Inside the Mirrortocracy

Post by EdwardDiego » Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 12:42 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #117

facepalm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says they are oblivious? Maybe they just don't like to hire people who don't drink. Why should they be obliged to hire them?

Nobody's saying they should be obliged - but their complaints about how hard it is to hire people should now be taken with a larger grain of salt. It certainly shows where on the spectrum they lie, between "wants to hire people to do a job" and "wants to hire people to hang out with". Personally, I've got plenty of friends I care deeply about and want to go drinking with, and while I'm not opposed to grabbing a beer…

Post by supine » Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

sharpneli wrote: post #175

dragonwriter wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is blatantly false. Correlation implies at very minimum a causal link trough a third effect. No, it doesn't. Correlation can be coincidence; while a particular correlation may be unlikely on its own to be coincidence, there are lots of combinations of things in the universe that might be compared side-by-side, and so unlikely coincidental correlations are everywhere, and so if you troll through the universe lo…

Sure. But with enough datapoints the probability of the correlation being a mere accident is going to be vanishingly small. And by enough I am talking about hundreds and more of datapoints. If one looks at things like yearly values of something for within last 10 years like the page spurious correlations is doing one is bound to find some weird ones.