be going out and about as much as usual to reduce sniping opportunities - or keep changing addresses perhaps to obfuscate your whereabouts. Does one hide up in the attic or down in the cellar when there is a knock on the front door? How do these alter your probability of injury from falling debris from the sky ? Hmmm ..... :-)
This is what I have mentioned before : too many 'probability' calculations focus on the numerator ( the 'event of interest' ) and not enough upon the denominator ( 'everything' else in the alleged universe of discourse ). It is frequently the case that statistical dis-ingenuity stems from unstated massaging of the base set of possibilities from which cases are then drawn. This is especially notable if fear is a factor in decisions stemming from probability estimates. That way one can pretty well guarantee a self interested emotional short-cut to bridge the shaky parts of a deductive logic chain.
So the trick to selling ( and profit from selling ) life insurance is to Sell Ice To The Inuit ie. what is not needed. Hence the advertising targets fit and healthy young people with a magnified perception of the adverse result and not mention the true risk. Little point insuring those with high risk as like any bookmaker you want to get a wad of cash in and then keep it for yourself.
[ One can make money with high risk but you have to adjust the staked amounts to suit. The backers of Lloyd's coverage of the Piper Alpha oil platform know this only too well. ]
So back to your question : did the source of the figures define what the other 3199 outcomes were, and hence by what intellectual process those were decided to be the ones to use ??? :-) :-)
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Another instance I remember : ( early 1980's ) being told that women in late pregnancy had a lesser risk of road trauma. One inference was they were more 'resistant' to injury. It turns out that heavily pregnant women find it uncomfortable to get in and out of cars or sit in the seats plus/sans seatbelt - big tummy - hence tend to travel less within them and be subject to fewer collisions. That's why they were under-represented in road trauma statistics. When account was taken of their lesser mileage the truth was worse : more subject to injury and more seriously so. Typically involving internal hemorrhage in and around the pelvic area - no surprise. So the problem was the faulty/unspoken denominator of 'per miles travelled'. What is often even worse than deliberate denominator fudging is not actually knowing what factors should be there at all. Here I must mention, alas perhaps, Donald Rumsfeld's classic chat about unknowns :
Quote:
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.
.... whatever else he may/not have stuffed up, he was quite correct here. :-) :-)
( edit ) My guess is that 1:3200 means 'chances that someone will be injured by this re-entry', but like the Reno air-race this last w/end will that be one person or fifty?
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
.... or at least you'd think so, and this is where it gets squirrelly. You might not be going out and about as much as usual to reduce sniping opportunities - or keep changing addresses perhaps to obfuscate your whereabouts. Does one hide up in the attic or down in the cellar when there is a knock on the front door? How do these alter your probability of injury from falling debris from the sky ? Hmmm ..... :-)
NASA expects about 14 pieces of this thing to survive reentry. The debris path won't be known until a couple of hours prior to reentry. Until then the odds for some people are going to greatly increase and the odds for other people are going to greatly decrease.
.... or at least you'd think so, and this is where it gets squirrelly. You might not be going out and about as much as usual to reduce sniping opportunities - or keep changing addresses perhaps to obfuscate your whereabouts. Does one hide up in the attic or down in the cellar when there is a knock on the front door? How do these alter your probability of injury from falling debris from the sky ? Hmmm ..... :-)
NASA expects about 14 pieces of this thing to survive reentry. The debris path won't be known until a couple of hours prior to reentry. Until then the odds for some people are going to greatly increase and the odds for other people are going to greatly decrease.
.... is that some weenier on CNN stated the The Odds I .....
Classic example of factoid fudge, although it's seems likely both the numerator ( someone or me ? ) and denominator ( someone or the whole planet ? ) were fiddled here.
On a side note : we in Victoria had The Decline and Fall of a chief police commissioner based upon many things, one of which was misrepresenting crime statistics. During a press conference where he was rebutting allegations that he was covering up incompetence with numerology, he asked the room 'hands up who failed stats at school?' as a joking rejoinder. What we wanted to know was 'who failed telling the truth as a police commissioner?' ... but I thought it beautifully ironic that in a discussion of lying with statistics he used a joke about statistics to try to avert the lying bit. [ Funny thing is that I was arrested - by mistake, and then released - by this very fellow some thirty years ago .... small world etc :-) ]
Back when SkyLab didn't even dig a ditch when it came down DownUnda Outback, I recall alot of hype leading up. And yes, because of how these things go one can't be real sure of the target - though that firms up as the hour approaches. Sells copy though. Some people even went Outback to either see it fall and/or grab a piece of junk. Some claimed to see the trails, no one was injured, but some alleged junk was found years later. NASA didn't want to buy it back. Last I heard ( at urban myth level ) there's a piece mounted on the wall over a bar somewhere out there.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) A simple example : throwing a pair of die ( dice ? ). The phrases
- six a given dice
- six on one of the dice
- six on at least one of the dice
- a six on both dice
- a six on one followed by a six on the other
- a six total from both die
- total six or more on both die
- total not less than six on both die
all might sound pretty similiar one phrase to the next but have substantially different probability - or might be the same but it seems different due to language. So part of the statistical lie can be the language wrapping not the ratio per se.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
.....So part of the statistical lie can be the language wrapping not the ratio per se.
