I go to all the effort to get “attorneys general” right and then I absentmindedly say “Senate” when I mean “Congress”. Yes I know the difference! Support me on Patreon and I’ll take a US Government quiz as punishment. www.patreon.com/standupmaths
@@AbandonRule hmm I think the size of infinity above and below quadrillion are equal, unless you limit n to be only natural numbers, in which case there are quadrillion numbers below quadrillion, and infinitely many above. (Here I’m taking 0 as a natural number too). However we're actually concerned with the reciprocal of 1 quadrillion here, that it, 1 *in* quadrillion, although there is still a similar conclusion to my first one.
He will do another one if they insult math again. And they will insult math and logic. They have done so for the last 4 years. And even before that since Nixon.
Reminds me of the story of a man, who is terrified of flying, lest there a bomb on the plane. So, he goes to his therapist. "You realize, the odds of a bomb being on any plane is 1,000,000:1 against?" "Don't care. It's still too scary." [Reaches under desk] "Okay, take this bomb on the plane with you. Because the odds of TWO bombs being on the plane are 1,000,000,000,000:1 against!"
What's interesting is that the statistics is still correct (within certain parameters), i.e., much less likely, from the perspective of planes and bombs (not, necessarily, this numerical answer however).
@@rogob1333 huh? How could this be same 1) odds that two bombs are on his plane -and- 2) odds of two bombs are on his plane given there is already a bomb on his plane? Unless the odds are 1 or 0 for a single bomb?
@@AtomFA nah, you don't needa watch minecraft speedruns to get that one, people spammed it all over among us videos featuring him, even on other streamers' channels.
I lost it at 2:40 when Kelly Mcenany said “he used Z-SCORES and STANDARD DEVIATIONS FROM THE MEDIAN” as if they’re some kind of ultra-complex supercomputer algorithms and not a word salad of high school statistics terms.
@@langlymcmanus1194 Exactly the point. You just use words you don’t understand to bash those who do understand. To you, knowledge is scary, and you’d rather live in ignorance than admit you’re wrong
Partly, but I'm more concerned about the wider implications - how many experts are presented to jurors because they sound credible, but may not really be on the level? You look at the Cameron Todd Willingham case for example with very sketchy experts presented to the jury. They may be why no-one wants to pick at this question because what it threatens to dig up is truly awful
@@CaptLoquaLacon Or the "expert testimony" given by Dr Stone in A Few Good Men. (Kaffee actually caught him out contradicting himself, but the Judge allowed this to be overlooked).
There's only one Matt Parker out of 7.5 billion humans on Earth, and this video is only one out of 4.5 billion videos on RU-vid, so when (for some reason) we combine those numbers, it means the chances of this video *just happening* to debunk the stats in question are waaaaay smaller than 1 in a quadrillion. Ha! Checkmate maths nerds!
@@janosd4nuke Many people, millions of people, can put out upwards of a thousand of videos. IDK these people, but you know they exist. And btw, we're almost to 8 billion people, worldwide (about 7.8b).
This is how I’m going to respond to people who ask “why do I even need to learn math, I’m never going to use this”. You need to learn it so you don’t fall for idiotic arguments that don’t flesh out the actual data
I'm starting to think you could do a really cool high school stats project by giving the kids a task to create a lie with data behind it. The 3 prizes would go to: -The funniest lie -The best mathematical presentation -The best explanation of what the data can really show when analysed properly It would subversively teach kids about sampling errors and bad assumptions, and hopefully be something fairly creative in a subject which tends to be taught in a very dry, impersonal and abstract way
@@ishoottheyscore8970 Competition. Have the class split into 5 to 6 groups and create 3 real and 1 faked statistic. Those will be handed to the other groups and the point system by the time it took the others to answer and the amount of people choosing correctly.
