Re:When Worse Is Better (2011)
by mrpara on Sunday August 04, 2019 @09:31AM
(#20606414)
Well, in the author's defense, they specifically stated that "Each assignment required a yes-no decision". I agree, though, that there really is no great lesson to be learned here since the real world doesn't work like that.
The technical bit about channel capacity was honestly more interesting. It's a neat result (that should be fairly obvious to anyone who's worked with probabilities) with a not-so-great example to illustrate it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:When Worse Is Better (2011)
by JoeAltmaier on Sunday August 04, 2019 @09:40AM
(#20606450)
Agreed, "Yes/No" is in no way correlated with "50/50 chance".
Will I win the lottery? Yes/No. 50/50?
My favorite conflation is the "are we in a simulation?" argument. That's a yes/no also, and the ignorant conclusion is that its very likely we are. Without any statistics on the probability either way.
Also, Pascal's wager. The presented sides of the bet aren't equal, because on the one hand you have existence of a particular God, and on the other hand its non-existence, whereas in the real world, there's a whole space of possible Gods that people believe in that are not included in the wager.
Re:When Worse Is Better (2011)
by dredmorbius on Monday August 05, 2019 @12:26PM
(#20615416)
"Wheareas in the real world" is an interesting phrasing for that poylemma.