Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Wilf <wilf21@is.invalid>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: RE: green bubble syndrome
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:45:04 +0100
Organization: Wilf21
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <vedugu$65bo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <xn0oruv2k1siabt002@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <ve6sv0$2q45v$1@dont-email.me> <ve7s0q$31vac$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmqdldFflfjU1@mid.individual.net> <veasft$3k74p$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmsv72FsntvU3@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 15:45:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f4e6f949d2f7bb6994041a4073d1085";
	logging-data="202104"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Usd1rtcDr8ZsIZTTRHKQy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KKyfG0Hl8TFcXb2M2LTjwBAuuIo=
In-Reply-To: <lmsv72FsntvU3@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2362

On 11/10/2024 at 16:40, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2024-10-11, Wilf <wilf21@is.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2024 at 17:28, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> Apple sold 2.5 BILLION iPhones (as of 2023, so not counting 2024),
>>> and you are trying to tell us that a survey of 1000 people is
>>> significant?  Quick question: How many times do you think 1000 goes
>>> into 2.5 billion?
>>
>> If the sample is chosen properly (and that's the critical part),
>> results from a small but representative sample of the whole population
>> can be statistically significant.  So just because someone has no
>> background in statistics is a not a reason to necessarily doubt the
>> premise.
> 
> Again, they tell us nothing about how these people were selected or
> approached for this survey. And I disagree that you should not be
> critical of data like this - especially when it doesn't seem to reflect
> opinions of other small samplings of iPhone users.
> 

Of course its very sensible to be sceptical about how the sample was 
chosen etc., my point is that just because the sample size is small does 
not in itself invalidate it.

-- 
Wilf