Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vehaa0$me64$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Wilf <wilf21@is.invalid> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone Subject: RE: green bubble syndrome Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:24:32 +0100 Organization: Wilf21 Lines: 32 Message-ID: <vehaa0$me64$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$1@dont-email.me> <sNhOO.80631$S9Vb.19042@fx45.iad> <lmtvktF2u71U4@mid.individual.net> <veduot$65bo$4@dont-email.me> <ln2idhFo72qU1@mid.individual.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 22:24:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="093ecc1012933795f8cdb1e571775336"; logging-data="735428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VO6/ItijdDAg0QYc8zIeD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:WRCzDWHTkDO3J53cBrn9ptDr7fE= In-Reply-To: <ln2idhFo72qU1@mid.individual.net> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2565 On 13/10/2024 at 19:38, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2024-10-12, Wilf <wilf21@is.invalid> wrote: >> On 12/10/2024 at 01:53, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2024-10-11, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote: >>>> On 2024-10-11 05:51, Wilf 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. >>>> >>>> Do you have evidence that the sample pop was chosen properly? >>> >>> He does not. If that were known, we wouldn't be having this >>> conversation. >>> >> Indeed so - I've made my point that I know nothing about how the >> sample was chosen - it might be good, it might be bad. My point, >> again, is that the small sample size does not in itself invalidate the >> result. > > Right. It's all of the other unknowns that invalidate them. > Is it? If you can assert so, then they cannot be "unknown" to you. -- Wilf