Excluded Middles are bad

A brief explanation of the excluded middles and how How It All Ends misses them.

Note to potential employers: My work isn't usually this bad--I've a cold, I was rushed, and my copy of Cinelerra is down at the moment. (all true) There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. (not so true)

Also, I forgot to mention that the percentiles came from the Stern Review.

Anyways, enjoy! And to wonderingmind42, start including your middles.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• how
• it
• all
• ends
• the
• most
• terrifying
• video
• you'll
• ever
• see
• excluded
• middles
• logical
• fallacy
• oedipa
• maas

[Skaerin]

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.

[ghombar]

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.

[killtwitch]

well w/e it is you are saying is moot. and this is why.

you are BOOOOOOOOORINGGGGGGGGG.

god your so boreing its ridiculous

[sexwithchickens]

LOL @ evryting in ure apartment picking up the local catholic channel LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLO­LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLLOL­OLOLOLOLLOLOL

[SephiraAndy]

Oops. That was meant to be $164.3M.

[SephiraAndy]

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

[superluser]

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.

[RyderSpearmann]

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.

[superluser]

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.

[RyderSpearmann]

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.