@never_harsh Yes you are. There is an enormous confidence difference between, say, 90% and 99%. Projects fail sometimes in the real world, even by competent teams. A mere <=1% for all the ways a specific company could fail a big, novel project like landing a probe on mars is optimistic.
A reminder to new people: many of you have been flooding this question with demented forecasts.
The probability of SpaceX landing anything on Mars is currently 85%, but landing living humans is at 90%. That's incoherent math-wise. But also, humans (who easily perish from minor changes in their environment) should be seen as really hard to land in general, even without comparing to a robotic ship simply doing a touchdown.
— edited by Jotto
@isinlor wrote:
Could we stop using imperial units?
My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
— edited by Jotto
In tournament registration fields, the academic degree one forces me to pick an option, or "Other". I don't have any and never went to university. I know this hobby selects for an academic crowd but you should probably have a None field so blue-collar or non-academic people don't feel alienated.
Link rot is a major long-term problem on the internet. Gwern has a fine article on this topic. It could be helpful to save source backups on the Wayback Machine. Especially for links that are in question bodies, and which have a timeframe of 10+ years.
Data point: I have benefited from many of @Jgalt's posts, and I predict that Jgalt's future posts will bear many fruits.
There is testing for the live virus, and there's also testing for antibodies. The antibody test does not necessarily mean the person has the live virus at the time of the test. But it shows the person has had it. Antibody reactions linger long after the person had the live virus in their system.
So suppose if someone had a mild case that went undiagnosed, in April. Then suppose an antibody test is conducted on December 1st, that shows they must've had it at some point. That's positive resolution, right?
— edited by Jotto
In the hangout today, we brought up some questions where we differed a lot from the community median. I noticed that it was hard to search for this. Could we get a way to sort questions by how much our forecast disagrees with the community? Presumably in odds or relative percent, rather than percentage.
This would be useful. If some news was making people update away from you, then it will be prominent in such a list order. It also emphasizes questions that have disagreement (and update potential).
— edited by Jotto
I am hereby implementing the Jgalt gets props from me feature, for working hard on sharing information about a variety of topics and keeping the crowd more up-to-date, and in particular because bigger comment incentives aren't implemented, yet still the amount of effort is highly visible. Thank you, Jgalt!
@Guba wrote:
Thank you for the lecture, mr. Professor. I know as perfectly as you do that...
I didn't see AngraMainyu as lecturing you or being condescending. Take it easy.
@Tchetche Okay, that's enough. Please tweet your cheerleading to Elon, rather than posting it here.