@@ChJuHu93 I think there are lots of variations on that theme - you could start groups with a common data set and set them each a different lie to produce from it. You could also do a points system based on how many methods they use in the analysis... I'd just love to see what would happen if a teacher tried it, and see what effect it had on student engagement
The issue is that they don't teach math like something useful. At least most of the time. In middle school we had a teacher who almost always gave an example to why and where something is used in real life. It would make class way more interested. A year later in university it's just: "you put this here, this there and you get that". Most of the time people who say: "why do I even need to learn math", usually reefer to integrals, logarithms, derivatives, etc. It's not something an average person uses on a daily basis. Unless I only know the "wrong" people.
@Roger Loquitur Not if anyone has access to the raw data and if the opposite site doesn't consist of morons. Because anyone can review the methods you used if that's the case.
I love how over the course of these three videos as he learns more and more about American political discourse, Matt is getting more and more exhausted and frustrated.
trump: don't do mail-in votes biden: mail-in votes are okay (biden gets more mail-in votes than trump) trump: why does biden have so many mail-in votes????
I mean yes, but you don't even need to go there. It doesn't take a genius to understand that democrats vote by mail more often than republicans do. That is true in every election.
To be fair, we are talking about the same country where people thought a quarter pound burger was more than a one-third pound burger for the same price.
@@jacobryan9403 What is wrong with Ohio? I've never been there but I know that there were many historical reasons like farming and industrial jobs. Maybe the cost of living in Ohio is low enough to make offset the downsides, or people are just stubborn and irrationally stay where they are born in general.
It is functioning exactly as intended by the founders- a territory not part of any state. If either party were serious about enfranchising DC voters on a national level, they would be proposing that it be split up and given back to Maryland and Virginia. (That way no change to the balance of the Senate). The proposal to make it a new state is just a naked power grab, IMO, as it is one of the most Democrat-voting heavy areas in the entire country.
@@defaultusername1145 Thats assuming that any American has equal chances of winning the presidency, which just isnt true. An Atheist or anti-theist, who is extremely anti-corporate, but also a mass murderer and open pedophile for example has a significantly lower than 1/300million odds of winning, since a person of those descriptions would be seen pretty negatively by just about any voter base out there. Christians hate that its an atheist, liberals hate the mass murdering/pedophilia, basically everyone hates the murdering part minus a few extreme people, etc. No matter what group you choose, they are going to hate at least one major aspect about that candidate. And corporations wont fund a candidate who is super anti-corporation, so they have no money either. A candidate like that has virtually ZERO chance of ever winning an election. Vs a candidate who is incredibly popular, and is well known, or maybe had establishment or corporate backing means they are able to spread their message and also support popular positions so they are generally well liked. An example being like Obama. These kinda candidates are significantly MORE likely than 1 in 300,000,000 to win, since they check a lot of boxes making them popular. So chances to win arent a purely random sample of the population, but are rather effected heavily by your campaign, public reputation, and finances.
Maybe it's literally just me, but the biggest takeaway from my stats classes was that the math is the easy part of statistics; the hard part is knowing what to apply where and what the results mean. The tests are very specific in both what they need for inputs and what the results can and cannot tell us.
That's generally not hard either. Every type of statistical model has VERY CLEAR rules for when and how they work. It only gets to appear confusing because people interested in lying with statistics frequently break or ignore these rules. Statistics is really high school level math (as long as you're not forced to do any of the calculus by hand).
@@Chili_Rasbora which is exactly why that is actually the hard part. Knowing which one should be use when, and when not to use it, despite seeing it used wrongly all the time, is hard.
@@Chili_Rasbora I've taught statistics for nearly two decades; many people seem to have problems with the rules and it can often be kind of hard to know when small violations of the theorem conditions matter or not. For example, how important is moderate heteroscedasticity in the linear model? It depends on what you want to know. If you care about the regression coefficients and their hypothesis tests, the answer is not all that much. If, however, you care about predictions, the answer often is quite a lot.
"I won't be making anymore videos about this topic." As someone who only just joined the channel with the Benford's law video, I'd say there's a one in quadrillion chance of that happening.
