* so much respect to those who design it. I feel like stats is not something you can teach well if you are forced to assess via a standardized test (much of which is MCQs)
07.03.2026 01:29
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
* so much respect to those who design it. I feel like stats is not something you can teach well if you are forced to assess via a standardized test (much of which is MCQs)
I’ve been helping a friends kid study for the AP stats exam.
I forgot how much beef I have with the AP Stats curriculum* 😂
A person with a microphone saying “ because I think that something awaits me in the divine for resisting“
Them: why do you keep calling yourself a “statistician” instead of a “data scientist”
Me:
Unfortunately all my data is shited 😔
My query just failed to run because I referenced a CTE as “unshited” 💩 instead of “unshifted” so…
Me looking annoyed
Yeah my face is stuck like this now😔
We LOVE DATA ENGINEERS 🙇🏻♀️
My corgi nova looking suspicious
Me when I can’t SELECT * FROM AMAZING_DATA.CLEAN_TABLE
Santa climbs in a window, sees a letter written to him from a small child who is sleeping. The letter reads “observe the counter factual”. After reading this Santa tries to shoot the child.
🎅
I actually don’t mind “there’s a 95% chance this kind of interval contains….”🤔
💀
that does not meaningfully improve people’s ability to live and work with CIs 🫨 I’ve had every opinion about CIs under the sun, but this is the most peace I have felt about them 🧘♀️🧘♀️🧘♀️
Mattan…I cannot do it anymore 🧘♀️I’m sick of wasting my time with a technically correct but practically meaningless interpretation of CIs. We’re confusing people with the “95% confident” language in order to eke out a tiny bit more technical accuracy
above, perhaps a bit Bayesian?) to say there’s a 95% chance my interval contains mu
- while technically the prob is 0/1 I can’t actually observe that, so I rely on my knowledge that under blah blah assumptions, in the long run, 95% of the confidence intervals constructed in this way contain mu. So without further knowledge about MY interval, I think it’s fine (though I admitted
Why is it wrong (I’m not asking because I think it’s perfectly, technically correct, but because I think the reason people say it’s incorrect doesn’t really matter)
- The statement reflects the idea that frequentists view the sample as random (and therefore the interval) not the parameter
95% confident is just a way to be technically correct by being unclear
Just say there’s a 95% chance my interval contains the pop mean.
(It’s better than saying there’s a 95% chance the pop mean is in my interval. I cant do the whole “it’s either 0 or 1” thing. Im embracing the bayesian probability interpretation)
And honestly what the fuck does that even MEAN?! Nothing.
Drilling students into memorizing the “we are 95% confident that….” Language is USELESS if you dont teach them what that MEANS
Just saw that @aclu.org is suing over this!
action.aclu.org/give/pm-dona...
Ugh I want that to be true 😭 I hope it is true, but I’m fearful it’s not
It’s the literal least anyone can do 😭
- real sus that you want to require specific ID to vote and then immediately set precedent to instantaneously invalidate people’s ids
- this also includes a “bounty” on trans people using the bathroom. Which is so disgusting I cannot even express how bad of an idea this is
This is deeply alarming.
🚨hey so this is absolutely HORRIBLE for so many reasons I can’t even fully list out. But a few:
- licenses are immediately invalid, making it difficult to even get around to change license or god forbid APPEAL THIS DECISION
Perhaps we statisticians might need to stop just saying “it depends” and instead emphasize WHAT IT DEPENDS ON lol
Like we’re not explaining the WHY and so people are taking ideas out of context 🤔