In this case it was the language, where 'someone' was translated into 'you' and 'me'... And it just sloppiness on part of the media. These guys went to media school. Didn't They?? :-)
Well its down. Looks like it might have dumped itself in the North Pacific.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
.....So part of the statistical lie can be the language wrapping not the ratio per se.
In this case it was the language, where 'someone' was translated into 'you' and 'me'... And it just sloppiness on part of the media. These guys went to media school. Didn't They?? :-)
Well its down. Looks like it might have dumped itself in the North Pacific.
And sometimes it is not sloppiness but intentional...
And sometimes it is not sloppiness but intentional...
Wow, that's a pretty obvious one. The problem is with the non-obvious ones though .... I can't for the life of me understand the strong belief some have in most media outlets. I reckon I'm with Michael Shermer along such lines, especially the old gag 'I assert thus, but you must disprove' ..... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Well I am out and
)
Yeah, I love those days .... which is why we call it "good weather" .... as it makes us feel better. Good old 'seasonal affective disorder', grumpy in winter and bouncing in summer aka Cabin Fever. My dawgs are doggone muddy but happily so. DownUnda : Spring has yet to sprung and the grass hasn't yet rizz. But it will probably go gangbusters soon enough as we've had tons of rain. Haven't turned on the water valve to street supply for ... oooh .... about 8 months now, it's all coming off the roof and into the tank ie. the one I hid under a tree so the Water Police won't charge me for not buying it from them. :-) :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Well I just checked my Lotto
)
Well I just checked my Lotto Ticket. I had a approx. 1 in 14 million chance of winning the top prize. I have a 1 in 3200 chance of getting hit by a chuck the UARS satellite expected to renter later this month or early next month.
UARS Status
By the way I won ten bucks on a 2 dollar ticket.. The Odds 1 in 56.7
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Well I just checked my
)
Sometimes I have a problem with stats and the english language or for that matter any language.
Question...
There is 1 in 3200 chance I could get hit with a chunk of this.. and there is a 1 in 3200 chance there could be a human casualty. Are these similar. Something tells me I am missing something.
Edit : I think it has to to do with the difference between a objective stance and a subjective stance. I think only the statistical objective stance is the only reality.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: ... between a objective
)
Generally otherwise known as absolute vs relative risk. If life is good to you for other reasons ( non-spacecraft aspects ) then your risk from said spacejunk event is significant for you as there's not much else cooking on the threat-board. If however you are in imminent mortal decline ( extant mafia hit contract, say ) then space debris is the least of your worries. Either way the absolute risk or odds of a piece of re-entering satellite hardware hitting you vs. not hitting you is the same - because the physics of that risk is the same with respect to your personal circumstances.
.... or at least you'd think so, and this is where it gets squirrelly. You might not be going out and about as much as usual to reduce sniping opportunities - or keep changing addresses perhaps to obfuscate your whereabouts. Does one hide up in the attic or down in the cellar when there is a knock on the front door? How do these alter your probability of injury from falling debris from the sky ? Hmmm ..... :-)
This is what I have mentioned before : too many 'probability' calculations focus on the numerator ( the 'event of interest' ) and not enough upon the denominator ( 'everything' else in the alleged universe of discourse ). It is frequently the case that statistical dis-ingenuity stems from unstated massaging of the base set of possibilities from which cases are then drawn. This is especially notable if fear is a factor in decisions stemming from probability estimates. That way one can pretty well guarantee a self interested emotional short-cut to bridge the shaky parts of a deductive logic chain.
So the trick to selling ( and profit from selling ) life insurance is to Sell Ice To The Inuit ie. what is not needed. Hence the advertising targets fit and healthy young people with a magnified perception of the adverse result and not mention the true risk. Little point insuring those with high risk as like any bookmaker you want to get a wad of cash in and then keep it for yourself.