@@brysonsmith1523 I saw his "first math mistake" video And some other more theory oriented stuff that was suggested after I watched Numberphile Went like this: PBS Crash Course > PBS Space Time > PVS Infinite Series > Numberphile > Stand Up Maths
@@Ghoulicus Was this a reference to a recent(ish) Tom Scott video? If so, well said. If not, that a heck of a coincidence. Exactly about more than one in a septillion or less, I'd say.
Liberal media was telling their audience to social distance and vote by mail. Conservative media and Trump were telling everyone to vote in person. Mail in votes in these states could only be counted after the in-person votes were counted. Why is this outcome a surprise to anyone?
Beats me. It’s long been known conservatives tend to want to restrict mail in voting as it allows more people to vote, which usually mean more democratic votes coming in. (This is related to the numbers supporting that in total population the US has more voters voting democratic than Republican. This has been an argument since mail in votes were a thing. So an election year where a certain sect of the population is told to vote by mail, and many initiatives are out in place to allow many to do this - why would anyone be surprised if mail in votes leans democrat.
@Robert Johnson Do you seriously think a University education elevates a person to a higher ethical plane? I have a bachelors degree in Physics, and I lie constantly.
Cicchetti earned his PhD in economics back in 1965. Ever since then he's been a consultant who helps companies avoid regulations or lobbying for regulations to be removed. He has had side gigs teaching as visiting, assistant, and adjunct professors throughout his career.
Poor guy just got immolated here. I guess that's the risk you run when doing either intentionally bad or utterly incompetent analysis. I hope he got paid first.
@@TheFranchiseCA Hanlon's razor says "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." But if we're supposed to accept the calculations of the guy because he has a Ph.D in economics, then we can't explain that as stupidity, since he is allegedly not stupid. Therefore, it is most reasonable to attribute this abortion of mathematics to malice. Now, was he trying to sway the court of public opinion with numbers most people can't fathom? Was he trying to sway an actual court - SCOTUS - with numbers the Justices can't fathom? No clue. Either way, pretty much guaranteed this guy didn't get paid.
@@iamjamieq We can't know with certainty that Cicchetti isn't stupid. But the likelihood that he is stupid but still managed to get a PhD in economics is exceedingly slim. Less than 1 in a quadrillion.
@@iamjamieq do you know how American politics work? He *definitely* got paid, and that paycheck likely had more than five zeros. You need to read more into how badly trump was scrambling to overturn the election. A LOT of money was thrown around.
@@tonyvelasquez6776 Oh I'm sure he was promised payment. But I doubt he was actually paid. Trump has a long history of doing just that. It was big news that Giuliani was doing all the big lifting pushing the Big Lie for Trump, and yet was not getting paid. If Rudy wasn't getting paid, this nobody of a "mathemagician" definitely didn't get paid.
I would enjoy “maths of politics” as a regular bit; even if we stop covering the US election. It’s fun to listen to someone call out people who knowingly misrepresents information then having meticulously explained exactly why those people are wrong.
I'm torn on this: on one hand that seems incredibly helpful and like a great way to inject some kind of order into this nonsense, but on the other hand the sheer frequency with which they fail on the most basic principles makes my brain hurt.
“who knowingly misrepresent information” Assumes facts not in evidence. My prediction for what your response will be, based on past experience: “Oh come on! It’s obvious!”
i used to prank my college friends by giving them preposterous "facts," and found that people almost universally were willing to believe me if i tossed in some plausible/random numbers or percentages.
Your college friends probably acted like they listened to you but in back of their mind they see you as a lying piece of crap but they were still willing to hang with you because your at the same college etc, most people have friends etc that try to lie all the time and we just stopped calling them out to keep from causing tension.
“A statistical test only shows you where to look. You have to actually investigate it.” [paraphrased] Well, only if you wish to be honest and identify real problems. That was never the goal here.
If you deal out four hands of 13 cards, the chances of dealing that exact set of hands is 1 in 8.07 × 10^67. But you just dealt that hand, surely there must be something fishy going on for something so unlikely to happen? .
