I think the best term would have been statistically surprising, because it strongly hint at the fact that the result would be surprising under the null hypothesis, witch really is all that "statistically significant" really means. Sometimes surprising results happen, but all other things being equal they might hint at the null hypothesis being false. I could also live with "statistically interesting". "Detectable", suggested in another comment, seems to have some of the same issues as significant, it is too strong and seems to imply that now we know something is really there.
By the reasoning behind significance, "surprising" would be a great drop-in. However, in most studies, it would be more surprising if the null hypothesis were true. Statistically significant results are pretty much a given.
I don't think this is true unless you have a ridiculously high electricity bill. When I checked, one intercontinental retour flight was roughly equivalent to my yearly electricity bill, in terms of CO2 emissions. I have to admit I'm not sure how to reconcile this with CO2 credit prices, but I'm quite sure it's not really possible to offset the CO2 emissions of a intercontinental flight with 20 euro, that would mean that a minor tax on flights would make them practically carbon neutral, this is definitely not the case.
I assume you meant: If an airplane is as safe as average then it has PUT_NUMBER chance of having 2 incidents after 150k flights. 0.01% is actually the number I'm getting, assuming parent estimates are correct and making naive assumptions. In other words only 1 every 10 000 airplane models will have 2 incidents that early on if they are of average safety.
That is different then stating the probability of it being as safe as the average airplane, which you can't do as easily without additional modelling/priors and bayesian statistics.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The NH is that a plane has 1/10 [M * flights] failure rate. The odds of 2 failures in 20M flights falling in same (random) stride of 150K flights are 150K/20M = 0.75%.
[E: fixed numbers]
[EE: yes, I admit this calculation is incorrect]
P(Hypothesis) is the prior probability of the Hypothesis being true, in other words the probability we gave to the Hypothesis before seeing any of the data we are using in the theorem. When new data is observed, we use Bayes' theorem to update our believe in the hypothesis, which in practice means multiplying our prior probability by a number that depends on how well the new data fits our hypothesis. More precisely:
evidence_factor = P(Data|Hypothesis)/P(Data)
So it is the ratio of how likely our data is if our hypothesis is true, compared to (divided by) how likely it is in general. If it is more likely to occur in our Hypothesis, our probability of it being true increases, if it is more likely in general (and thus also more likely in case our hypothesis is not true, you can prove mathematically that those two statements are the same), then our believe in the hypothesis decreases.
TLDR: Prob(Hypothesis after I have seen new data) = Prob(Hypothesis before I saw the new data) * (how likely I am to see the data if my hypothesis is true, compared to in general)
Don't you need time to even define movement? Movement is a change of the position with respect to time. So without time you can't have movement. But obviously you are right that the two concepts are strictly related, that doesn't mean time doesn't "exist" (however you define "exist").
All our accepted model of nature assume that in some sense time
exists. But in general relativity it doesn’t make much sense to
speak of a single event. In the same way it doesn’t make much sense
to speak of a single point in the euclidean plane (you can only
localize one point relative to another one).
So some people (like Rovelli) think one should try to formulate
relativity only in terms relations of events. This might be relevant
in a more fundamental theory of spacetime but on a classical level
it’s irrelevant. You can measure the geometry of spacetime in our
solar system w/o disturbing it. The gravitational field of e.g. some
satellite is negligible to the gravitational field of planets and the
sun.
Forgive me for sounding rhetorical in this question, but I'm genuinely wondering.. Isn't saying "time doesn't exist" akin to saying "human thoughts don't exist"?
In my opinion the important innovation of Hindu–Arabic numbers is not having different symbols for each digit, but rather using the same ten symbols (and no others!) for representing larger groups, which gives the system a lovely uniformity across numbers of different scales.
There aren’t many (if any?) human languages that duplicate this feature of being a purely positional system.
The current stock price (and thus market cap) already assumes future growth. The market cap would increase further only if growth exceeds the current expectations of investors. (Or due to other factors unrelated to growth).
I stopped using bookmarks after I realized I wasn't using them, thanks to a combination of:
1. Autocompletion: for any website I use regularly I just write a substring of the url or Title (Firefox does this especially well). This covers probably 70% of my browsing.
2. Google. This might take slightly longer in case I want to find a specific article I had read some time ago, but it still seems less effort that having to bother with bookmarks, in my experience: either you have a very long list of unsorted bookmarks, in witch it's hard to search, or you have to spend time sorting them into sub-folders.
Now that I think of it, the following would be a very useful Google feature: +1 an url so that it becomes much more likely to bubble to the top in future searches.
I would say it's just the opposite - they could have sunk a lot of time and money into designing an automated espresso machine, but instead they just combined a multipurpose robot with a typical off-the-shelf espresso machine. Which of course is also more theatrical than a black box (and I would guess also reassures patrons that they are getting real espresso).
Coffee is a combination of the following ingreedients:
* Water
* Beans filled with caffine
Water can be recived from a good filtering system [0], mixed with a choosen water profile (common development of breweries), run through an electric water heater, taken to tempature of 195F to 205F, then finally pushed through the ground beans.
An espresso is usually steamed so you'd do the same process but use forced steam then run the evaporated gass through a condensation colum.
It's very doable and probably would yield more ROI/cup because you'll better be able to use time, power, and grindes to better deliver. Also the user experiance of walking up to a wall, clicking a few tick boxes, swiping a card and instantly getting some liquid spit into a cup that is exactly what you ordered sounds a lot nicer for some people.
"it’s telling you that there’s at most an alpha chance that the difference arose from random chance. In 95 out of 100 parallel universes, your paper found a difference that actually exists. I’d take that bet."
This is wrong. It’s telling you that there’s at most an alpha chance that a difference like that (or more) would have arisen from random chance if the quantities are actually equal. And if the quantities are equal 95 out of 100 parallel universes would not be able to reject the null hypothesis.
Is he saying that he would take the xkcd bet[0] on the frequentist side?
