"xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
https://xkcd.com/2599/

Oh yeah, statistics lie.

Explained at:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio

Lynn

On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>
> Oh yeah, statistics lie.

NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
significantly increase your risk.

What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
following the advice.

This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
science". I haven't yet seen a politician or newspaper article that
has gotten it right - the local county restriction flip-flops all
supposedly based on "follow the science" have been ridiculously
absurd.

What the science tells you (mostly correctly) is that wearing masks,
vaccinating, virtual school, and socially distancing all decrease the
risk of covid. It does not tell you (yet) that all those restrictions
are worth doing or offer any advice on the threshold for the
restrictions (unlike what the local politicians have continuously
claimed). There are costs to every restriction which are mostly
scientifically unknown for covid and the fallacious "follow the
science" arguments ignore those costs.

If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
and never physically go back to school. Absurd!

Chris

> Explained at:
>
> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio
>
> Lynn

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>
>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>
>NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>significantly increase your risk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4

On 29 Mar 2022 20:06:46 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>
>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>
>NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>significantly increase your risk.
>
>What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
>based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
>data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
>without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
>following the advice.
>
>This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
>past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
>science". I haven't yet seen a politician or newspaper article that
>has gotten it right - the local county restriction flip-flops all
>supposedly based on "follow the science" have been ridiculously
>absurd.
>
>What the science tells you (mostly correctly) is that wearing masks,
>vaccinating, virtual school, and socially distancing all decrease the
>risk of covid. It does not tell you (yet) that all those restrictions
>are worth doing or offer any advice on the threshold for the
>restrictions (unlike what the local politicians have continuously
>claimed). There are costs to every restriction which are mostly
>scientifically unknown for covid and the fallacious "follow the
>science" arguments ignore those costs.

The restrictions here appeared to be based on keeping the medical
non-system from being overwhelmed by slowing down the rate of
transmission.

How well the hospitals are doing is, if nothing else, something that
can be measured. The trick is to cap the increase /before/ it
overwhelms them.

States that put their medical non-system on the Italian Triage failed
in their duty to their population, voters and non-voters alike. States
that didn't even try failed even more disasterously. But States that
overdid things were also blameworthy, because of the economic effects.
Some situations simply do not have a path to victory, only to
survival.

>If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
>always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
>and never physically go back to school. Absurd!

So it appears, at the present time. I haven't even investigated the
"second booster" stories; if it's six months after the first, I won't
have to deal with it all until July, and who can say what the story
will be then?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 29 Mar 2022 20:06:46 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
>always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
>and never physically go back to school. Absurd!
>
And not to mention that that level of restriction would quickly reduce
our standard of living to pre-20th century levels which would rob of
us the economic ability to maintain that level indefinitely nor treat
any medical condition other than COVID.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> > https://xkcd.com/2599/
> >
> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> significantly increase your risk.
>
> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
> based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
> data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
> without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
> following the advice.
>
> This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
> past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
> science".

Congratulations on hijacking the thread with discussion that, while
it may or may not be worth discussing on its own, has nearly zero
contact with the comic under discussion.

On 3/30/2022 12:07 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>> significantly increase your risk.
>>
>> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
>> based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
>> data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
>> without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
>> following the advice.
>>
>> This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
>> past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
>> science".
>
> Congratulations on hijacking the thread with discussion that, while
> it may or may not be worth discussing on its own, has nearly zero
> contact with the comic under discussion.

This is rec.arts.sf.written, the king of thread drift.

Lynn

rpre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
> > On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> > > https://xkcd.com/2599/
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
> > NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
> > matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
> > it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> > significantly increase your risk.
> >
> > What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
> > based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
> > data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
> > without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
> > following the advice.
> >
> > This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
> > past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
> > science".
> Congratulations on hijacking the thread with discussion that, while
> it may or may not be worth discussing on its own, has nearly zero
> contact with the comic under discussion.

As tiresome as I find Covid restriction discussion, and however likely that there is currently another thread where these same posters are making these same statements, I would not say there is zero connection to the comic -- see the cardiovascular health vs. bear attack afterjoke in the rollover text. About like saying the thread about Sauron's defeat is hijacked by a discussion of Christmas/Easter.