@@wyterabitt2149 if someone shuffles a deck of cards, the odds of getting any exact combination is 1/a number with 57 zeroes. this doesn't make it impossible to get any combination though
This is the same thing people do when they say: "the chances of the universe turning out this way are really low, yet the universe turned out this way. Hmm. Therefore God."
3:53 - this is when you know they are lying, when they don't put their headline claim about it being 1 in a quadrillion in the lawsuit in writing, because they know they might face serious legal ramifications for lying in court documents.
@@curtisjohnson2433 '1 in a quadrillion' are the odds they quoted, I was pointing out that the quote in question was not contained within the text of the lawsuit. It is then my personal opinion that they avoided putting that claim (off the odds) in writing because they would leave themselves open to legal recourse if it could be shown that the quoted odds were false (which is easy to do), and if that conclusion was indeed accurate then that would mean that they knew in advance that the claimed odds of '1 in a quadrillion' were false and they were lying. I'm sorry if you were confused by the way I worded my comment and hope this clarifies my position for you.
So much time and effort spent on the mathematics when common sense is much quicker. Also common sense is supported by all of the ballot stuffing videos and the numerous whistle-blowers who were silenced and/or threatened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is no way in Hell that Biden broke the records set by both Obama and Trump for the most votes cast in a single election PERIOD!!! Nobody will ever be able to convince the massive number of American voters of anything different. Like I have been saying for years... "Whoever cheats the best....WINS" If you disagree then please tell us why the democrats are trying anything and everything possible to either keep Trump off the ballot, put in prison for the rest of his life or censor any and all unfavorable speech against the administration if Biden can legitimately receive the most votes ever received by any other candidate? Why so worried about Trump if he is such a terrible candidate and easy competition? Common sense people!
I praise you for taking a look at these claims despite their inherent political nature and the drama that comes with it. You’re doing everyone a real service!
@@jamescollier3 lmao if you're being called racist, you probably deserve it. Also do you realize that nothing truly bad ever happens to everyone who gets 'cancelled' just shut up and cry quietly. Most of the political doxxings are done by the far right.
@@_DarkKnight2301_ what do you mean a trump supporting kid committed 3 felonies before shooting 3 people, and will most likely walk free? But murica antifa is the terrorism!
@@jamescollier3 If being called a racist is your worst fear, there's something weird going on. Maybe it's correct. In that case you have the opportunity to decide whether you're going to continue believing and doing racist things. Maybe it's incorrect. In that case, oh no. Someone says something mean but wrong - that's never happened before between human beings. Maybe it's irrelevant, in which case you have a particularly good opportunity to refute a bad argument. In any case it really shouldn't be a threat to your self-image or ability to say things that are meaningful. Furthermore, there isn't much evidence that accusations of racism are given excessive power (particularly in the US, which is what I'm most familiar with). Where are the prisons full of accused racists? The same-race couples whose marriages are not recognized? Accusation of racism don't seem to prevent politicians from getting elected. At worst, people are told to not say racist stuff when representing a corporation. Sometimes they lose cushy jobs or speaking engagements (which is equivalent to a group of people saying "actually we'd rather not spend our time listening to you.") Cancel culture does have some power, but currently it rarely exceeds the power to speak its mind and to disinvite people whose opinion it finds repulsive. Free speech and free assembly. So it comes across as extremely insecure to be threatened by someone else's opinion. Being called a fool, a heretic, an infidel, a bigot, or a coward - that's just part of the free marketplace of ideas. And usually the best way to engage with those things is to understand the accusation and decide whether you want to continue being what you're accused of.
Yess, I love how people use statistics in politics. A typical exange: A: "Do you know that kids raised by single moms are more likely to commit crimes when they're adults?" B: "Yeah, that's why we should make laws supporting single parents" A: "Nah, we should make divorce illegal! That will definitely solve ALL the issues" FYI making divorce illegal would only worsen the situation
@@paintnamer6403 First, Trump does not have a record of lying on issue of political substance. Second, Trump was not in a position to control cities with large numbers of underclass people who can easily be led into voting a certain way with inducements. And when they don't even vote, these people can have their names registered and voted illegally in their place. Trump's people also did not put their resources into unconstitutionally changing election laws in these states to facilitate ballot box stuffing and manipulating low-information voters as did the Democrats.
