NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking that, instead of giving rather semantic qualifications of ourselves to random (VERY random at times) strangers on the internet (for the most part), we might be able to qualify ourselves as statistical probabilities and groups.

If nothing else, perhaps i can provide a character template for identification.

Any takers?

Case in point:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12944354&postcount=109

Perhaps i could give an example, regarding NS frequenting ....

I would say on some days my statistical relevance as an NS poster would be around 31% (like today), in terms of frequency, whereas my statistical relevance as NS poster in reception is a *lot* more like 1.14% or so, based on what results i get as responses to posts/queries.
NS is an easy frame of reference.

I am 93% relevant. However, only 42% of NSGers understand my relevance. Of those, 29% lose sight of my relevance in favor of my silliness. In addition, 18% of those left are either unwilling or unable to share insights of that relevance with others. This equates to a functional relevance of 23%.

Fortunately, I am 100% silly. :)

I don't know how relevant I am, but most of the time I think I misunderstood what is relevant.

Or am I from a fringe marginal group? Hard to tell. Oh, but I do know that I am mostly (I think it's over 80%) made of water.

Through a freak accident involving a box of quantum kitty litter, I am 0% self-relevant.

I'm so relevant that in statistical circles they call me a relephant.

i prefer to remain exceeding improbable as a person.

and make a major and total distinction between myself as a person, and the thoughts and observations i attempt to give away, with no desire or expectations of their return of anything to myself.

not being infallable, as i believe none of us to be, i will not vouch for their being more then 90% relavent, but my strong feeling is that who expressess a though is considerably less then 50% relivant to the thought itself, though their reason for expressing it may at times be more so.

i cannot speak for anyone else in this, but i do not live in a universe that is about individual personalities or awairnessess. ANY personalities or awairenessess.

so i question the relivance of anyone as a person, to anything, other then themselves and their own existence.

the relivance of their, all of our, being able to live in a world that would maximize opportunities for gratification while near zeroing the probabilities of suffering, approaches something like 100%. certainly orders of magnitude greater then that of any single one of our, or anyone else's personalities.

=^^=
.../\...

I have a 100% relevance.
Or is this irrelevance? I think it's the later.
Oshi. :(
/life

I refuse to partake in this. Qualitative > quantitative as far as this topic is concerned.

I refuse to partake in this. Qualitative > quantitative as far as this topic is concerned.

Irrelevant. :)

i prefer to remain exceeding improbable as a person.

and make a major and total distinction between myself as a person, and the thoughts and observations i attempt to give away, with no desire or expectations of their return of anything to myself.

not being infallable, as i believe none of us to be, i will not vouch for their being more then 90% relavent, but my strong feeling is that who expressess a though is considerably less then 50% relivant to the thought itself, though their reason for expressing it may at times be more so.

i cannot speak for anyone else in this, but i do not live in a universe that is about individual personalities or awairnessess. ANY personalities or awairenessess.

so i question the relivance of anyone as a person, to anything, other then themselves and their own existence.

the relivance of their, all of our, being able to live in a world that would maximize opportunities for gratification while near zeroing the probabilities of suffering, approaches something like 100%. certainly orders of magnitude greater then that of any single one of our, or anyone else's personalities.

=^^=
.../\...

Eh?

**engages infinite improbability drive**

Relevant women, please send me n00dz for harvest.
K?

Irrelevant. :)

You're irrelevant!

**engages infinite improbability drive**

On a relevant note,... a bistromathic drive? Chaos mathematics or chaos statistics?

I am irrelevant.

I was thinking that, instead of giving rather semantic qualifications of ourselves to random (VERY random at times) strangers on the internet (for the most part), we might be able to qualify ourselves as statistical probabilities and groups.

If nothing else, perhaps i can provide a character template for identification.

Any takers?
I'm a consummate outlier to the data set.

I have a standard deviation of 97%.

i'm 12% sandwich. i'm not sure what that means.

i'm 12% sandwich. i'm not sure what that means.
That one of your grandparents was a particularly fertile sarnie, capable of either impregnating a women or, somewhat more likely due to a nourishing filling, capable of bringing a child to birth.

That one of your grandparents was a particularly fertile sarnie, capable of either impregnating a women or, somewhat more likely due to a nourishing filling, capable of bringing a child to birth.

ah, that could be it. my dad was incubated in a sub.:eek:

Probably just random noise.

ah, that could be it. my dad was incubated in a sub.:eek:
*nods*

They actually use double-strength Subway wrappers as maternity wear.

I have a standard deviation of 97%.

Pervert

I am neither relevant nor irrelevant, for I am a weasel. :)

I am not a number, I am a free man! Kudos to those who get the reference.

My relevancies are incaculable, not for any reason other than the fact that no one in their right mind would bother to collect the required statistics to calculate my relevancy.