--
-Jack

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> > https://xkcd.com/2599/

> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.

> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> significantly increase your risk.

> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
> based on those statistics.

The concluding advice is incorrect; that is the punch-line of the joke.

So you're right there.

But then the accurate statistics have led to a misleading conclusion. That's
how you lie with statistics. If you make up false statistics, you're just lying.
To lie _with statistics_, you need to present true statistics in a confusing or
misleading way.

So the claim that the statistics are accurate, even if true, doesn't contradict
the idea that statistics can decieve.

Let's start with your statement "Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
significantly increase your risk."

That depends on what you mean by "significant".

The risk of a head injury due to falling satellite debris... is likely to be very nearly
proportional to the time you spend outdoors. Assuming satellite debris is not
likely to cause a head injury through causing the roof of the building you're in to
fall on your head.

So one can say the risk increases significantly... in proportional terms.

But the whole point of the joke is that the risk is utterly *insignificant* even if you
spent 24 hours a day out of doors! And the misleading thing is that the graph,
proportionate as it may be, has no scale to show what the risk being outside for
one, or four, hours a day actually is.

The strategic leaving out of that information is how you lie with statistics.

John Savard

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:07:44 AM UTC-6, rpre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:

> > This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
> > past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
> > science".

> Congratulations on hijacking the thread with discussion that, while
> it may or may not be worth discussing on its own, has nearly zero
> contact with the comic under discussion.

How do we know that the cartoonist behind xkcd doesn't have
the same political opinions as Scott Adams?

But seriously, his comment was quite sound as far as it went...
if you don't take into account the _degree_ of risk from COVID-19,
the fact that certain precautionary measures reduce that risk
indeed are not enough to justify the costs of those measures.

Where his mistake was is in thinking that the responsible
medical authorities calling for COVID-19 restrictions aren't
*well aware* of the degree of risk posed by COVID-19.

I well remember the chronology of this. I happened to have read
an article about how President Trump was likely to be re-elected,
because the economy was doing well, and Presidents are very seldom
turned out in a good economy.

Shortly *after* that, the pandemic hit, and Trump decided to try and
convince people it wasn't much different from the flu, because he
wanted to prevent states from imposing pandemic restrictions which
would hurt the economy.

That pretty much summed up for me the nature of his motivations,
and thus my opinion on anyone who would take his side in this matter.

As for the real risk it posed: catching COVID-19 involved a real chance
of needing to go on a ventilator, and at first, few patients who needed
a ventilator survived. It was _much_ deadlier than a typical seasonal
flu. As well, it overwhelmed hospitals, so that people were needlessly
dying of cancer because they couldn't get tumors removed, and even
mild infections occasionally led to severe long-term disabilities.

My guess would be that it's about a hundred times more dangerous
than the flu. The thing is that public information was based on driving
correct behavior, so it didn't attempt to quantify the risk much... because
maybe something even a hundred times worse than the flu... is _still_
not a big percieved threat to most young and healthy people. Not enough
to put up with a big inconvenience.

Even in Canada, our government didn't do all the right things. Definitely
the right things didn't happen in the U.S.. If you need businesses to
shut down, wholly or partially, for an unpredictably long period of time,
the government needs to work out a way to ensure this won't drive them
into bankruptcy - without shoveling out a huge pile of taxpayer dollars.

I had a plan for that - basically, if a business has its income shut off,
its expenditures have to be shut off. Put the economy up on blocks.

Anyways: unlike satellite debris, which might increase if you put too many
more satellites *up there*, but which won't increase from what we do
*down here*... infectious disease spreads from person to person.

So even a very few cases can ignite a wildfire.

So even when the "real risk" seems inconsiderable, the
question is whether you want to take precautions now,
or take precautions later, after the disease is so widespread
that everyone does have a real chance of catching it
even with precautions.

John Savard

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:20:21 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On 29 Mar 2022 20:06:46 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>
>The restrictions here appeared to be based on keeping the medical
>non-system from being overwhelmed by slowing down the rate of
>transmission.
>
>How well the hospitals are doing is, if nothing else, something that
>can be measured. The trick is to cap the increase /before/ it
>overwhelms them.

