Comment on Moon Dust

dwindling7373@feddit.it ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• bss03@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It’s a very non-reprrsentative, very small sample. The error bars in the statistical inference to the whole population includes both “very common” and “one-in-a-million”.

  source

  • senkora@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Assuming a representative sample, the best point estimate is 1/12 (8.33%), and the 95% confidence test interval is 0.21% to 39%.

    Longer explanation here: lemmy.zip/comment/19753854

    source

    • embed_me@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Assuming a representative sample

      That’s the thing I doubt a team of highly skilled astronauts will be representative of the human population

      source

      • senkora@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I think if anything they would be biased towards having fewer allergies than normal people. Which suggests that 0.21% (1 in 500) is a reasonable bound for how rare a moon dust allergy could be.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • dwindling7373@feddit.it ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    What do the bar represent in 3d space?

    What do they represent in 3d space?!? (aggressiveduck.jpg)

    Gaussian distributions.

    source

    • bss03@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Not every error bar represents a Gaussian, if for no other reason that most error bars aren’t symmetric.

      The error bars for small sample size relative to population size are Gaussian.

      Error due to a non-representative sample can have a variety of shapes, but their distribution might also be unknown. We do frequently, almost implicitly, assume unknown distributions to be Gaussian, but we should recognize that’s not necessarily a true fact about the universe.

      source