My report based on 15 hours of research on this topic.
Looks like what I’m calling accuracy ISO calls “trueness”, and ISO!accuracy is a combination of trueness and precision.
I would just like to complain about how many bullseye diagrams I looked at where the “low accuracy” picture averaged to about the bullseye, because the creator had randomly spewed dots and the average location of an image is in fact its center.
Some examples are where people care more about fairness, such as criminal sentencing and enterprise software pricing.
However you’re right that implicit in the question was “without new information appearing”, although you’d want the answer to update the same way every time the same new information appeared.
Last edit… Do you listen to any German language music or watch German language movies/shows?
No, because my goal is reading only.
Sure. These are the first 5 that came up on Anki that I didn’t know
Sie hatten das Haus erreicht/They had reached the house
Sie begeben sich auf eine gefährliche Reise/They began a dangerous journey
aber es ist weitaus düsterer und bedrohlicher als Quentin es sich je vorgestellt hatte/
but it is much darker and more threatening than Quentin had ever imagined
Aber dazu war er noch nicht bereit/But he was not yet ready.
It’s chance that no nouns came up, I have just as much trouble with them.
It’s more that I have my favorite novel half memorized and that can count as the context in the sentence “figuring it out from context”, and I don’t have any history book memorized the same way.
I can envision history books being as fun as The Magicians (which is why I want the ability to read them), but can’t identify the interesting ones ahead of time. I think the transition step is reading the same history book in English and German, which I’ve identified some candidates for.
Lang-8 looks incredible, thank you.
Right now I’m reading my favorite adult novel. The goal is to read history books that haven’t been translated into English.
it’s a 95% confidence interval for where the actual probability lies.
They were both made with draw.io. I don’t know what algorithm habryka followed, but from the outside it looks like he arranged factors into tiers, put the uncaused causes at the top and the final effects at the bottom, and filled in layers between such that a member of layer N only had influences in layers < N. This isn’t perfect though- several things in layer 2 are uncaused causes.
I have the opposite observation on abuse in poly vs mono relationships. I’m interested in discussing further but I think that requires naming names and I don’t want to do so in a public forum, so maybe we should discuss offline.
Davis said harmful and habryka said abusive, which aren’t synonymous. It’s entirely possible for poly to lead to a lower chance any particular relationship is abusive, and yet raise the total amount of harm-done-by-relationships in a person or community.
It feels educational to show the horrific first draft of that diagram. Thanks to habryka for making it at all readable.