carymccarr
Full Access Members
Yep. That’s called a tail heavy distribution OR they are doing something different than the rest of the data set.
In which case they are an outlier and SHOULDNT be included in the larger data set.
Is all the "fuel saving" tech really worth it in the long run?
- Thread starter 762mm
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Yep. That’s called a tail heavy distribution OR they are doing something different than the rest of the data set.
In which case they are an outlier and SHOULDNT be included in the larger data set.
I forgot to mention I do have some dislikes for certain cognitive biases.
All the time on forums people will slam a product or a brand because they have had one bad experience with it and they will say all of us products are junk as if it were fact
They will also speak highly of a product and tell people they should buy a certain other brand because they personally have had good experience with that brand.
They based these opinions that they promote as fact on their own few personal experiences or based on two or three posts they have read better other people's opinions.
This hardly makes it a fact that Brand X is junk.
That is cognitive bias and it is not accurate.
All the time on forums people will slam a product or a brand because they have had one bad experience with it and they will say all of us products are junk as if it were fact
They will also speak highly of a product and tell people they should buy a certain other brand because they personally have had good experience with that brand.
They based these opinions that they promote as fact on their own few personal experiences or based on two or three posts they have read better other people's opinions.
This hardly makes it a fact that Brand X is junk.
That is cognitive bias and it is not accurate.
OP
OP
762mm
Full Access Members
Nope, not difficult at all to understand. I just can't entertain brainwashed drones who claim that humans are responsible for 95% of climate change, whereas the actual numbers are quite the opposite. Our part in all this is minimal at best!
The whole "97% of all scientists agree" bullsh*t is based on fake stats as well and already debunked. The "man-made climate change" scare was first introduced decades ago by the US Navy following atmospheric nuclear testing, where they were afraid that these atmospheric nuclear tests would screw up the climate and needed a scapegoat to avoid blame, so they blamed your V8 truck and your consumerism for it. This very "research" is still quoted to this day as climate change gospel, by the way.
We live in a lie and this is what many people have an issue with. There is no impeding doom, and even if there was, there's sweet-f-all anyone can do about it realistically. The only thing to do is to prepare and adapt... for which you will need as much money and physical assets (shelter, food, water filtration, etc) as you can get.
Getting carbon taxed to death to "save the climate" or being forced to buy sh*tty electric or hybrid cars at 4x the cost is not the solution!
Here's a little trick : How can you tell if something is legit? When no one is trying to make money off of it. Today's "climate change" religion is ran by cash grabbers (governments, corporations and major world banks) and they've got an army of trained seals parroting their gospel, while those same trained seals are being robbed blind of their retirement savings.
Hallelujah, my climate-conscious brother!
Last edited:
Yes, I feel they are definitely doing something differently than the rest of the data set.
The problem is that the published numbers that some people take as fact or super accurate predictors do include these in the entire dataset.
No real way to get around that.
This is why I say it's smart to use past experiences, if you have a lot of them, along with published whole set numbers to make decisions and not to Discount either.
carymccarr
Full Access Members
In your estimation it IS accurate for that person because they are relying on their own experiences yadda yadda.
But at least you’re seeing how biases manifest themselves in OTHER people.
Good first step to recognizing your own.
OP
OP
762mm
Full Access Members
Here's something completely appropriate, lol....
No, I saw this from the very beginning. Maybe we just had a miscommunication that you thought I was implying that everyone has accuracy here. The majority of the population doesn't have a clue!
I'm just saying that for some people their experience is more accurate than published facts. Now the Earth being round, that's not disputable.
Just because everywhere a person has ever been looks flat to them, they are just stupid.
carymccarr
Full Access Members
Incorrect.
Interestingly … the earth really isn't round.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/
Actually that's not a way to see if something is legit.Nope, not difficult at all to understand. I just can't entertain brainwashed drones who claim that humans are responsible for 95% of climate change, whereas the actual numbers are quite the opposite. Our part in all this is minimal at best!
The whole "97% of all scientists agree" bullsh*t is based on fake stats as well and already debunked. The "man-made climate change" scare was first introduced decades ago by the US Navy following atmospheric nuclear testing, where they were afraid that these atmospheric nuclear tests would screw up the climate and needed a scapegoat to avoid blame, so they blamed your V8 truck and your consumerism for it. This very "research" is still quoted to this day as climate change gospel, by the way.