Hold on, are you nuts? Haven't you heard? There are no other countries outside the anglophone countries! What you're saying is ridiculous! (Just in case anyone reading is confused, what I wrote was sarcastic. Thanks)
@@anonymouspokemon4623 Your RU-vid account was created on Dec 16, 2020 😂 Great job here, troll!! Everyone in your village will be issued extra rations of bread today!
@@Unsensitive I went to the Googolplex the other night, but couldn't make my mind up on what to watch...there were too many films to choose from. Ba-dum tssss! ...I'll get my coat.
Trump is giving a speech when an aide whispers something in his ear. “I’m sad to report,” he says to the crowd, “that two Brazilian soldiers have been killed this morning.” He pauses for minutes silence before turning back to his aide and asking quietly “how many zeros are there in a brazillion?”
Watching american news as a european feels like a fever dream. It's like the news presenter is trying to feed you an opinion instead of just presenting the case. At least here they're courteous enough to hide that...
A lot of people complain about media being biased, but media should be biased, it exists to criticize. But it also needs to be fair, which is where the real problem appears.
@@fredsmith-kingofthelunatic7810 , Not really... the way the universe is expanding, there probably so much space between stars and planets that there isn't another speck of dust in light years (probably).
That is because the issue isn’t with the statistics, the issue is they are making the assumption that a statistical analysis will apply. The Issue is a logical one that is the logical fallacy that the first data set and the second data set will have any reason to have the same distribution. So you may have failed statistics but you can follow basic logic. In raising this suite they were hoping that the judge couldn’t.
@@javm2825 The issue is they aren't doing statistics. They are dressing up motivated reasoning as statistics in order to have the authority of a scientist. Flaws in the assumptions were never important because truth matters less to these people than being right.
@@javm2825 yeah you nailed it lol. It makes no sense to say that a sudden Biden lead was improbable when it’s been expected that a lot more Democrats would vote by mail because of Covid. Someone with those credentials could’ve seen that discrepancy.
@@javm2825 The actual issue is: you are (as well as an author of this video) making an assumption that people who made statistical analysis on an issue did assume data set has the same uniform distribution of probability of voting among population (they did not). And you are also making a false assumption that early votes were in person votes and late votes were mail-in votes (while there were far more than 268,204 mail-in votes).
Also, interesting to note that reporters kept reminding people through out the night to expect states that count mail in votes before election night are going to look more blue at first and states that count mail in votes starting on election day are going to look more red at first. I watched all night on multiple news channels and they probably brought that up every 10 minutes or so.
One minor error in this video: recent political history has shown that is in fact probably not worth double-checking your maths and statistics, because that's not how people make up their minds politically.
IDK if you tell them and they refuse to listen that's on them but if you don't even tell them that's on you. Doesn't necessarily mean you have to keep on telling them over and over and over again but at least once or twice.
Well, the libtard who made this video edited it out, but after touting those "real numbers" Hannity went on to explain the underlying concepts in 3blue1brown's Visualizing quaternions (4d numbers)
Several elections ago a friend told me that it was "statistically impossible" for everyone in a single precinct in Philidelphia to have voted for the same candidate. I tried to explain that statistics like that are based on random events and voting is not random, it is a choice. People living in a specific area might all agree on which candidate they prefer.
I am deeply worried that this guy Cicchetti has been used as expert witness in multiple court cases. Anyone convicted on the basis of his 'expert' testimony should have their conviction overturned
13:45 "That's one, comma, fifteen zeros..." actually that's one, comma, three zeros, comma, three zeros, comma, three zeros, comma, three zeros, comma, three zeros
The number of representatives with full voting rights is 435, a number set by Public Law 62-5 on August 8, 1911, and in effect since 1913. The number of representatives per state is proportionate to population
Last year I took the AP Statistics exam. As a senior in high school, not only would I be able to tell you what was wrong with this, but on that test there were questions asking where a statistical analyses was wrong, and I am nearly certain "sampling was most likely taken from two different populations" was an answer to one of those.