I get all that and they were quite open about it going back to Mar/Apr
2020. In our province, Omicron numbers were higher than any of the
previous waves but only a small number of cases were actually
hospitalized. For us numbers are now below those of the 4th wave.

>States that put their medical non-system on the Italian Triage failed
>in their duty to their population, voters and non-voters alike. States
>that didn't even try failed even more disasterously. But States that
>overdid things were also blameworthy, because of the economic effects.
>Some situations simply do not have a path to victory, only to
>survival.

What you're effectively saying is that no one got things exactly right
which isn't exactly a surprise since nearly everybody in government
was flying blind.

>>If the only thing that mattered was increased risk of covid, we would
>>always, always need to wear masks, have 2-3 booster shots each year,
>>and never physically go back to school. Absurd!
>
>So it appears, at the present time. I haven't even investigated the
>"second booster" stories; if it's six months after the first, I won't
>have to deal with it all until July, and who can say what the story
>will be then?

I'll judge that then. Certainly I would not consider a booster that as
a minimum doesn't offer reasonable protection to the omicron family.

I've done my 3 shots; no need for more until any subsequent one offers
more than I already have.

No question there's currently a tendency for coroners to mark ANY
death where the deceased has tested positive as "a COVID death" which
clearly isn't so. I know one person who recently died of heart failure
who tested positive so guess what the coroner said the final inquest
report will be marked?

On 2022-03-30, Ross Presser <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> > https://xkcd.com/2599/
>> >
>> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>> significantly increase your risk.
>>
>> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
>> based on those statistics. There is no way to conclude that from the
>> data given. The statistics simply don't say anything about that
>> without taking into account the likely costs of following or not
>> following the advice.
>>
>> This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
>> past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
>> science".
>
> Congratulations on hijacking the thread with discussion that, while
> it may or may not be worth discussing on its own, has nearly zero
> contact with the comic under discussion.

Really? I'm 99% certain that this particular comic was written with
the current national covid discussion as the target. That's what
Munroe does - looks at the validity of scientific argument in a
neutral environment where people's emotions and preconceptions don't
matter. A great comic, the only online comic I follow in real time (I
binge a couple of others)

Chris

On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> > https://xkcd.com/2599/
>
>> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>
>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>> significantly increase your risk.
>
>> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
>> based on those statistics.
>
> The concluding advice is incorrect; that is the punch-line of the joke.
>
> So you're right there.
>
> But then the accurate statistics have led to a misleading conclusion. That's
> how you lie with statistics. If you make up false statistics, you're just lying.
> To lie _with statistics_, you need to present true statistics in a confusing or
> misleading way.
>
> So the claim that the statistics are accurate, even if true, doesn't contradict
> the idea that statistics can decieve.
>
> Let's start with your statement "Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> significantly increase your risk."
>
> That depends on what you mean by "significant".

NO! You don't have the background to follow this particular comic.
Statistical significance is quite well-defined and says that the
difference in results between the cases is very unlikely to be due to
chance. (In a full scientific argument you'd need to give more details.)

Each of the horizontal plotted lines represents the average (the dot)
and the probability distribution of head injury (representing 1 (or 2)
standard deviations from the average). The fact that there is no
overlap of the 5-10 line with the 0 and 1 lines is a visual indication
that the 5-10 line is significantly different from the 0 and 1 lines.
(The probability distribution of the 2-4 hours line overlaps too much
- it is not significantly different.)

That's reinforced by the asterisks at the end of the 5-10 line and 11+
lines. That's used in scientific papers to indicate statistical
significant difference from the base case - in a full paper the level
of significance would be given, as well as details of the significance
test.

You are correct in saying that statistical significance does not imply
there is an important difference - that's the point of the comic.
Correctly scientifically saying that the risk increases with a case
does not imply that the science says we must avoid that case.

