Note to potential employers: This man will be that man in the office everyone loves to hate, and tries to argue with everyone about how right he is and how much he deserves a promotion.
Youtube is not a timed competition, you had all the time in the world to recover, settle down, get over your software and global malfunction, get your facts straight before posting a nit-picking video. Hope you don't intend to use the same stance for work projects that do have a schedule.
your grid is wrong. you dont lose money by not buying the ticket. i wouldn't expect such an obvious error from someone who can write 7.26E-005.
in addition to this, showing slides about normal distribution doesn't make your argument stronger. the actual value of an unknown CAN be on the both sides of that normal distribution; meaning that the situation CAN be much more serious than the original guy (the guy behind how it all ends) tells us.
you are misleading the viewers. please remove this.
You have made a mistake by making a cash value equal to your unhappiness when missing out on winning your $154.4M.
You mislead the viewer by implying that if you do not buy a ticket there is a possibility that you lose money. That is untrue. You do not lose money, only miss that particular chance to win. The value in that box should not be a negative cash value but a value of unhappiness by missing out. Since nearly everyone misses out weekly, it would show that this value wouldnt be significant
The Catholic channel, actually. It's strange. I turn my microphone on, and I can hear the local AM Catholic station. I turn my radio on to the local NPR station, and I hear the Catholic station interfering with NPR.
In your video you state" there are 8 scenarios to consider" looking at the 8 possible outcomes of winning. You don't include the 175,711,527 outcomes in which you lose. This would drive your average reward down to the point where it becomes not worth buying the lottery ticket (even though you found a lottery with a positive EV). Climate change doesn't have a positive EV
BUT that doesn't really address my concern does it. The problem you don't address is that the excluded middle in the case of climate change is a loss (like the lottery ticket). I hear no one arguing that climate change will result in a positive outcome so excluding the middle actually supports action on preventing climate change. Nice try.
I have not read "Cool It" by lomborg, but I understand that it has lots of evidence that warming is good.
What scientists are guilty of is that they are in the business of listing doom. They would (and do) list doom for any scenario, warming, cooling, or change.
This of course assumes that at this moment, things are as good as they can possibly be, which is an just shy of impossible.
Yes, he is typically a very complete writer, all assertions explained and documented incareful detail.
Go to amazon to read an excerpt, where much higher death rates in europe due to cold are ignored and the far lower death rates to heat are hyped beyond all reason.
So, you start by saying that you seek: "evidence to support that theory."
Now you complaing that "I couldn't find any assessment of error, standard deviation or confidence level."
You see the corner you are painting for yourself; and since he it talking about historical deaths... adaptability is already taken into account. That IS the adapted rate, they are actual deaths.
Pardon me if I don't play your game any more. I gave you a souce for exactly what you asked for. Have a nice day.
Thanks for the video, helps get a greater understanding of the probability behind it. I can never really get my head round complicated probability though #
First, you equate 'lack of payoff' with 'cost'. Avoiding that, by my calculations, your simple grid's column EVs would be -0.06 for buying and 0 for not buying, even without middle scenarios; the full table's EVS are -0.88 and 0. Still glad you bought it? ;)
Second, the video you responded to DOES include the middles, although he does rush through them. Watch Manpollo Project Part 1, from 8:38. They're there. (I agree he left them out of HIAE.)
In the grid, I've subtracted the value of the ticket, so the ticket's EV is $1.12. Subtracting the price of the ticket, you get $0.12. I'm ahead.
Also, I've seen Manpollo part 1.
He doesn't actually talk about anything but extremes. It's unclear if he's talking about middles in terms of adverse effects of warming or middles in adverse effects of mitigation strategies.
I took it as the latter.
Anyways, he doesn't show how anything other than extremes can affect the outcome of the analysis.
I agree that leaving out middle cases invalidates the example. I saw Manpollo referring to outcomes (both climate/mitigation).
I do see where my problem came from; I misread your table and didn't notice the payouts included the cost (I'm tired). Your 'buy' EV is right (congrats on finding a positive EV lotto!).
However, your 'don't buy' payouts are off. If you don't buy and would have won, your nega-ticket brings you $0, costing nothing. This is why I can never buy a ticket and not lose money.
Note to potential employers: This man will be that man in the office everyone loves to hate, and tries to argue with everyone about how right he is and how much he deserves a promotion.
Youtube is not a timed competition, you had all the time in the world to recover, settle down, get over your software and global malfunction, get your facts straight before posting a nit-picking video. Hope you don't intend to use the same stance for work projects that do have a schedule.
Skaerin 7 months ago
your grid is wrong. you dont lose money by not buying the ticket. i wouldn't expect such an obvious error from someone who can write 7.26E-005.
in addition to this, showing slides about normal distribution doesn't make your argument stronger. the actual value of an unknown CAN be on the both sides of that normal distribution; meaning that the situation CAN be much more serious than the original guy (the guy behind how it all ends) tells us.
you are misleading the viewers. please remove this.
ghombar 1 year ago
well w/e it is you are saying is moot. and this is why.
you are BOOOOOOOOORINGGGGGGGGG.
god your so boreing its ridiculous
killtwitch 2 years ago
LOL @ evryting in ure apartment picking up the local catholic channel LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL
sexwithchickens 2 years ago
You have made a mistake by making a cash value equal to your unhappiness when missing out on winning your $154.4M.
