Seagull posted:

you guys can't fool me into studying maths outside semester

Senor Tron posted:

Got 100 here, although the gun control question was a bit of a guess since i wasn't exactly sure what they meant by the numbers.

open24hours posted:

It's a pretty well validated test. That question is the hardest one.



Numbers refer to the percentage of people who get the question right.
faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/peters/lab/pubs/publications/2013_WellerEtAl_RashNumeracyScale.pdf

Cleretic posted:

I think that one might have been a trick question. The way it's asked, both answers are right, because both the 'increase' and 'decrease' numbers are higher among the cities that banned them.

open24hours posted:

It's a pretty well validated test. That question is the hardest one.



Numbers refer to the percentage of people who get the question right.
faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/peters/lab/pubs/publications/2013_WellerEtAl_RashNumeracyScale.pdf

chyaroh posted:

That mammogram question made my brain hurt. It's been far too long since I've studied any kind of maths, and stats was never a major part of it. I still managed to score 91% though.

quote:

Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie has made a dramatic entry into the debate over who wields power in the Prime Minister's office, declaring that the PM's chief of staff Peta Credlin 'wears the pants.'

In an interview with The Weekly, Senator Lambie described Prime Minister Tony Abbott as having 'no guts' and 'no balls' after he twice cancelled plans to meet with her before Christmas.

Senator Lambie says that she believes the PM developed a fear of powerful women while attending an all-boys school.

"Females scare the crap out of him but he's going to have to grow a pair because he has to deal with me," she said. Senator Lambie, a 44-year-old single mother of two, took up a seat in the Senate in July. Elected as a member of the Palmer United Party, she is now an independent, focused on veteran's rights, Tasmanian jobs and national security.

"My vote's important so if I was Tony Abbott, I'd be saying: Hey, Jacqui Lambie, let's have a cup of coffee," she told The Weekly. "But he can’t do that, can he? Because he doesn’t wear the pants. The female in his office (chief of staff) Peta Credlin – she's the one that wears the pants.

"That's another thing with those blokes from the all-boy schools: they can only deal with one powerful female at a time. They need that powerful female to push the other females away.

"So now the bastard is saying: 'I don’t have to meet with Jacqui Lambie' but guess what? He does have to meet with me, because we are going to have to work together. Fair enough, he got elected - but I got elected, too."

Senator Lambie met Tony Abbott for the first time earlier this year, shortly after describing him as a psychopath. She told The Weekly the meeting was awkward.

"Tony Abbott has no social skills," she said. "To me, he's like a cardboard cut-out. You put him here, you move him there. He told me how he had injured himself during some fire fighting exercise. I had to stop myself from saying: 'Harden up, girlfriend'.’"

Senator Lambie, who may well be the only female parliamentarian ever to hold a tank licence, said that Mr Abbott had cancelled two planned meetings with her, before Parliament rose for Christmas. She was hopeful of a meeting before Christmas.

Senator Lambie came to the interview with The Weekly in jeans she picked up for $8 from Kmart, with a soft pack of tobacco in her handbag and a determination to be heard.

She is closer in her life experience other working class Australians than almost anyone else in Parliament.

She spoke candidly to The Weekly on a variety of topics, including mental and physical health problems that forced her out of work; her parents' divorce; her (now cured) addiction to pharmaceuticals; her regular use of Botox and fillers to improve her appearance; and her belief that parents should never stay together for the kids, that being the 'coward's way.'

Senator Lambie said that her own parents separated when she was 13.

"It didn't sort of bother me," she said. "We were told the night before, and Dad moved out the next day. Basically what happened was, there was a lady, and Dad would take us around to her house and she had pictures of me and my brother (Bobby) on her mantelpiece.

"I said to Mum, why does this lady have pictures of us on the mantelpiece? And Mum said: 'Where does this lady live?' And it was basically from there that Dad left and now he's on his third divorce and living in a caravan so he's not had the best luck in that regard."