Chris

On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 23:49:26 UTC+1, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley wrote:
> >> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
> >> > https://xkcd.com/2599/
> >
> >> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
> >
> >> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
> >> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
> >> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> >> significantly increase your risk.
> >
> >> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor activities)
> >> based on those statistics.
> >
> > The concluding advice is incorrect; that is the punch-line of the joke.
> >
> > So you're right there.
> >
> > But then the accurate statistics have led to a misleading conclusion. That's
> > how you lie with statistics. If you make up false statistics, you're just lying.
> > To lie _with statistics_, you need to present true statistics in a confusing or
> > misleading way.
> >
> > So the claim that the statistics are accurate, even if true, doesn't contradict
> > the idea that statistics can decieve.
> >
> > Let's start with your statement "Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
> > significantly increase your risk."
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by "significant".
> NO! You don't have the background to follow this particular comic.
> Statistical significance is quite well-defined and says that the
> difference in results between the cases is very unlikely to be due to
> chance. (In a full scientific argument you'd need to give more details.)
>
> Each of the horizontal plotted lines represents the average (the dot)
> and the probability distribution of head injury (representing 1 (or 2)
> standard deviations from the average). The fact that there is no
> overlap of the 5-10 line with the 0 and 1 lines is a visual indication
> that the 5-10 line is significantly different from the 0 and 1 lines.
> (The probability distribution of the 2-4 hours line overlaps too much
> - it is not significantly different.)
>
> That's reinforced by the asterisks at the end of the 5-10 line and 11+
> lines. That's used in scientific papers to indicate statistical
> significant difference from the base case - in a full paper the level
> of significance would be given, as well as details of the significance
> test.
>
> You are correct in saying that statistical significance does not imply
> there is an important difference - that's the point of the comic.
> Correctly scientifically saying that the risk increases with a case
> does not imply that the science says we must avoid that case.

<https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio>
points out that from the description, this is not
real data about spaceship debris head trauma
but a product of a mathematical model.
Actual statistics about space crash casualties
on the ground are a bit thin.

I commented that I can't tell if going out is
really meant to be much more dangerous than
staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
through your house anyway?

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:07:44 AM UTC-6, rpre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:06:51 PM UTC-4, Chris Buckley wrote:
>
>> > This is the same fallacious argument I've heard continuously for the
>> > past two years claiming that Covid restrictions are "following the
>> > science".
>
>> Congratulations on hijacking the thread with discussion that, while
>> it may or may not be worth discussing on its own, has nearly zero
>> contact with the comic under discussion.
>
> How do we know that the cartoonist behind xkcd doesn't have
> the same political opinions as Scott Adams?

From his cartoons: https://xkcd.com/1756/

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:5797577f-4a3d-402e-84ec-5adf268fee4en@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 23:49:26 UTC+1, Chris Buckley
> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-6, Chris Buckley
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>> >> > https://xkcd.com/2599/
>> >
>> >> > Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>> >
>> >> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the
>> >> graph matches the underlying data correctly and there is no
>> >> reason to assume it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics
>> >> correctly say the extra hours significantly increase your
>> >> risk.
>> >
>> >> What's incorrect is the concluding advice (limit outdoor
>> >> activities) based on those statistics.
>> >
>> > The concluding advice is incorrect; that is the punch-line of
>> > the joke.
>> >
>> > So you're right there.
>> >
>> > But then the accurate statistics have led to a misleading
>> > conclusion. That's how you lie with statistics. If you make
>> > up false statistics, you're just lying. To lie _with
>> > statistics_, you need to present true statistics in a
>> > confusing or misleading way.
>> >
>> > So the claim that the statistics are accurate, even if true,
>> > doesn't contradict the idea that statistics can decieve.
>> >
>> > Let's start with your statement "Indeed the statistics
>> > correctly say the extra hours significantly increase your
>> > risk."
>> >
>> > That depends on what you mean by "significant".
>> NO! You don't have the background to follow this particular
>> comic. Statistical significance is quite well-defined and says
>> that the difference in results between the cases is very
>> unlikely to be due to chance. (In a full scientific argument
>> you'd need to give more details.)
>>
>> Each of the horizontal plotted lines represents the average
>> (the dot) and the probability distribution of head injury
>> (representing 1 (or 2) standard deviations from the average).
>> The fact that there is no overlap of the 5-10 line with the 0
>> and 1 lines is a visual indication that the 5-10 line is
>> significantly different from the 0 and 1 lines. (The
>> probability distribution of the 2-4 hours line overlaps too
>> much - it is not significantly different.)
>>
>> That's reinforced by the asterisks at the end of the 5-10 line
>> and 11+ lines. That's used in scientific papers to indicate
>> statistical significant difference from the base case - in a
>> full paper the level of significance would be given, as well as
>> details of the significance test.
>>
>> You are correct in saying that statistical significance does
>> not imply there is an important difference - that's the point
>> of the comic. Correctly scientifically saying that the risk
>> increases with a case does not imply that the science says we
>> must avoid that case.
>
> <https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debr
> is_Odds_Ratio> points out that from the description, this is not
> real data about spaceship debris head trauma
> but a product of a mathematical model.
> Actual statistics about space crash casualties
> on the ground are a bit thin.
>
> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
> really meant to be much more dangerous than
> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
> through your house anyway?
>
One would presume that in doing so, it would expend a good deal of
its kinetic energy, and thus, hit your head with less force.