Also not black. Good thing it's artistic otherwise I would have to complain about technical stuff I know nothing about and look up how screens do stuff and software make grey tones/scale/stuff. Edit: Grey scale! D'oh! It said it's not to scale and I didn't see my pun coming at all.
Recently, a Minecraft speedrunner was exposed for cheating via probability. There was a 29-page paper released explaining why they were cheating. It took into account inherent statistical biases, made sure all events were independent (and took it into account when they weren't,) and used rigorous statistics. Multiple college-educated statisticians have looked into it and agreed that the conclusion was valid. On the other hand, a case going to the supreme court using statistics as evidence had such glaringly obvious mistakes in it that I could recognize the mistakes instantly despite still being a high school student. Why are Minecraft cheaters looked into with more rigor than the United State Elections?
Link to the Minecraft paper? I am not a Minecraft player but that'd be very interesting to see. Coming to the elections, these so-called experts know that logic and math aren't on their side; instead, they come up with vague explanations that will fool your average voter and further help their confirmation bias. On Reddit, for instance, this "one in a quadrillion" argument was paraded around by every Trump supporter - "if an expert with a PhD says so it must be true" is what they think.
...This somehow does not remotely surprise me about the speedrunning community, especially the Minecraft branch. Obsessive, time-consuming, repetitive, detail-orientated tasks are the entire hobby, and I'm sure that they used multiple frame-perfect punctuation tricks to get the paper out faster. Was it livestreamed, perchance? That said, your point stands so hard that I'm having to divert my brain to streamer jokes in order to cope. This wouldn't fly in a court of Mario Tennis, let alone the full Phoenix Wright.
Republicans didn't say not to mail in, well, except Trump in the case of the past, but they don't like it since the regimen is decently lax for proving oneself, allows lazy people to vote super easily with no care, and well those people are Democrat. I guarantee both parties would switch their stance if either one had the advantage on mailins 💀
@@John_May. if one in quadrillion converts to 0.00001 in decimal (it's obviously smaller than that but I'm lazy to type out zeroes) and a quarter converts to 0.25, then 0.25 is more than 0.000001!
19:00 "these are real numbers here" as opposed to imaginary numbers of course. Although i don't quite understand why they make the distinction, considering you can't really have (3+2i)% of voters voting for either candidate.
Putting out bullshit to serve the whims of wealthy and powerful people rarely limits your career, especially in economics (cf. George Mason University)
I mean, that's almost half of them! If that doesn't make you suspicious of him, you gotta be a brainwashed liberal. The chance of that happening by chance has to be more than a quadrillionth of a percent, right?
@@Agent29416 Even worse! This man really is quite obviously paid by Hillary's liberal elites feeding on baby blood. Next thing he's gonna tell us not every square matrix is invertible! Witchcraft, I say!
In the U.S. legal system "expert witnesses" are paid consultants, thus, if you have enough money then you will be able to find an "expert" to support whatever the client wants and has nothing to do with the truth.
You be surprised how many people believe affidavits are proof/ evidence of something. I mean it can be, but can vs is are two different things in the court of law vs a hearing.
@@crissd8283 yeah... but one side is taking it to a whole new level. This is like russiagate×100. Literally, the amount of copium required will be 100x compared to Hillary voters.
Is there no punishment for lying as a witness? Here in the Netherlands, an expert would get in trouble for testifying something like this. At the very least their PhD would be revoked. But I think they might be criminally liable.
The problem with explaining things in such perfect detail is that regardless most the people you're trying to get to understand this are the ones least likely to be watching a video like this xD
The scariest thing is that this guy is said to have been a witness in hundreds of court cases. Can we go back and re-evaluate all of these cases? Someone, please do that!
My exact thinking! Let's hope his specialism is actually in something completely different and that's was he's been giving testimony on. Otherwise if he's trained in maths there's no way he should make such trivial errors and his reliability as a witness should absolutely be called into question.