[ One can make money with high risk but you have to adjust the staked amounts to suit. The backers of Lloyd's coverage of the Piper Alpha oil platform know this only too well. ]
So back to your question : did the source of the figures define what the other 3199 outcomes were, and hence by what intellectual process those were decided to be the ones to use ??? :-) :-)
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Another instance I remember : ( early 1980's ) being told that women in late pregnancy had a lesser risk of road trauma. One inference was they were more 'resistant' to injury. It turns out that heavily pregnant women find it uncomfortable to get in and out of cars or sit in the seats plus/sans seatbelt - big tummy - hence tend to travel less within them and be subject to fewer collisions. That's why they were under-represented in road trauma statistics. When account was taken of their lesser mileage the truth was worse : more subject to injury and more seriously so. Typically involving internal hemorrhage in and around the pelvic area - no surprise. So the problem was the faulty/unspoken denominator of 'per miles travelled'. What is often even worse than deliberate denominator fudging is not actually knowing what factors should be there at all. Here I must mention, alas perhaps, Donald Rumsfeld's classic chat about unknowns :
.... whatever else he may/not have stuffed up, he was quite correct here. :-) :-)
( edit ) My guess is that 1:3200 means 'chances that someone will be injured by this re-entry', but like the Reno air-race this last w/end will that be one person or fifty?
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: .... or at least you'd
)
NASA expects about 14 pieces of this thing to survive reentry. The debris path won't be known until a couple of hours prior to reentry. Until then the odds for some people are going to greatly increase and the odds for other people are going to greatly decrease.
A while back I took out $2.99 worth of insurance.
Simple Flybys
I am joking I had the app for while it gives me a heads up on interesting stuff passing over my head.:-)
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: RE: .... or at least
)
Update. Discovered some new stats.
The odds of some getting hit is 1 in 3200.
Someone worked out because of the number of people on the planet. the Odds I would personally gets hit. Its 1 in 24 trillion.
The reason why I brought this up ,is that some weenier on CNN stated the The Odds I you would get hit was 1 in 3200. It made in personnel:-)
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: .... is that some
)
Classic example of factoid fudge, although it's seems likely both the numerator ( someone or me ? ) and denominator ( someone or the whole planet ? ) were fiddled here.
On a side note : we in Victoria had The Decline and Fall of a chief police commissioner based upon many things, one of which was misrepresenting crime statistics. During a press conference where he was rebutting allegations that he was covering up incompetence with numerology, he asked the room 'hands up who failed stats at school?' as a joking rejoinder. What we wanted to know was 'who failed telling the truth as a police commissioner?' ... but I thought it beautifully ironic that in a discussion of lying with statistics he used a joke about statistics to try to avert the lying bit. [ Funny thing is that I was arrested - by mistake, and then released - by this very fellow some thirty years ago .... small world etc :-) ]
Back when SkyLab didn't even dig a ditch when it came down DownUnda Outback, I recall alot of hype leading up. And yes, because of how these things go one can't be real sure of the target - though that firms up as the hour approaches. Sells copy though. Some people even went Outback to either see it fall and/or grab a piece of junk. Some claimed to see the trails, no one was injured, but some alleged junk was found years later. NASA didn't want to buy it back. Last I heard ( at urban myth level ) there's a piece mounted on the wall over a bar somewhere out there.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) A simple example : throwing a pair of die ( dice ? ). The phrases
- six a given dice
- six on one of the dice
- six on at least one of the dice
- a six on both dice
- a six on one followed by a six on the other
- a six total from both die
- total six or more on both die
- total not less than six on both die
all might sound pretty similiar one phrase to the next but have substantially different probability - or might be the same but it seems different due to language. So part of the statistical lie can be the language wrapping not the ratio per se.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: .....So part of the
)
In this case it was the language, where 'someone' was translated into 'you' and 'me'... And it just sloppiness on part of the media. These guys went to media school. Didn't They?? :-)
Well its down. Looks like it might have dumped itself in the North Pacific.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: RE: .....So part of
)
And sometimes it is not sloppiness but intentional...
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/10/04/new-york-times-shifts-its-framing-of-the-arrests-at-occupy-wall-street/
RE: And sometimes it is not
)
Wow, that's a pretty obvious one. The problem is with the non-obvious ones though .... I can't for the life of me understand the strong belief some have in most media outlets. I reckon I'm with Michael Shermer along such lines, especially the old gag 'I assert thus, but you must disprove' ..... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal