1,411 karma · joined March 31, 2013
What do you mean by this? You can choose any significance level you like.
In addition, the probability being calculated here is a little misleading in that it doesn't fit with the traditional definition of "probability of X". Despite the same s notation, P(H|D) is not the same type of probability as P(D|H). The coin is either biased or not, so there isn't actually any random process there and the statement "the probability this coin is fair is 50%" makes little sense under the traditional definition.
It would be nice if random variables were denoted by capital letters to distinguish them from particular observations.
In the section about regression you should have the conditional mean of Y equal to \beta X, rather than the overall mean.
Of course, this doesn't really matter too much since the substance of the tutorial is correct. I thought I'd mention it though because sloppy notation can undermine your credibility in some circles, and the equations are the most notable object when you're just skimming the page.
More (very) pedantic notes:
Usually, if you're going to express a sum with \cdots you put A+B+\cdots+Z (with plus signs on both sides of the ellipse for clarity)
The probability operator is usually denoted with a capital P
The log function shouldn't be italicized, you can just type \log to avoid this
Distribution names in statements like y~Pois(\mu) aren't usually italicized.
>It's not hard to graduate, it's just hard to get in,
These two things are related
But not with race. You can't tell which race someone is by their DNA, because, and here's the key point I think people are missing, race is a social construct based on appearance, not a biological reality.
>picking embryos with gene combinations known to correlate with higher intelligence will cause the resulting humans to have higher intelligence on average. But imagine if genes correlated with higher intelligence occurred million times as often among genotypes of white people than among genotypes of black people. Would then picking embryos based on skin color genes instead of intelligence genes themselves produced more (on average) intelligent people? Obviously yes.
Sure, if you assume from the start that skin color genes are correlated with intelligence genes then it follows that skin color is correlated with intelligence. I'm saying there's no reason to make that assumption to begin with.
Yeah but that's because ability to roll down is directly caused by the observable geometry. They are just different properties of the same trait. Skin tone or facial structure cannot cause someone to be intelligent. If you flattened the sides of the round balls, they'd be just as slow. But imagine there's some new way to painlessly crush people's faces into different racial-typical shapes and change the color of their skin to some racial-typical tone. Would this cause their intelligence to change? Obviously not. So how is this different than people with different physical characteristics from birth?
Race categorizations are made by humans according to how people look. From wikipedia's definition "Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics." You're saying that these physical characteristics somehow also indicate how people behave (outside of social conditioning). There is really no reason to conclude that.
I think this wiki section on race along with the sources mentioned are useful here.
>There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.[22][23][24][25][26][27] Nonetheless, some scholars argue that racial categories obviously correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype) to some degree, and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason, there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Co...
This doesn't follow. It becomes more clear why if you put it in more abstract terms. Take a bunch of balls, half red, half blue. Now assume some half of these balls are heavy (say 10lbs) and some half are light (say 2 lbs). Assume the balls have a bunch of other characteristics this way. Now what you're saying is that if we know a ball is e.g. Red, we can conclude something about the probability that it's e.g. heavy. Clearly that's not the case, why would it be? Unless you just assume a priori that the characteristics are distributed in a way that's correlated with ball color, there's no reason we should think there's an association between color and e.g. weight.
Comparing typical servings, a pint (416 grams) of Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia has 84 grams of sugar, while one 20 oz (567 grams) bottle of Coke has 65 grams of sugar.
I really dislike it when people say "there's evidence of X" and then give no evidence or only a few anecdotes.
Only if you're comparing it to a 0 minute commute, which isn't realistic.
I can't find anything about methodology other than the fact that only students who receive federal financial aid may be included.