The family home was sold and Senator Lambie remembers her Mum "sitting on a packing box, saying we are going to have to move into housing commission. But it was alright. I knew a lot of kids who lived in housing commission because we all went to Don College (a local high school in Devonport) and I remember Mum telling us it doesn’t matter where you live it's what’s inside."

Senator Lambie said she had been taking money from her suddenly regular pay packet – she had not worked for a decade, before entering Federal parliament – and paying off her credit cards.

"I'm still renting," she says, but the Senate job pays '$195,000 plus, plus, plus (expenses)' so she is now saving for a house.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

So was the correct answer to the mammogram question 81 out of 90?

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Amoeba102 posted:

9 out of 19 if you had the same version as me.

Freudian Slip posted:

The only issue I would have is that I think that Greens voters are more likely to be tertiary educated - which would influence their ability to perform this kind of test.

Amoeba102 posted:

9 out of 19 if you had the same version as me.

NTRabbit posted:

Isn't that the point of the test?

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

gently caress, I figured if the test was correct when testing positive 9 out of 10 times and she tested positive, she'd have a 90% chance of having cancer. And that the other stuff was there just to obfuscate that.

Lid posted:

lol

Amoeba102 posted:

where are the error.bars.on the graph?

Amoeba102 posted:

where are the error.bars.on the graph?

quote:

Heres a story I have been told recently………There is a government programme called ‘Jet Care’. It provides payments for people (approved – doing courses or the like) to have child minding costs covered (in part) while they are doing things relating to the approved course.Programme has been running a number of years – is paid out by Human Services on application by individuals.Human Services don’t know if person is doing course approved by education, and assume that tax is keeping an eye on disbursals to individuals (and service providers). Has miniscule numbers of compliance investigation people and higher priorities to be sussing out after reducing these types as an efficiency dividend. Has no overall programme budget oversight. Education approve courses but not childcare providers – assume tax or Human services are keeping an eye on outlays and have ditched their compliance people completely as an efficiency dividend. Has no overall programme budget oversight.Tax assumes that Human services and Education are monitoring disbursements to individuals and it only has to keep an eye out for people committing some sort of tax fraud. Has minimal numbers of compliance investigation types and no overall programme budget oversight.A group of migrant from one particular nationality becomes aware that nobody checks service providers, and nobody checks outlays to service providers. People set themselves up as service providers for people over the street, around corner friends relatives etc and make good money. Lone Human Service compliance type becomes suss about one family claiming lots of jet care. Realises that service provider is similar nationality. Runs check to see if others in a location in Northern Melbourne are also in on scam. Discovers a few streets heavily in on the scam. Calls Interpol to try and get account details and gets sight of large sums being moved from Australian accounts offshore. Human Services, Tax and Education all become aware of gap in their operations. Federal Police strike up task force to suss out recipients (many of whom appear to have become ostentatiously wealthy since arriving in Australia – some of whom have moved to other nations, with funds potentially being used to support interests hostile to Australia). Federal Police listen in on phone calls using translators and realise translators are in on scam. Quick investigation is run on same nationality in entire Sydney suburb, finds 20 times number of instances. Someone twigs that another nationality is using programme on massive scale and that many nationalities are using it.Politicians and Administrative types realise that gap in legislation attributing responsibility for oversight of outlays and monitoring of compliance at individual and organisational level cannot rapidly be closed.No public disclosure as yet. Is anticipated to come in 2015. Outlays in suspected overpayment instances involving many millions.I may have some details incorrect but the nub is as related to me recently, the person who told me is close to the action…..

Those On My Left posted:

This progressive got 93.4%

Senor Tron posted:

It also said that out of the 90 women without cancer 10 would receive a false positive. So out of 100 women 19 would get a positive result while only 9 would actually have cancer.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Does anyone know anything about this, or has heard anything like it?

Anidav posted:

I'm going to die that night.

Anidav posted:

I'm going to die that night.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Does anyone know anything about this, or has heard anything like it?