But for extra credit, feel free to compute the hazards of shrapnel
from wood splinters and other debris (which is, after, the *real*
danger in a tornado, so we can't discount it entirely).

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>news:5797577f-4a3d-402e-84ec-5adf268fee4en@googlegroups.com:

>>
>> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
>> really meant to be much more dangerous than
>> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
>> through your house anyway?
>>
>One would presume that in doing so, it would expend a good deal of
>its kinetic energy, and thus, hit your head with less force.
>
>But for extra credit, feel free to compute the hazards of shrapnel
>from wood splinters and other debris (which is, after, the *real*
>danger in a tornado, so we can't discount it entirely).

Just ask Nelson and Villeneuve about the hazards of wood
shrapnel.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:hWk1K.429696
$SeK9.413982@fx97.iad:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>news:5797577f-4a3d-402e-84ec-5adf268fee4en@googlegroups.com:
>
>>>
>>> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
>>> really meant to be much more dangerous than
>>> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
>>> through your house anyway?
>>>
>>One would presume that in doing so, it would expend a good deal of
>>its kinetic energy, and thus, hit your head with less force.
>>
>>But for extra credit, feel free to compute the hazards of shrapnel
>>from wood splinters and other debris (which is, after, the *real*
>>danger in a tornado, so we can't discount it entirely).
>
> Just ask Nelson and Villeneuve about the hazards of wood
> shrapnel.
>
Indeed.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2022-03-31, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 23:49:26 UTC+1, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> You are correct in saying that statistical significance does not imply
>> there is an important difference - that's the point of the comic.
>> Correctly scientifically saying that the risk increases with a case
>> does not imply that the science says we must avoid that case.
>
><https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio>
> points out that from the description, this is not
> real data about spaceship debris head trauma
> but a product of a mathematical model.
> Actual statistics about space crash casualties
> on the ground are a bit thin.
>
> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
> really meant to be much more dangerous than
> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
> through your house anyway?

Just google "meteorite hits house" and you'll get the tale of a meteorite
punching a hole through the roof and landing on the pillow of a
sleeping Canadian.

It obviously depends on the mass of the space debris. The vast majority
of them have mass much less than the mass of this meteorite.

Chris

On 3/29/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>>
>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>> significantly increase your risk.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4

Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks ! I watched the first two episodes last
night on IMDB.

I cannot believe it went only two seasons. Something must have gone
wrong very fast.

