• ree
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      Ho, now we’re getting personal. good. I’ve got a degree in statistics.

      What you wrote is still misleading.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 years ago

        It’s only misleading if you don’t understand the difference between the average and the median, which somebody with a degree in statistics certainly should. You basically made up some nonsense and stuck to your guns for two days now. Bravo, that’s some real dedication to trolling.

        • ree
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 years ago

          Again with the personals.

          1. You decided to include that information in the title for a reason.

          2. When I pointed out that it was misleading you answered with a source that has not relevance to my comment.

          I think that your behavior is deliberate and that you’re spreading misleading information.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 years ago

            You seem to take a lot of things personally. I’m just stating simple facts here. I included correct information in the title, there is absolutely nothing misleading about it. I think your behavior here is deliberate trolling and I have a strong suspicion that you didn’t know the difference between average and median until now.

            • ree
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              My first comment pointed out that an average like “$75k each” without distribution parameters is useless. You responded with a non-relevant paper.

              1. By including that average in your title you chose to represent that information in a specific way. That way is misleading.
              2. By citing a source with not relevance to the question you make it seems like there is support for your representation.

              What you’re doing is spreading missinformation.

              by the way :

              1. on the one hand you assume that people cannot divide number, on the other hand you assume that people knows the difference between median and average.
              2. an average is often used in the common language as a substitute for the geometric mean but also the median. Learn your stat : the meme is “mean and median”. I invite you to read the first § here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average . Or is wikipedia too biased for your taste?
              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 years ago

                I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from. The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.

                • ree
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from.

                  The paper doesn’t provide the shares distribution amongst the worker. It provides shares distribution amongst categories of worker.

                  The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.

                  Please read my last comment in his entirety.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    The paper doesn’t provide the shares distribution amongst the worker. It provides shares distribution amongst categories of worker.

                    Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution.

                    Please read my last comment in his entirety.

                    Oh I did, it’s hilarious.