We live in a lie and this is what many people have an issue with. There is no impeding doom, and even if there was, there's sweet-f-all anyone can do about it realistically. The only thing to do is to prepare and adapt... for which you will need as much money and physical assets (shelter, food, water filtration, etc) as you can get.
Getting carbon taxed to death to "save the climate" or being forced to buy sh*tty electric or hybrid cars at 4x the cost is not the solution!
Here's a little trick : How can you tell if something is legit? When no one is trying to make money off of it. Today's "climate change" religion is ran by cash grabbers (governments, corporations and major world banks) and they've got an army of trained seals parroting their gospel, while those same trained seals are being robbed blind of their retirement savings.
Hallelujah, my climate-conscious brother!
Another faulty analysis. I wont try to help you understand why.
Also … you now agree that Climate Change is real.
This is weird.
You're absolutely impossible or do you just like to have fun.
Should I say it's more accurate for them?
A more accurate predictor for their future results.
I think it's quite bumpy and irregular really, isn't it?
OP
OP
762mm
Full Access Members
I never said it isn't happening. What I am saying is that :
A) It's been happening ever since this sorry rock in space came to exist some 4 billion years ago and ;
B) Human activity has negligible impact on it, as other much more powerful & natural factors are at play... those same natural factors that we are somehow not allowed to discuss as per the main stream minions, because "the science is settled" in their scared minds.
Overall, nothing major is going to happen. The end is NOT near and the planet's long-term history tells us so. Take Obama, the high priest of the Church of Climate Change : he just invested his retirement fund into a 15-million dollar beach front property! Those in the know, know better...
As for cashing in on scared sheeple who believe the World is about to end, this idea (business model) is as old as humanity itself... so excuse me for being skeptical!
Last edited:
carymccarr
Full Access Members
I’m impossibly fun.
carymccarr
Full Access Members
excuse me for being skeptical!
Skepticism and ignorance are not the same thing.
If you think so...
carymccarr
Full Access Members
Based on your exhaustive analysis that’s all that matters.
No. Only if you have loads of experience and data that you, in your own realm of the world, are impossibly fun; then you are.
If you have evidence from many other people in your area that you are than you probably are.
You might not be impossibly fun at all somewhere else, BUT the odds of you continuing to be impossibly fun in your area and to those people is a much more accurate predictor than someone else rating or gauging your "impossibly fun %".
Water boils at 212F right? Some people would say that is a fact but they are over generalizing.
Water boils at 212F at standard temperature and pressure. They forget to add this.
The temp of water boiling is -relative- as is your being impossibly fun and the likelihood of AVERAGE failure rate or lifespan.
Heck, on most of my stuff, I am so rough on it that I cut the expected in half and hope to get that!
All Conspiracy Theories aside, the one situation that seems "concerning" to me … and I don't know what the implications are going to be down the road …. is atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This is a graph going back 1000 years or so, looks bad."Climate Change denier"... lol, that's original!
Well, I guess there's a sucker born every minute. I strongly recommend you look into the science behind ice cores that they pull out of Antarctica to measure climate changes over millennia. What do they tell us about the weather in the long run? Also, check out the science of solar cycles and how they impact the Earh. The Sun is in full blast mode right now, by the way... sending much more heat energy our way than in recent past. The changing tilt of the Earth as it circles the Sun is also a fun fact to look at, as it shifts hot zones on the planet. It does this in a cyclical fashion every few thousand years, like clockwork. The magnetic poles shift is also another factor that influences "climate changes". Again, this is a cyclical and natural phenomenon. None of it has ANYTHING to do with humans, despite the money-grab socialist propaganda!
Do yourself a favor and look at these before you compare people like me to crazy kooks... because otherwise you are the ignorant "the end is coming" preacher at a street corner!
Have fun with your carbon taxes, they will surely "save the Earth" from your non-existing boogeyman. The Earth and the solar system do what the they have been doing for hundreds of millions of years, whether you accept it or not... Calling me a "denier" of your sect's climate gospel won't change the facts either.
(nice religious term, by the way! Who's the crazy religious kook, again?)
https://www.co2levels.org/
There are other graphs similar that go back 800,000 years using ice core samples
Similar threads