Although some here think I'm irrelevant, Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen do not agree.

I am polled constantly by those organizations - thus, in some measureable way, I must be statistically relevant.

Although some here think I'm irrelevant, Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen do not agree.

I am polled constantly by those organizations - thus, in some measureable way, I must be statistically relevant.

This explains much. :p

I am not a number, I am a free man!




I'm 94% shocked it took till page two for someone to quote "The Prisoner".:eek:

My number is DZ/015.

23% of 88% of 42% of the time I'm 11.2730% relevant, maybe...

More than I would be if each person were of equal value

I'm white, male, American, in college, and in the 18-35 age group. What does all that mean? I'm considered part of the prime target for marketing groups.

Damn you, German Nightmare.

(I'm not a statistic; I survived.)

Damn you, German Nightmare.

(I'm not a statistic; I survived.)

You're still a stat...just on the other side of it

You're still a stat...just on the other side of it

Well, when was the last time you heard anyone mention the billions of people who survived World War II? We only hear about the 60 million who died.

(I suppose you have a point, though.... "Only twelve workers survived the mine collapse in Northsouth Whatsitstan, out of an estimated 1737823 trapped in the shaft...")

I don't know how relevant I am, but most of the time I think I misunderstood what is relevant.

Or am I from a fringe marginal group? Hard to tell. Oh, but I do know that I am mostly (I think it's over 80%) made of water.Excellent point. *bows*

I am 93% relevant. However, only 42% of NSGers understand my relevance. Of those, 29% lose sight of my relevance in favor of my silliness. In addition, 18% of those left are either unwilling or unable to share insights of that relevance with others. This equates to a functional relevance of 23%.

Fortunately, I am 100% silly. :)

You appear to have your affairs in order. Thanks for indulging me. :)
*bows*

I am 200% percent redundant.

My relevancies are incaculable, not for any reason other than the fact that no one in their right mind would bother to collect the required statistics to calculate my relevancy.

Thankfully ... i think this thread has provided a calculable supply of something other than people being "in their right mind" ...

...and it is one of the funniest and happiest sets of results i've ever had for a thread.
:D

Although some here think I'm irrelevant, Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen do not agree.

I am polled constantly by those organizations - thus, in some measureable way, I must be statistically relevant.
This is quite true. Good example, DK. *bows*

In the end we're just statistics to the government(s), sadly.

On a relevant note,... a bistromathic drive? Chaos mathematics or chaos statistics?

Doesn't it seem kind of obvious that it would end up at The Restaurant At The End of The Universe, what with being a Bistrodrive and all?

I am neither relevant nor irrelevant, for I am a weasel. :)

Actually, weasels are of a very, VERY high statistical relevance.
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/images/black_footed_ferrets.jpg
In this set, at least.

I am not a number, I am a free man! Kudos to those who get the reference.

You are a composition, of course, of numbers.
Technically, the sum of your parts. :p

Through a freak accident involving a box of quantum kitty litter, I am 0% self-relevant.

You know of course, involving quantum situations, you can't actually have a totally 0% situation of certainty. o.0

I should point out, that as i read this to my wife, she showed a strong aversion to everyone's explanations of themselves and their relevance in terms of statistics.

It's not numerophobia, exactly. But she did say there was a statistical relevance between how many percentages of anything were brought up to her and her direct lack of interest in hearing more about it.
I pointed out the statistical relationship between anything i'm telling her about/showing her and the likelihood of listening past a certain number of syllables.
Not cadence, simply her assessment of statistical relevance of what i'm saying to her happiness and sanctity of mind. At least, i'm using probability on the last part.

23% of 88% of 42% of the time I'm 11.2730% relevant, maybe...

You know, that's a good point .... different sets of course have different margins for concern - in case, for example, of DK's relevance, there's a +- margin of 3.31% (last time i checked).

99% of the time, i am sexy. The other 1% i am sleeping.

Ah - now i've found something statistically relevant to NS, through what might appear to be a statistically irrelevant corollary.

Allodoxaphobia - Fear of opinions. :eek:

99% of the time, i am sexy. The other 1% i am sleeping.
You've actually had observance of recorded instances of you sleeping?

You know there is a subset that has some statistical relevance here - a subset of folks who would disagree with your assessment of sexiness regarding your sleeping.
I think i'm gonna need to crunch some numbers.

I think i'm gonna need to crunch some numbers.

Not before you fill out the proper forms. This forum needs a good dose of bureaucracy to get things running smoothly again.

Ah, another low statistical significance, at least before time of posting (given frequency of citing):
Katagelophobia - Fear of being ridiculed.

