Hey–here’s what you missed in the past 30 days!

OK, the 30 days of statistics are over. I’ll still be posting regularly on statistical topics, but now it will be mixed in with everything else, as before.

Here’s what I put on the sister blogs in the past month:

1. How to write an entire report with fake data.

2. “Life getting shorter for women in hundreds of U.S. counties”: I’d like to see a graph of relative change in death rates, with age on the x-axis.

3. “Not a choice” != “genetic”.

4. Remember when I said I’d never again post on albedo? I was lying.

5. Update on Arrow’s theorem. It’s a Swiss thing, you wouldn’t understand.

6. Dan Ariely can’t read, but don’t blame Johnson and Goldstein.

7. My co-blogger endorses college scholarships for bowling. Which reminds me that my friends and I did “intramural bowling” in high school to get out of going to gym class. Nobody paid us. We even had to rent the shoes!

8. The quest for http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/10/10/my-colleague-casey-mulligan-in-the-times-there-is-no-reason-to-panic/

9. For some reason, the commenters got all worked up about the dude with the two kids and completely ignored the lady who had to sell her summer home in the Hamptons.”

10. The most outrageous parts of a story are the parts that don’t even attract attention.

11. Do academic economists really not talk about economic factors when they talk about academic jobs in economics?

12. The fallacy of composition in brownstone Brooklyn.

13. No, the federal budget is not funded by taking money from poor people.

14. Leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid says that foreign aid is bad.

15. Jim Davis has some pretty controversial opinions.

16. Political scientist links to political scientist linking to political scientist claiming political science is irrelevant.

17. “Approximately one in 11.8 quadrillion.” (I love that “approximately.” The exact number is 11.8324589480035 quadrillion but they did us the favor of rounding.)

2 thoughts on “Hey–here’s what you missed in the past 30 days!

  1. #17. All these quadrillions and other super low p-values assume zero probabilities of simple screw ups. Bad idea. Simple human operator errors. Happen. All the time! So a simple rule of thumb: anything below 1% is probably bullshit propaganda.

    #11. Why are you having such a hard time believing it? Since you are in Academia, you should already know that this is a milieu with highest concentration of hypocrites on Earth.

  2. #17. You’re two significant digits short of quadrillion-level precision. That means you could be off by as much as 100! (exclamation, not factorial) Watch your floating points!

Comments are closed.