Ferguson said 'my bad' when revising the model down 2200% 2 months ago. Too bad we're all being held at gun point to 'follow the science' from then and not the science from today.
Can anybody tell me now, the difference between the white robed scientists that pull "scientific conclusions" out of thin air to move masses into compliance, and the black robed priests who used "gods words" out of thin translations to move the masses into compliance?
Dont they both just play the same game?
Control source of info and control translation of sources info.....
You can use non-deterministic simulations to make scientifically assisted predictions and the modelling would be valid at least in principle. Doing things right doesn't guarantee a correct result however.
In this case though they are describing dramatic differences in outcomes which is problematic.
It's not that it's technically non-deterministic but that it is greatly so.
My guess is they will say he ran it a thousand times and took the average from the results. Sometimes that's valid but more often people just do it with the assumption it fixes the problem. A rookie mistake. They assume consensus will find the right answer as is by magic.
These programs don't even replicate results when run from the same starting point.
This is not because of incompetence; it is by design. In fact, if they did not explicitly introduce chaos (in the form of one or more randomly-generated variables), they would produce the same result from the same seed each time, and that would defeat the purpose.
Yup, my experience with Monte Carlo simulations is in finance, specifically the Trinity Study. As I understand it, with these kinds of simulations, they say that xx% of the time it will yield a certain threshold result. For example, in the Trinity Study, it's safe to withdraw 4% of one's portfolio every year and there is a 95% chance the portfolio will survive one's entire retirement.
In the case of the IMHE model, it was framed as 100% chance and without any thresholds. That doesn't sound right to me.
It's settled science, you bigot!
No, just kidding... I am furious at these people. There needs to be consequences for actions like this.
Ferguson said 'my bad' when revising the model down 2200% 2 months ago. Too bad we're all being held at gun point to 'follow the science' from then and not the science from today.
I'm starting to think there is some kind of agenda.
Can anybody tell me now, the difference between the white robed scientists that pull "scientific conclusions" out of thin air to move masses into compliance, and the black robed priests who used "gods words" out of thin translations to move the masses into compliance?
Dont they both just play the same game?
Control source of info and control translation of sources info.....
Be careful with that edge. Whew lad.
You can use non-deterministic simulations to make scientifically assisted predictions and the modelling would be valid at least in principle. Doing things right doesn't guarantee a correct result however.
In this case though they are describing dramatic differences in outcomes which is problematic.
It's not that it's technically non-deterministic but that it is greatly so.
My guess is they will say he ran it a thousand times and took the average from the results. Sometimes that's valid but more often people just do it with the assumption it fixes the problem. A rookie mistake. They assume consensus will find the right answer as is by magic.
Correct.
Non-determinism in algorithms is okay; machine learning and Monte Carlo simulations do it all the time.
Forming conclusions and acting upon unstable (and buggy) non-determinism is not okay, and that's what happened here.
This is not because of incompetence; it is by design. In fact, if they did not explicitly introduce chaos (in the form of one or more randomly-generated variables), they would produce the same result from the same seed each time, and that would defeat the purpose.
Yup, my experience with Monte Carlo simulations is in finance, specifically the Trinity Study. As I understand it, with these kinds of simulations, they say that xx% of the time it will yield a certain threshold result. For example, in the Trinity Study, it's safe to withdraw 4% of one's portfolio every year and there is a 95% chance the portfolio will survive one's entire retirement.
In the case of the IMHE model, it was framed as 100% chance and without any thresholds. That doesn't sound right to me.
You are assuming altruistic motivations.
Do you think this code would have been any better if Ferguson weren't thinking with his dick while writing it? I have my doubts.