*looks wistfully at Katganistan*
:D

And ya better believe that mods, 'specially Kat, hold some pretty significant statistical relevance.
*nods emphatically*

Not before you fill out the proper forms. This forum needs a good dose of bureaucracy to get things running smoothly again.

Sounds like a bit of futurama :p

Not before you fill out the proper forms. This forum needs a good dose of bureaucracy to get things running smoothly again.

NO! Stop with your EVIL, you Vog ... oh, wait. Actually, that's pretty much in order, given the nature of this particular thread topic.

NO! Stop with your EVIL, you Vog ... oh, wait. Actually, that's pretty much in order, given the nature of this particular thread topic.

Excellent! Now, I'll need you to fill out these three forms, and sign here...here...and here. Oh, and here's your receipt for any and all Information Retrieval charges that may arise in the near future. Take the blue form to Records and keep the red form on your person, but don't take the blue form to Records until you've gotten the red form stamped at Information Retrieval.

Sounds like a bit of futurama :p

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
:D

:D

I was on the subcommittee that reviewed the proposal to change the cover of the book that regulation is in! We kept it gray.

Excellent! Now, I'll need you to fill out these three forms, and sign here...here...and here. Oh, and here's your receipt for any and all Information Retrieval charges that may arise in the near future. Take the blue form to Records and keep the red form on your person, but don't take the blue form to Records until you've gotten the red form stamped at Information Retrieval.
Hypengyophobia - Fear of responsibility.

Counterphobia - The preference by a phobic person for fearful situations.

Enosiophobia, Enissophobia - Fear of having committed an unpardonable sin or of criticism.

I was on the subcommittee that reviewed the proposal to change the cover of the book that regulation is in! We kept it gray.
Neutral Official: Your neutralness, it's a beige alert.
Neutral Leader: If I don't survive, tell my wife: Hello.

:)

Counterphobia - The preference by a phobic person for fearful situations.
Enosiophobia, Enissophobia - Fear of having committed an unpardonable sin or of criticism.

I'm afraid Size 3 font requires both a Level 3 clearance as well as completion of form 99-WT-B/9 "Request to Adjust Type Size", and the bold option requires a 99-WT-C/10 Schedule C "Request to Adjust Font and Type Size" form.

That'll cost you...but only after I fill out these forms.

That'll cost you...but only after I fill out these forms.

Well, don't make haste, it makes waste, and after all, that's exactly what bureucracy aims to avoid.

Hypengyophobia - Fear of responsibility.

Paralipophobia - Fear of neglecting duty or responsibility.

Although some here think I'm irrelevant, Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen do not agree.

I am polled constantly by those organizations - thus, in some measureable way, I must be statistically relevant.

Librophobia - Fear of having to balance.
:D

Sinistrophobia - Fear of things to the left of oneself.

I refuse to partake in this. Qualitative > quantitative as far as this topic is concerned.

Mythophobia - Fear of myths, stories or false statements.

I have a 100% relevance.
Or is this irrelevance? I think it's the later.
Oshi. :(
/life
Phronemophobia - Fear of thinking?

Mythophobia - Fear of myths, stories or false statements.

Myrthopancakeophobia- Fear of joke poll options

Myrthopancakeophobia- Fear of joke poll options

Ifreann needs to get a pic of Winner of 'Jack.
:)

Oh, btw ... i'm really, REALLY unsure about just how exactly i can qualify this particular thread with poll options.

Percentages, maybe. But i'd have to either redo the OP or start a new thread. Or perhaps some other acolyte will.

Oh, you are so sued...hold on, did I stamp that five times or six times before submitting it? Damn.

Well, you'll be sued...three years from now! Just you wait!

I'm almost certain that I'm within the 95% confidence interval.

Oh, you are so sued...hold on, did I stamp that five times or six times before submitting it? Damn.

Well, you'll be sued...three years from now! Just you wait!

Well, then Ron Paul will get in, and so many things involving those concepts will be different enough that i will have little to worry about apart from my obsessive ego-based pursuits. :)

I should point out, that as i read this to my wife, she showed a strong aversion to everyone's explanations of themselves and their relevance in terms of statistics.

It's not numerophobia, exactly. But she did say there was a statistical relevance between how many percentages of anything were brought up to her and her direct lack of interest in hearing more about it.
I pointed out the statistical relationship between anything i'm telling her about/showing her and the likelihood of listening past a certain number of syllables.
Not cadence, simply her assessment of statistical relevance of what i'm saying to her happiness and sanctity of mind. At least, i'm using probability on the last part.

She liked my relephant joke the best. You know it.

She liked my relephant joke the best. You know it.

Truth be known, that really, REALLY was the one that convinced her it was time to start drinking again.
I'm not sure if it was out of mirth (not Myrth - no one's ever out of Myrth even if they can't get enough) or our of desperation. Such mysteries are the true and delicate attraction in matrimony, oh yes.
*sips*

Mythophobia - Fear of myths, stories or false statements.

