Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In 99/100 outcomes

In other news, in 99/100 occurrences of the phrase "99 times out of 100" the person stating it is pulling numbers out of their ass to sound authoritative.

If you think the vast majority of the time the extra developer helps that company succeed and outperform the other company, then perhaps you should start with "I think the vast majority of the time..." instead of making up magical numbers. Sure, we all know the numbers are bullshit, but that's not excuse where there are perfectly normal ways to express what you mean that don't masquerade as fact.

> Security is an overhead and a drag on company resources.. until it's not.

And sometimes that "until it's not" could be from the very beginning, if it's used for market differentiation. As soon a you talk about competition and businesses it becomes about a whole lot more than technical merit and features. Things like current market position, advertising, strategic partnerships, etc start having an impact, and sometimes it's a large one.

> In other news, in 99/100 occurrences of the phrase "99 times out of 100" the person stating it is pulling numbers out of their ass to sound authoritative.

I can use whatever writing style I want to. If you don't like it, read another post.

Sure you can. And I'll free to call out when you are making factual assertions that aren't facts. In the same vein, you're free to ignore my comment.

I'll concede my original comment might have come across as a bit more harsh than intended, but I think the point stands. If you're trying to prove a point or provide information in a discussion, don't use loose and hyperbolic terminology without expecting to be called out on it.

Doesn't his "99/100" give us a much better idea of his confidence in his own knowledge, compared to something more vague like "usually" or "the vast majority of the time"?

I ask because I've been studying how to make better decisions, and one of the techniques is to use numbers instead of the easily misinterpreted words. The famous example is the Bay of Pigs decision -- Kennedy was told the invasion plans had a "fair" chance at succeeding. The advisor was later interviewed and said that he meant 3-1 against as "fair odds", which could easily have changed Kennedy's decision.

> Doesn't his "99/100" give us a much better idea of his confidence in his own knowledge, compared to something more vague like "usually" or "the vast majority of the time"?

Sure, it gives an idea of confidence, but we haven't established that confidence as worth anything yet, and we're being fed numbers to add an air of legitimacy to a statement which doesn't really have any otherwise. Unless someone has actually examined 100 cases, it's just bluster. It's like saying "oh, that never happens" to discount an argument entirely. It's not helpful to a real discussion.

> The advisor was later interviewed and said that he meant 3-1 against as "fair odds", which could easily have changed Kennedy's decision.

The adviser was likely also someone with previously established expertise in this area, which means that opinion might be worth something without supporting evidence. Additionally, giving actual predicted odds is different than falling back on on a colloquialism that almost never literally means 99 times out of 100 or 99%, but instead is meant to convey "almost always", and using terminology like that in a conversation without any supporting evidence isn't useful.

I agree about this particular comment -- your interpretation is likely correct. I was just trying to connect it larger, to the decision making skills that I'm working on (and thought might be interesting to a HN audience).

FWIW, the Pigs incident is widely cited as an example within this sphere. It has nothing to do with whether the advisor was previously skilled -- it has more to do with thinking about how people understand and use the information I communicate. (and that using numbers instead of words seems to be considered "best practice" in the decision making community).

> I can use whatever writing style I want to. If you don't like it, read another post.

We can refute whichever post we want to. If you don't like it, read another post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com