this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
194 points (84.4% liked)

News

23627 readers
2490 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Person B's predicted outcome was closer to the truth.

Perhaps person A's prediction would improve if multiple trials were allowed. Perhaps their underlying assumptions are wrong (ie the coins are not unweighted).

[–] Miphera@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps person A's prediction would improve

But in this hypothetical scenario of explicitly unweighted coins, Person A was entirely correct in the odds they gave. There's nothing to improve.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We are talking about testing a model in the real world. When you evaluate a model, you also evaluate the assumptions made by the model.

Let's consider a similar example. You are at a carnival. You hand a coin to a carny. He offers to pay you $100 if he flips heads. If he flips tails then you owe him $1.

You: The coin I gave him was unweighted so the odds are 50-50. This bet will pay off.

Your spouse: He's a carny. You're going to lose every time.

The coin is flipped, and it's tails. Who had the better prediction?

You maintain you had the better prediction because you know you gave him an unweighted coin. So you hand him a dollar to repeat the trial. You end up losing $50 without winning once.

You finally reconsider your assumptions. Perhaps the carny switched the coin. Perhaps the carny knows how to control the coin in the air. If it turns out that your assumptions were violated, then your spouse's original prediction was better than yours: you're going to lose every time.

Likewise, in order to evaluate Silver's model we need to consider the possibility that his model's many assumptions may contain flaws. Especially if his prediction, like yours in this example, differs sharply from real-world outcomes. If the assumptions are flawed, then the prediction could well be flawed too.