@Gideon U Agreed, but in jury trials there isn't really a check... they'll hear from both sides' expert witnesses, and probably just go with one that "sounds like they know what they're talking about" more. Which is really sad.
@@MrWhateva10 there is a check in jury trials. The judge can exclude expert witness testimony if the other side can prove that it is based on incorrect assumptions or facts and would be materially misleading. Judges also have the ability to overturn jury verdicts if it is very clear the jury got it wrong. There is also an appeals process that allows for challenges.
Right now I am using Unity to get a rotation and it requires quats for that. I am currently looking at ways to get a simple 2D angle and turn it into a quaternion. Did TY underline quaternion for you as well?
This guy is TOTALLY missing the point. OF COURSE Biden won on the current vote count. He is spending all his time in this video, trying to suggest that the votes were wrong. They weren't. The actual vote-count was probably correct. The issue is that the votes were diddled in a BIG way, BEFORE they were then counted, so his analysis is flawed, cos he is only analyzing the authentic vote count, and totally ignoring how the votes were fucked with BEFORE they were counted. And they were fucked with BIG time before they were counted.
@@VauxhallViva1975 you understand one is meant to indicate the other, right? That the evidence that something happened to votes before being counted would be appearant in statistical evidence
In hindsight, yeah. However, if you sit still for one second, the chance that every atom in your body and every atom in the rest of the Universe is in the exact position that they'll be in in one second is so unfathomably small that it's essentially 0.
I must have missed the part where he used Maths and the part where he provided data. This was an opinion video, the great thing about humans is we are hard to predict so IF the lawsuit was about one thing aka that it was impossible for X amount of votes to be for just Biden then sure it would fail because it's not impossible but I think that it's a small part of a big machine so knit picking on one part is stupid.....Besides this idiot is also wrong in assuming that it is perfectly fine to have them all for Biden.
@@datalore3276 "I must have missed the part where he used Maths and the part where he provided the data....." Yes you must have, most of the video was about that. Let me guess, you are still struggling with the concept of "Trump told his supporters not to vote by mail, so most vote by mailers where for Biden". That it? Can't understand that? Just try harder, I bet you can get it. It sounds to me like your side is full of sore loosers looking for an excuse for why you lost so bad. And your being led by one.
So the argument was: "Analysis shows either: data comes from different populations, or data was disingenuously manipulated." "We've only been trying to create a difference in these populations for a few months, so clearly the answer must be disingenuous manipulation."
Did you understand ANYTHING standupmaths guy is trying to say? It is a goddamn Bayesian. The population pool of in-person votes vs mail-in votes are different. The prior is more republican and the latter is predominantly Democrat. Calculate the proportions of each population and multiply with respective conditional probability for correct probability.
I remember, on election night, calculating who would win these four states based on where the outstanding votes came from. They mostly came from heavily democratic counties, like the ones that house Atlanta or Philadelphia. That they went to Biden by over 70% is if anything slightly low. I predicted that this exact thing that they are saying is one in a quadrillion^4 would happen around 20 hours in advance. The chance was probably closer to 9 in 10, if not higher.
I did something similar - I looked at the proportions of the voting tranches as they were being reported and projected what that would do for the count if all remaining tranches behaved in a similar way, though as it was an extremely rough calculation (with a weak assumption), I didn't put a value on how likely the results were. It was better than the cobblers Cicchetti presented though!
Frankly, ALL court cases in the US should be reviewed. The courts as so broken that people kind of just accept it, as though there's no other way for them to be.
Yep, it's like an old man saying he's been driving for 60 years and never had an accident. Is it because he's so good at driving or because everyone around him have been paying attention and avoided colliding with the old driver?
Yeah, the adversarial nature of court doesn't mean your getting the best and brightest experts in court. These expert shop their services and heavily bias their approaches depending on how they want the data to fall. It would be great if independent analysis were somehow funded through the court system.