You mislead the viewer by implying that if you do not buy a ticket there is a possibility that you lose money. That is untrue. You do not lose money, only miss that particular chance to win. The value in that box should not be a negative cash value but a value of unhappiness by missing out. Since nearly everyone misses out weekly, it would show that this value wouldnt be significant
SephiraAndy 3 years ago
Oops. That was meant to be $164.3M.
SephiraAndy 3 years ago
At the beginning of the video did you say that your room picks up the "christian channel"? I couldn't make it out.
The Edward Tufte reference was cool.
The Clockwork Universe reference was confusing. Why did you include it?
KenZakreski 4 years ago
The Catholic channel, actually. It's strange. I turn my microphone on, and I can hear the local AM Catholic station. I turn my radio on to the local NPR station, and I hear the Catholic station interfering with NPR.
superluser 4 years ago
In your video you state" there are 8 scenarios to consider" looking at the 8 possible outcomes of winning. You don't include the 175,711,527 outcomes in which you lose. This would drive your average reward down to the point where it becomes not worth buying the lottery ticket (even though you found a lottery with a positive EV). Climate change doesn't have a positive EV
KenZakreski 4 years ago
BUT that doesn't really address my concern does it. The problem you don't address is that the excluded middle in the case of climate change is a loss (like the lottery ticket). I hear no one arguing that climate change will result in a positive outcome so excluding the middle actually supports action on preventing climate change. Nice try.
KenZakreski 4 years ago
I didn't include the possibility that climate change will have a positive outcome because I've seen no evidence to support that theory.
superluser 4 years ago
I have not read "Cool It" by lomborg, but I understand that it has lots of evidence that warming is good.
What scientists are guilty of is that they are in the business of listing doom. They would (and do) list doom for any scenario, warming, cooling, or change.
This of course assumes that at this moment, things are as good as they can possibly be, which is an just shy of impossible.
RyderSpearmann 3 years ago
Such as?
Does Lomborg list scenarios with possible impact costs and probability that each one will occur?
Without that, I can't include this in an analysis.
superluser 3 years ago
Yes, he is typically a very complete writer, all assertions explained and documented incareful detail.
Go to amazon to read an excerpt, where much higher death rates in europe due to cold are ignored and the far lower death rates to heat are hyped beyond all reason.
RyderSpearmann 3 years ago
I went to Amazon, and I couldn't find an excerpt. So I went to the author's site.
I couldn't find any assessment of error, standard deviation or confidence level.
In addition, he undercuts his own theory by stating that the data don't take into account adaptability.
superluser 3 years ago
So, you start by saying that you seek: "evidence to support that theory."
Now you complaing that "I couldn't find any assessment of error, standard deviation or confidence level."
You see the corner you are painting for yourself; and since he it talking about historical deaths... adaptability is already taken into account. That IS the adapted rate, they are actual deaths.
Pardon me if I don't play your game any more. I gave you a souce for exactly what you asked for. Have a nice day.
RyderSpearmann 3 years ago
That's OK.
I was providing an analysis based on the likelihood of an outcome based on confidence levels. (you *did* watch the video, didn't you?)
If there's no assessment of confidence, I cannot include it in an analysis based on assessment of confidence.
superluser 3 years ago
Thanks for the video, helps get a greater understanding of the probability behind it. I can never really get my head round complicated probability though #
KamiKaziChicken 4 years ago
Agreed. I see only two problems with this video.
First, you equate 'lack of payoff' with 'cost'. Avoiding that, by my calculations, your simple grid's column EVs would be -0.06 for buying and 0 for not buying, even without middle scenarios; the full table's EVS are -0.88 and 0. Still glad you bought it? ;)
Second, the video you responded to DOES include the middles, although he does rush through them. Watch Manpollo Project Part 1, from 8:38. They're there. (I agree he left them out of HIAE.)
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
In the grid, I've subtracted the value of the ticket, so the ticket's EV is $1.12. Subtracting the price of the ticket, you get $0.12. I'm ahead.
Also, I've seen Manpollo part 1.
He doesn't actually talk about anything but extremes. It's unclear if he's talking about middles in terms of adverse effects of warming or middles in adverse effects of mitigation strategies.
I took it as the latter.
Anyways, he doesn't show how anything other than extremes can affect the outcome of the analysis.
superluser 4 years ago
I agree that leaving out middle cases invalidates the example. I saw Manpollo referring to outcomes (both climate/mitigation).
I do see where my problem came from; I misread your table and didn't notice the payouts included the cost (I'm tired). Your 'buy' EV is right (congrats on finding a positive EV lotto!).
However, your 'don't buy' payouts are off. If you don't buy and would have won, your nega-ticket brings you $0, costing nothing. This is why I can never buy a ticket and not lose money.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Fair enough. I was trying to draw a chart analogous to the HIAE one. It's not a perfect analogy, and that's where the problem comes in.
But you're right, I make the difference twice as large as it should be.
superluser 4 years ago