{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
4/8/2013 10:51:43 PM
11
178 packages, with one versus nine missing is a significant statistic?
We sure about that now?
English
-
No, it's that all the Athiest tape packages took an average of 3 days longer to ship.
-
Well, since we already went down the road of looking at statistics, do they list the individual arrival times of the packages? If one package got lost and took two weeks longer to arrive, that would certainly mess up the average, huh? Furthermore, how long did the packages take to arrive overall? Going from Germany to the US, is 3 days even a significant deviation? And for that matter, where did all of these people live in the US? Would that also affect the arrival time?
-
The article says that they were all shipped to the US, and one of each were shipped to the same address. If 2 packages were going to the same address, why would the one with the athiest tape take longer?
-
You didn't answer all or any of my questions. So instead of doing a complete copy-and-paste, please go back and look at my questions prior. And hell, I'll add another question. Were these packages all shipped at the same time?
-
All 178 packages were shipped on the same day, 11/21/12, sending one of each package to 89 addresses across 49 states. The packages that went missing weren't added to the average delivery time, since they didn't reach their destination. To answer one of your other questions, no, they did not state the arrival times, but they did list that for a Michigan address, the Athiest package arrived 37 days later than the normal package. Please read the article before asking questions, so you don't make yourself look like a fool next time :)
-
You were able to answer only one question fully. If that makes me a "fool," so be it.
-
It does make you a fool because you were trying to pick out flaws in their statistics without even reading the article.
-
Well, it certainly means I'm lazy. I'm not sure you know the definition of fool. Perhaps you just like throwing words around on the internet?
-
You're lazy for not reading the article and you're a fool for trying to say that the statistics are flawed when you didn't know all of the info.
-
I don't believe I once ever used the word "flawed." However, I do believe we should always look further into the information to see if there's a bias. Biases and flaws are different. I began asking one simple question that would have been easy to answer for the OP, but since I was provoked to do so by you, I added more. "Well, since we already went down the road of looking at statistics..." It wasn't my original intent to bring up those following questions. But since you decided to respond with an answer mostly irrelevant to my original question, it seemed reasonable that you would be able to answer the questions related to the information I wasn't even originally discussing.
-
Yes, they were shipped at the same time. As for the significance of statistics, their methodology is in small print at the bottom of the page.
