As for this valid focus on critical mass of users, perhaps a linked tags approach is better than a multiple-communities structure, until specific tags gain enough friction to become communities. Just thinking.

Possibly the domain is visible with a traffic monitoring tool. Everything else is between you and the bank via HTTPS. Having said that, whatever is not over https is visible to whoever sits on the same network as yourself.

In AI-generated sound you can see it in the waveform, it has less random noise altogether and it seems like a huge, well, wave. I wonder if sth similar is true for images.

This trick should come in handy pal

12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/sam-altman-mythmaking/680152/

That’s a more accurate branding.

We reached the point were robot drivers are dicks also

Isn’t it already like that with tractors and some phones?

What is left to say. The Babylonians made a wise choice.

Your departure form US defaultism is celebrated here, dear person.

I also don’t know why this 1 year old post popped into my feed, but anyway, as others report, I am curious about this “case”. Is there any resolution @FarFarAway@lemmy.world ?

You do seem yourself to know awfully lot about this geezer, so this does not sit very well with me. Like, if you are doing counterintelligence on him you should come clean about it.

It bugs me (no pun intended) how people in such cases readily suggest some kind of poisoning, intoxication, or mental meltdown. Hinting to numerous other comments in the thread. So, a word to all armchair psychiatrists out there, I have it on good authority that real psychiatrists first rule out whether the situation is real, then move on to delusional and paranoia explanations. Otherwise it would be very easy to conspire against a family member, poison them or get them locked up, and enjoy their fortune or sth. So it is a meme at this point, so joke is on me for responding seriously but at some point it has to be debunked. You have to rule out that the situation is not real before reach for the mental illness explanations.

I really did not mean to be insulting. I am just saying chart makers can choose to make a zoom in, and it is not automatically propaganda or something. All this has led people astray of the real issues, like WTF is measuring ‘happiness’ on a 1-10 scale, and what are the metric properties of this 1-10 scale. Then there are all the sampling issues and what have you. I just expected more people discussing this stuff rather than the Y-axis.

Oh sport, and I thought I was the one beating on a dead horse here. I understand why people claim to take issue with the Y-axis range. I am just saying chart makers can zoom in to make a point, and it is not automatically misleading. That is all. Anyway, thanks for writing this. Looks like a lot of effort, and some of it will make sense in my stats coursework, thanks!

This is indeed misleading. It has no numerical figures, and it wastes loads of ink and screen space. The other one is better structured as a chart. I a sorry you spent your time to demonstrate something we all know, but may be Excel has good reasons that cuts off the axis at 6.

Although there is a common tip in critical thinking classes that manipulating the Y-axis range can lead to misleading presentation of a difference, I believe in this particular graph, which clearly provides numbers to compare, you can’t say it is misleading.

People can read and compare the values and draw their own conclusions. And I am saying that without any consideration of the distros discussed, since I am impartial to distros, I like all distros I have tried.

This “study” almost certainly must have way deeper assumptions- and metrics- related problems to start with, so even finding myself having this argument is preposterous. But I am just pointing out the misapplication of critical thinking guideline, and this is a valid point which I insist everyone who relies on to consider, if you care about critical thinking at all.

No one said you are doing layman statistics, the pasted comment is from another discussion, provided here for context, and for very good reasons. It aligns with obvious misconceptions about statistics that should be pointed out. Probability and statistics are thorny subjects that nonetheless are inevitable in order to understand the world surrounding us, material, social, and economic, so yes I will nitpick here and call out the misapplication of canned critical thinking thought-terminating cliches.

This sounds valid. I wonder how many Scandinavians switched to Linux because of Windows 11.

Fair. You know these figures right out from the graph don’t you?

Ah the statistical significance, which as everybody knows is assessed …visually? Mic drop

BTW I have another comment here, totally irrelevant to this discussion, that I bring up statistical siGnifiCAnsE as an example of confident falsehood. Thanks for proving me right lol

Edit: here it is for context ( from https://lemmy.ml/post/17638298/12096466 )

Layman statistics is not the hill I would die on. Otherwise (being guilty of the fallacy myself) I now think that making a subject mandatory school lesson will only make people more confidently incorrect about it, so this is another hill I won’t die on for probability and statistics. See for instance the widespread erroneous layman use of “statistical significance” (like “your sample of partners is not statistical significant”) you see it is a lost cause. They misinterpret it because they were taught it. Also professionals have been taught it and mess it up more than regularly to the point we can’t trust studies or sth any more. So the solution you suggest is teach more of it? Sounds a bit like the war on drugs.

The difference (in self-reported subjective happiness rating 1–10 too) is not as significant as the graphic implies visually

Ah here is another one. So what? It makes the difference more distinguishable, which also the graph denotes numerically. Otherwise all Linux distros users would appear too flat to make any difference interpretable.

The fact that there are at least two such comments around here shows why teaching anything in schools is doomed to fail.

Even critical thinking skills are applied in a canned, thought-terminating fashion, similar to how XX/XY chromosomes are considered the only reality, in overconfident falsehood.