Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115219
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried |
| Date | 2012-06-19 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC0602FC.39FE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <fc1aa36f-5db3-4b90-becd-3025bf6a1637@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <8d14b0df-821e-41a4-89e6-f511e27e7bc3@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <561ulbnzrv.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> <36669055-d2e9-4f63-89f5-0c2cf91048d0@googlegroups.com> <suwr33miw5.fsf@news.eternal-september.org> |
On 6/19/12 8:16 AM, in article suwr33miw5.fsf@news.eternal-september.org,
"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>> Focus on the UI doesn indeed bring new users. Only an idiot would deny
>>> that. People use things via the UI all day and they value ones that make
>>> their life easier where they can concentrate on the process and not the
>>> tool.
>>>
>>
>> It certainly doesn't seem to be working for Linux. Only an idiot would
>> deny that. But then again, you're the idiot who claimed, "I don't care
>> what the numbers show."
>
> No it isnt working for Linux because its too little too late. IF they
> continue and people like what they get they will migrate slowly IF the
> systems provide the application SW they want and need.
Right. You are not going to see desktop Linux any time in the near future
jump to 5% or more. But you might see an uptick if the open source
community (using that term very loosely) continues to focus on UI /
usability issues and - as you note - applications as well.
> The Gnome UI is simply and generally consistent : many of the gnome apps
> are still be to "corrected" however.
Agreed. And Gnome is not a Linux desktop distro... and while some distro
comes with Gnome only apps, once you start pulling things in from the
repository you get KDE and other UI paradigms mixed in. With no warning
(not that the general user would really understand the value of the
warning).
> I would like to see the context for that quote since clearly numbers, if
> correctly collected, are meaningful. Numbers which show a seasonal blip
> however are not indicators of major uptake.
This does not seem to be merely a seasonable blip. Here is the full set of
numbers:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
I first looked at one year's worth of data (12 months). To troll me, cc
claimed this was an "arbitrary" range and asked me to look at the full 24
months. So I did (shown in the same link). He continued to claim this was
an arbitrary range... which is weird given how it was the range he asked
for.
When the overall trend line still showed an uptick, he then complained that
the standard method suggested by MS and others was "missing steps" and that
he could make a trend line with a better R^2 value. The real problem,
though, is that we were both using linear trend lines to show non-linear
data. It happens - for reasons we have yet to discuss - that the trend
changed significantly at the start of 2012. The data is not linear. To
show this I split things up:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png>
With the big change in trends being shown from the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxMultLinearTrendLines.png> to the
first half of 2012 (missing June data for obvious reasons):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendLine2012.jpg>.
While cc was striving to please the R^2 god he worships, his modeling lead
to him missing this pretty significant change in trends. Now this change
*might* be from "dirty" data... which is what cc claims... but there is no
evidence of this.
Worse than that, for cc, is his claims kept changing. Sometimes he
acknowledged the drop in 2012:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
But other times he denied it:
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
Both, of course, cannot be true. Either it is changing or it is not. But
cc will not admit to his change of heart...
In the midst of this debate, cc tried to show off his "superior" knowledge
of stats... and he talked about how he understood what a standard deviation
was and stipulated that I did not. Which is just weird. In any case, I
decided to test him on this... and noted that there are a lot of depictions
of standard deviations which are wrong. Here were my examples (there might
have been more):
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif>
Where the sigma lines are clearly drawn at too far of a distance from the
mean (more info here: <http://goo.gl/AqFlD>)
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif>
<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif>
In those examples the sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from
the mean (esp. in the right-most image on the top link)
Once you know the sigma lines should be drawn at a specific distance from
the mean (the distance from the mean to the inflection points), it is easy
to see why those depictions are done poorly. But here are just some of
*cc's* statements of strong disagreement where he proved himself ignorant:
cc:
-----
There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
axis labeling.
-----
Snit's so fucking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
-----
| The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve -
| which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when
| they do so really badly, like in some of the ones I showed
| you.
They are not wrong.
------
LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines
cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE.
-----
If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links
you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound
an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I
would like to see it.
-----
Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious.
Please, post more on this subject.
------
And there were more. He went on and on about how these depictions are from
pro software so there must not be an error. In other words, his side issue
BS trolling back fired on him... he was clearly clueless about how the sigma
lines on a normal curve are at the distance from the mean to the inflection
points. Always. Does not matter how tall or short or wide or thin the
depiction is. It is *always* the case.
Given that this is cc we are talking about, though, he refused to admit to
the fact he was clearly ignorant about this. And, of course, Carroll runs
from this, too.
All of this, of course, has been well established - cc is just playing his
normal idiotic games of pretending to be knowledgeable about things he
clearly is ignorant about.
On my side, of course, I admit when I am wrong: I did not anticipate the
drop in usage in 2012 and have been very open about that. I was wrong to
think the usage would continue to have *some* level of increase (though not
at the level it had at the end of 2011) or at least stay steady. I have no
problem admitting when I was wrong. It happens - we are all wrong /
ignorant about things... it is how we handle it that shows our character. I
prove I am willing to admit to my areas where I am wrong... cc and Carroll
refuse to.
Oh, and one last thing, Carroll started accusing me of using socks right
after it was noted he uses so many he cannot even name them all. And he
cannot. Ask him to list the names he has used on Usenet... he has no clue
and just runs. He has had armies of socks... the names of many which appear
in his BS list of "quotes" about me which he and Sandman have been
collecting and forging since 2004.
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
The "stats" debate. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 13:38 -0700
Re: The "stats" debate. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-18 14:43 -0700
Re: The "stats" debate which cc still runs from Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 14:53 -0700
OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 16:14 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 21:13 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:21 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 16:26 +0200
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:51 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 07:59 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 17:16 +0200
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:23 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:01 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:20 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:00 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:13 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:30 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:58 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:46 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 11:21 -0700
Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:16 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:41 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:34 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 16:16 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:35 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:36 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 08:43 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:47 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:34 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:59 -0700
OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:10 -0700
cc and Carroll lie about their running. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 11:48 -0700
Re: cc and Carroll lie about their running. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:57 -0700
cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 12:26 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 12:39 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 13:56 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:15 -0700
Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 14:59 -0700
Re: Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:16 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:24 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 19:45 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-20 22:52 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 04:07 +0000
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 21:10 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-21 08:16 -0600
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 05:14 -0700
Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 09:17 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 10:08 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 10:52 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 11:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 13:13 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 12:35 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 13:50 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 14:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 15:30 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:34 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:00 -0700
cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 14:38 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-21 22:31 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 22:23 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:04 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:38 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:29 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:04 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-22 09:45 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:30 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:33 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:13 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:14 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:59 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:45 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 23:00 -0700
csiph-web