Lynn

On 3/31/2022 11:21 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/29/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>>>     https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>>>
>>> NO!  The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>>> it doesn't here.)  Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>>> significantly increase your risk.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4
>
> Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks !  I watched the first two episodes last
> night on IMDB.
>
> I cannot believe it went only two seasons.  Something must have gone
> wrong very fast.
>
My vague impression from watching it many years ago was they quickly
milked the central joke for all it was worth. Plus I think there was
some substantial cast turn over but I'm even foggier on that.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/31/2022 10:25 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-03-31, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 23:49:26 UTC+1, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> You are correct in saying that statistical significance does not imply
>>> there is an important difference - that's the point of the comic.
>>> Correctly scientifically saying that the risk increases with a case
>>> does not imply that the science says we must avoid that case.
>>
>> <https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio>
>> points out that from the description, this is not
>> real data about spaceship debris head trauma
>> but a product of a mathematical model.
>> Actual statistics about space crash casualties
>> on the ground are a bit thin.
>>
>> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
>> really meant to be much more dangerous than
>> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
>> through your house anyway?
>
> Just google "meteorite hits house" and you'll get the tale of a meteorite
> punching a hole through the roof and landing on the pillow of a
> sleeping Canadian.
>
> It obviously depends on the mass of the space debris. The vast majority
> of them have mass much less than the mass of this meteorite.
>
Depends more on the speed.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>On 3/31/2022 10:25 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-31, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 23:49:26 UTC+1, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are correct in saying that statistical significance does not imply
>>>> there is an important difference - that's the point of the comic.
>>>> Correctly scientifically saying that the risk increases with a case
>>>> does not imply that the science says we must avoid that case.
>>>
>>> <https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio>
>>> points out that from the description, this is not
>>> real data about spaceship debris head trauma
>>> but a product of a mathematical model.
>>> Actual statistics about space crash casualties
>>> on the ground are a bit thin.
>>>
>>> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
>>> really meant to be much more dangerous than
>>> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
>>> through your house anyway?
>>
>> Just google "meteorite hits house" and you'll get the tale of a meteorite
>> punching a hole through the roof and landing on the pillow of a
>> sleeping Canadian.
>>
>> It obviously depends on the mass of the space debris. The vast majority
>> of them have mass much less than the mass of this meteorite.
>>
>Depends more on the speed.
>

F=ma

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/most-important-equation-physics/

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:21:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/29/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-03-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "xkcd: Spacecraft Debris Odds Ratio"
>>>> https://xkcd.com/2599/
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, statistics lie.
>>>
>>> NO! The statistics here are perfectly accurate (assuming the graph
>>> matches the underlying data correctly and there is no reason to assume
>>> it doesn't here.) Indeed the statistics correctly say the extra hours
>>> significantly increase your risk.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWpj88EWt4
>
>Dude, "Dead Like Me" rocks ! I watched the first two episodes last
>night on IMDB.
>
>I cannot believe it went only two seasons. Something must have gone
>wrong very fast.

The corporate weenies started interfering and the showrunner gave up
and bailed.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 12:13:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/31/2022 10:25 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-03-31, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 30 March 2022 at 23:49:26 UTC+1, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are correct in saying that statistical significance does not imply
>>>> there is an important difference - that's the point of the comic.
>>>> Correctly scientifically saying that the risk increases with a case
>>>> does not imply that the science says we must avoid that case.
>>>
>>> <https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2599:_Spacecraft_Debris_Odds_Ratio>
>>> points out that from the description, this is not
>>> real data about spaceship debris head trauma
>>> but a product of a mathematical model.
>>> Actual statistics about space crash casualties
>>> on the ground are a bit thin.
>>>
>>> I commented that I can't tell if going out is
>>> really meant to be much more dangerous than
>>> staying in. Won't space debris punch straight
>>> through your house anyway?
>>
>> Just google "meteorite hits house" and you'll get the tale of a meteorite
>> punching a hole through the roof and landing on the pillow of a
>> sleeping Canadian.
>>
>> It obviously depends on the mass of the space debris. The vast majority
>> of them have mass much less than the mass of this meteorite.
>>
>Depends more on the speed.

Depends on mass, speed, composition, orientation.

A streamlined aerodynamically stable tungsten carbide dart will at any
speed make it deeper into the atmosphere than will a ball of feathers
of equal mass, to take an extreme example. Some possible
outcomes--meteor evaporates, explodes, slows to terminal velocity,
shatters, or impacts with significant residual energy. Going faster
may just explode or vaporise it sooner.