|
One of my favorite forum memories is the Goon who very earnestly advised that somebody to fill a crack in their sun-room with "cock (a sealant)"
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
this is a weird way to spell Chika-chika Slim Shady
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JenMsft/status/1360851483428749313
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VsmF9m_Nt8
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamlaiacano/status/1361447469612212225
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
🎶His name is my name tooooo~🎶
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Took me a while to work out that plane reply. Looks like a non-sequitur, but it's basically a diagram of where planes came back with bullet holes, so you armour the other spots because it means planes that got shot there didn't come back. So he's saying you've seen camouflage work a lot more, you just didn't notice, because it worked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
See also: the toupee fallacy
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
NLJP posted:See also: the toupee fallacy A believe a toupee phallacy is more commonly known as a Merkin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Took me a second but 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
Elfface posted:Took me a while to work out that plane reply. Looks like a non-sequitur, but it's basically a diagram of where planes came back with bullet holes, so you armour the other spots because it means planes that got shot there didn't come back. So he's saying you've seen camouflage work a lot more, you just didn't notice, because it worked. Doesn't this mean the armor worked, not the camouflage worked?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
NLJP posted:See also: the toupee fallacy And the Benevolent Dolphin Problem (in a roundabout way)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Doesn't this mean the armor worked, not the camouflage worked? They’re saying people think of adding additional armor to the red-dotted areas Edit: wait, I think I misinterpreted what you were responding to? gently caress it, I’m probably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:54
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Doesn't this mean the armor worked, not the camouflage worked? I think it's meant as an analogy. You didn't record the planes that got shot in the blank areas, because they didn't make it back for you to record that they got shot there -> You didn't notice the camouflage that worked, because it worked so well that you didn't see anything camouflaged was there at all
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Phy posted:I think it's meant as an analogy. You didn't notice the planes that got shot in the blank areas, because they didn't make it back for you to notice that they got shot there -> You didn't notice the camouflage that worked, because it worked so well that you didn't see anything camouflaged was there at all I'll buy it, but god drat that's an oblique analogy to make by tweeting a picture while waggling one's eyebrows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:One of my favorite forum memories is the Goon who very earnestly advised that somebody to fill a crack in their sun-room with "cock (a sealant)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PfC1TEqS2Y
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
It's an analogy for survivorship bias. You didn't see the camoflauge, therefore there was no camoflauge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
that's pretty loving clever
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
Idk I think that plane has pretty lovely camouflage but go off I guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Idk I think that plane has pretty lovely camouflage but go off I guess The spots help it blend into the mottled light of a forest floor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Getting this tattooed on my body next to an anchor
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
Never!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
The camouflage and the airplanes are both instances of Berkson's paradox, an incredibly general and counterintuitive phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
this.... is good
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Goon Boots posted:this.... is good I always appreciate a seeing a good Walding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
I uh... think the OP is saying the camo worked because its a white plane on a white background, and no critical areas were hit... (Yes I know it's a pic for survivorship bias, but I still think that's  the OP was trying to make.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
I'm having a brain fart, what is the literary term for the kind of contradiction in a statement like "see camouflage working"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I'm having a brain fart, what is the literary term for the kind of contradiction in a statement like "see camouflage working"? Oxymoron
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:Oxymoron Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
I've read the explanation and still can't parse it. Someone explain the plane picture please!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:30
|
|
|
The plane picture is an image of where planes that made it back to base were being shot up. The initial interpretation was that this is where the planes should have their armour increased, because it's where they're getting shot. The actual, correct interpretation is that those planes were not shot anywhere that would be fatal, so you should up-armour the areas that were not shot. The ones that survived being what drives the dataset is called survivorship bias. The same thing with camouflage . "This is the first time I've ever seen camouflage work" is something you say without realising you've seen it a thousand times, it just worked every time before now. So you don't include all the times that camouflage worked in the dataset you're using to base your assumptions on, meaning you're operating under an incorrect assumption that you've never seen it. It's basically the opposite of survivorship bias, because it's the ones that didn't make it that are driving your data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:35
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I'll buy it, but god drat that's an oblique analogy to make by tweeting a picture while waggling one's eyebrows. The diagram is a very common demonstration of survivorship bias so it has become a minor meme to use in any instance where that is remotely applicable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:37
|
|
|
Knee slapper, that one
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:39
|
|
|
Purgatory Glory posted:I've read the explanation and still can't parse it. Someone explain the plane picture please! Allies in World War II (Let's just say Great Britain for simplicity) are trying to figure out the best place to armor their planes. They take the planes shot on missions that got back to Britain and analyze where the bullets most commonly hit. This is what the plane diagram is showing. So the obvious solution is to put thicker armor on the places that the bullets most commonly hit. However, someone points out that this is a logical fallacy. These are the planes that got back to Britain. It doesn't include the planes that were shot down in Germany and unable to be recovered. So it's actually a diagram showing where the bullets are less harmful, and the areas which don't have many bullet holes need to have thicker armor instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:40
|
|
|
Purgatory Glory posted:I've read the explanation and still can't parse it. Someone explain the plane picture please! Back in the war people started noticing planes coming back with fairly specific patterns of damage and areas that weren't really hit at all. It took a bit for someone to figure out that you need to reinforce the bits that have no damage because the planes can fly fine when hit elsewhere but the ones hit in the 'undamaged' parts don't come back. What they're saying by posting the image is that the fact that you're noticing the camo 'work' means it's not actually working. You never noticed the camo when it did work because it was doing its job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:40
|
|
|
e; f beateeed
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
It's survivorship bias. Okay, so the plane picture. In WWII, the americans or english (can't remember which) did a study on their aricraft that returned from combat, to figure out where and how they got shot up. The result is the image above. The conclusion was, hey, this is where airplanes get hit, let's armour those places extra. Then some dude figured "No wait, this is where the airplanes that got back got hit." The planes that got hit in all the other places never even made it back to be studied. (Pretty obvious, when you think about it - there's for example very few hits recorded in the cockpit or engines on the surviving planes.) Same idea behind the camouflage picture. Every camouflage that you've seen is by definition camouflage that isn't working. e: Beaten like a Messerschmitt Bf 109 in the skies above Normandy. Mr. Sunshine has a new favorite as of 07:46 on Feb 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:EDIT: https://youtu.be/tbazGVrbN-g
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2021 07:47
|
|
