Re:1 in 4 Statisticians Say They Were Asked to Commit Scient...
by tomrod on Friday November 02, 2018 @08:34PM
(#18367905)
I agree, and see this regularly.
"Picking battles" is one way to describe my counterpoint: caveat exactly as much as needed so that a proper decision can be made with the risks involved.
If you want to query your whole team for a joint lunch location but coworker X is out, it is still appropriate to say (assuming more than you and X on team) that you asked the team and you decided on lunch place Y. It's not rigorous (X is left out) but it's still accurate.
This is very different from, say, regulatory or securities reporting where ambiguity is not appropriate.
"Picking battles" is one way to describe my counterpoint: caveat exactly as much as needed so that a proper decision can be made with the risks involved.
If you want to query your whole team for a joint lunch location but coworker X is out, it is still appropriate to say (assuming more than you and X on team) that you asked the team and you decided on lunch place Y. It's not rigorous (X is left out) but it's still accurate.
This is very different from, say, regulatory or securities reporting where ambiguity is not appropriate.