Are you saying you're scared of qualitative data?

Are you saying you're scared of qualitative data?

On a thread of this particular nature, i'm saying that it's a reasonable, rational wariness.
:p

I'm almost certain that I'm within the 95% confidence interval.

NOT bad.
:D

More than I would be if each person were of equal value

I'm white, male, American, in college, and in the 18-35 age group. What does all that mean? I'm considered part of the prime target for marketing groups.

I can think of four instances of statistical relevance, of course.
BTW - Peechy doing drive-bys again?

You're still a stat...just on the other side of it

Exactamundo.
Kinda like Lunatic Golfballs' Location.
:D

On a thread of this particular nature, i'm saying that it's a reasonable, rational wariness.
:p

In Soviet Russia, qualitative data is scared of you!

I am 200% percent redundant.

There has to be a margin of error to your calculations, or this thread would've been posted twice, non?

:eek:

In the end we're just statistics to the government(s), sadly.
Yes, i suppose ... but since people can usually be proud of their heritage, why can't they be proud of their statistical relevance?

Well, when was the last time you heard anyone mention the billions of people who survived World War II? We only hear about the 60 million who died.

(I suppose you have a point, though.... "Only twelve workers survived the mine collapse in Northsouth Whatsitstan, out of an estimated 1737823 trapped in the shaft...")

And now we're in Colbert country. Take a deep toke!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Yes, it takes a minute, but it's worth it. :D
Especially about deck chairs on certain zepplins.

Yes, i suppose ... but since people can usually be proud of their heritage, why can't they be proud of their statistical relevance?

You are currently 38.4% relevant to this thread.

32 of 80 posts.

I am 100% bored this afternoon.

Edit: Mt maths is also off, or is it - you should be 40%?

23% of 88% of 42% of the time I'm 11.2730% relevant, maybe...

Sub by sub by subsets?

Hmmm .... perhaps you need to work on your margins.

You are currently 38.4% relevant to this thread.

32 of 80 posts.

I am 100% bored this afternoon.
Except, from what i can tell, your post is also simultaneously 97% relevant to the persuasion of the thread. Well, the overt and obvious part of it, that is.
Which kinda makes more subsets.

Edit: Mt maths is also off, or is it - you should be 40%?

You know, i'm apparently gonna have to wait on Vetalia to get a good answer for you on that one.
:)

I'm a consummate outlier to the data set.

Well, on the surface it would appear so. :)

Probably just random noise.

Random by form or by function?

My number is DZ/015.

You know, of course, that this specific post stands as the control group representation, right?

You know, i'm apparently gonna have to wait on Vetalia to get a good answer for you on that one.
:)

See here's the complication of my brain:

I thought dividing 32 by 80 would tax my brain.

I saw that 80 is only 20 away from 100, which is 1/5.

So I worked out 1/5 of 32 is 6.4 and then added that to 32 to make 38.4.

The hard way and the wrong way resulting in the wrong answer.

Then I thought why don't I just divide 32 by 8 and add a 0 to get the %, which I did - simple, right way and right answer.

Still, life's more fun the hard way.

See here's the complication of my brain:

I thought dividing 32 by 80 would tax my brain.

I saw that 80 is only 20 away from 100, which is 1/5.

So I worked out 1/5 of 32 is 6.4 and then added that to 32 to make 38.4.

The hard way and the wrong way resulting in the wrong answer.

Then I thought why don't I just divide 32 by 8 and add a 0 to get the %, which I did - simple, right way and right answer.

Still, life's more fun the hard way.But certainly a more fulfilling and vindicated one, right? :)

My relevance has gone up 1/4 point. I'm going to spend it on pie. :)

My relevance has gone up 1/4 point. I'm going to spend it on pie. :)

I think you'll need more than that. If you're hoping for pie your target relevance would be roughly around 22/7 points, or 335/113, give or take a few decimals.

I think you'll need more than that. If you're hoping for pie your target relevance would be roughly around 22/7 points, or 335/113, give or take a few decimals.

I am 78% sad. :(

My relevance has gone up 1/4 point. I'm going to spend it on pie. :)

Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor.
*munch*
*munch*
*munch*

Wha- Oh no! I'm ruined! Why!? Why? Why!?
You know what's weird? The Daily Show rerun just started talking about Bob Allen's solicitation for $20 to the cop ... he actually says he was afraid of becoming a statistic.

I can think of four instances of statistical relevance, of course.
BTW - Peechy doing drive-bys again?

I usually stick with the "consumer whore" one, as it tends to be the only one I have measurable influence

Haven't seen Scarlet in a while...seems all 3 of us got bitten by that damn "real world" bug.