Gregg Easterbrook may not always be on the ball, but I 100% endorse the last section of his recent column (scroll down to “Absurd Specificity Watch”). Earlier in the column, Easterbrook has a plug for Tim Tebow. I’d forgotten about Tim Tebow.
This post is by Phil. Last summer my wife and I took a 3.5-month vacation that included a wide range of activities. When I got back, people would ask “what were the highlights or your trip?”, and I was somewhat at a loss: we had done so many things that were so different, many of […]
Daniel Murell has more thoughts on Turing chess (last discussed here): When I played with my brother, we had it that if you managed to lap someone while running around the house, then you got an additional move. This means that if you had the option to take the king on your additional move, you […]
Dave Berri writes: A recent study published in the Social Science Quarterly suggests that these moves may not lead to the happiness the fans envision (HT: the Sports Economist). E. Scott Adler, Michael J. Berry, and David Doherty looked at coaching changes from 1997 to 2010. What they found should give pause to people who […]
What are the x and y-axes here? P.S. Popeye nails it (see comments).
Jake Hofman writes that he saw my recent newspaper article on running (“How fast do we slow down? . . . For each doubling of distance, the world record time is multiplied by about 2.15. . . . for sprints of 200 meters to 1,000 meters, a doubling of distance corresponds to an increase of […]
15-2040 != 19-3010 (and, for that matter, 25-1022 != 25-1063).
My beef with Brooks: the alternative to “good statistics” is not “no statistics,” it’s “bad statistics”
I was thinking more about David Brooks’s anti-data column from yesterday, and I realized what is really bothering me. Brooks expresses skepticism about numbers, about the limitations of raw data, about the importance of human thinking. Fine, I agree with all of this, to some extent. But then Brooks turns around uses numbers and unquestioningly […]
Joshua Vogelstein writes: I know you’ve discussed this on your blog in the past, but I don’t know exactly how you’d answer the following query: Suppose you run an analysis and obtain a p-value of 10^-300. What would you actually report? I’m fairly confident that I’m not that confident :) I’m guessing: “p-value \approx 0.” […]
Kenny Shirley sends along this interactive data visualization: What I learned from this was that Jim Rice is in the Hall of Fame! I remember watching him play. Whenever he struck out with a man on first base, we were just so relieved that he hadn’t hit into a double play.