Hi Matt, Something very topical at the time is that a minecraft speed runner named Dream (14 million subscribers) has had his record runs disallowed and banned. This ban was handed out by the moderators on one of the top speed running archive sites solely on the basis of statistics. They allege the luck seen in dreams speedruns were so unlikely that the only explanation was the manipulation of the probabilities in the game. Speculation videos have been performing really well view wise, just an idea.
Haha...a PhD assumed the in-person voters and mail-in voters are the same population. I had a feeling that was a primary underlying error before the host got to it. I’ll print out my newly awarded PhD. Thank you all.
From the sound of it, I don't think it was an error. Rather, this professor was deliberately trying to mislead the public. He knew exactly what he was doing.
It always makes me laugh when folks try and assign arbitrary probabilities to structured, cause-and-effect systems.. "What's the probability of my car breaking down?".. Well.. Do you follow the maintenance schedule and drive responsibly? Do you ignore your maintenance and beat it like a rented mule every day? Over-simplifying by tossing the whole sample set in the same pot is going to make your final probability result useless. In the case of this election statistics gag, it's worse than just "wrong"; it's propaganda. They're hoping folks won't take 5 seconds to see what a joke the "logic" is.
Like say it is hyper unlikely that Biden would get over 500,000 votes in one middle the night dump of votes in Pennsylvania and Trump would get 3200? Don't see any problems there, Mech?
@@christophergraves6725 My kids use this line sometimes; "pics or it didn't happen". It's a serious claim you're making, it takes serious evidence. Let's see it. Cameras are everywhere now days; it should be easy to pull some footage from the nearest DVR. Hell, even my chicken coop is being recorded on my security system right now.. There should be 20 angles of your alleged 'night vote dump'.
Mathematician: Doesn't understand why a politician embarrassingly uses maths to twist the law Politician: Doesn't understand why mathematically twisting the law is a public embarrassment Public: Doesn't understand why there aren't more mathematicians in politics
More than one in a quadrillion sounds like it implies that it’s more likely than one in quadrillion, which means that the odds are somewhere between incredibly likely and nigh impossible
And most people were probably distracted by the flashy “quadrillion” number and thought that “more than” would apply to that amazing number than the plain, boring “one”. Or they just didn’t think and assumed it meant what they wanted it to mean. Take your pick.
@@estherpettigrew3042 One of the difficulties I have found while speaking about technical subjects is that there are two people, the speaker and the listener and either person may either be technical or not. It makes it difficult to know if a person is using the naively incorrect term or the correct one. A non technical speaker for example may use a term and mean it's technical opposite but still be understood because it's a well known misunderstanding. In the same way, a technical person may use the same term while trying to convey it's technical opposite just because they know their audience is non-technical. (Engineers do this all the time when talking to business). So when these people are playing the telephone game through journalists, it makes it very difficult to discern who is actually saying what. In this case however, I think we can guess the intent of the party and it's not difficult. But I still think it's an interesting problem to consider a little bit sometimes.
Except nov 3...11pm... all of these states were reporting 60%-80%, with trump up in the 100s of thousands... Nov. 4th, 6a.m those leads were overcome... with large single dumps in the middle of the night in those states that were near 100% biden... statistical impossibility regaurdless of voting medium
@@joeharris4353 Not unlikely at all. 99% of the Trumpers are convinced that COVID is a hoax or that it can't affect them because of Jesus-magic. Rational people voted by mail.
@@joeharris4353 obviously you did not watch the video you are commenting on. The political makeup of the people who voted on election day, is entirely a different population (political makeup) of people who voted by mail. Do you not get this? Trump told his base for MONTHS to not vote by mail, only vote in person on election day. And now you are surprised he got a puny percentage of the mail in vote?
From Matt's Declaration (seriously, if you haven't already, have a read): "I use a 'see-statistic' or score, which involved me staring at the spreadsheet for a while to see what I could see." I think we can all agree that Matt has done some pretty rigorous analysis there.
@@eroraf8637 luckily for the USA, the Republican party will rebuild better and stronger now that it no longer bows to a ridiculous egomaniac. By the way, is any of that inaccurate, or did it just hurt your feelings?
