Quake3World

that this thread had to be made!

fuck u...

..u mad?

olo

blue balls.

I think the data support your conclusion plained.

Soooooo......you haven't actually SEEN the data? Had you actually seen it, you would know for sure. In essence, you are merely guessing. All in favor of a vote to possibly look at whether, or not, we should think about passing a mandate to consider viewing said data please post "aye".

There is no "sure" in science - words like 'prove' don't carry the same meaning in data driven science as they do in our everyday language.
All measurements carry some uncertainty, so I can't know for SURE, even if I had seen the data - I can be overwhelmingly confident, but not SURE.

EDIT: Now I see what you did too.

But here is some data:

Attempt #.........Poster.....................Fail?(Y/N)

1.........................Peenyuh...........................Y
2.........................Peenyuh...........................Y
3.........................Peenyuh...........................Y
4.........................Peenyuh...........................N *Aberration
5.........................Peenyuh...........................Y
6.........................Peenyuh...........................Y
(Infinity-1)............Peenyuh...........................Y

lol

tnf wrote:4.........................Peenyuh...........................N *Aberration

hmm this data point is an implausible outlier

In actuality, had you seen the data, you could be SURE it supports plained's conclusion. You just couldn't be sure the data is correct.

So you're both right, and morans. ...scared?

seremtan wrote:

tnf wrote:4.........................Peenyuh...........................N *Aberration

hmm this data point is an implausible outlier

No amount of number crunching could make it fit into any curve.

wtf