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.
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.
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.
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
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 TH-cam, 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).
@@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.
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?
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).
@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.
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 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!”
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.
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.
“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.
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 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.
@@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).
@@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.
"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
@@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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 TH-cam account was created on Dec 16, 2020 😂 Great job here, troll!! Everyone in your village will be issued extra rations of bread today!
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.
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 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.
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.
@@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?”
What type of poker? Holdem would not give you those odds for example but say 7 card stud without considering the other exposed cards would be much higher.
@@Alfonso162008 really? What math arrives at that. For example even though the number of cards within the deck do not change, the number of cards dealt to a specific player, "the hand" does vary. The odds of being dealt four Aces in holdem is exactly and always zero since a player only gets two cards. A player in seven card stud for example can get four Aces ( 4:51x3:50.....) The odds of getting dealt a specific card are the same for the first card but become proportionally greater with each additional event. There are only 1326 possible starting hand combinations in holdem. Yet to get two Aces for example is 220:1 but to get any pair is 16:1. And two get two specific cards it is 2:51x1:50. The number of cards dealt therefore increase the probability that you will NOT be dealt a specific hand based solely on the number of possibilities. So suggesting 1 in 13,000,000 first suggest that there are over thirteen million possible combinations whereas with a two card hand there are not that many possibilities. However again if you want to suggest this hand as specific based upon some historic event like saying getting dealt the exact same hand three times in a row then those separate events are considered as one event and the numbers get much higher. Make sense? Point being the comment has no basis or provides no relative comparison or analogy because it offers no actual basis. Presumedly that was the point of the comment to suggest that the lawsuit offers no comparative basis and no useful conclusion. But the video only offers the same argument in reverse without showing any actual flaw because no calculations are ever done. Just some thoughts
In math it's called 52!, or 52 Factorial: 52 x 51 x 50 x 49.... x 2 x 1. In a fair shuffle the chances that the cards work out in the *exact* order that they do is 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. And yet it happened.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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!
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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 💀
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.
@@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!
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.
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
Putting out bullshit to serve the whims of wealthy and powerful people rarely limits your career, especially in economics (cf. George Mason University)
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.
Such unnerving news coming out of the US recently I can't remember how many times I was warned not to assume independence of random variables in uni It could have been like.. a quadrillion times
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
Tenured professors can't be fired except in very limited circumstances. Unless the commit an actual crime, they have a guaranteed job forever. Using someone's title to make an argument is stupid regardless. You will always find a few fringe people with a PhD or MD (I know a few myself). A bio PhD who doesn't believe in evolution, a doctor who thinks high cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, etc. That's why community consensus is more important in these fields.
Wow, someone syndicated in mainstream media lied to you using things you arent well studied in as a way to have you not question it? Say it ain't so. There couldn't possibly be decades worth of material of mainstream outlets doing exactly that for their own political gains.
"A lawsuit was filed; that means people are talking this seriously." I want to live in that world, where people don't file frivolous lawsuits for personal/political benefit.
@@BigDaddyWes Ok I'm not sure whether this is a joke, if it is sorry, but to be clear, I didn't mean people filing frivolous lawsuits because they expected to win and get whatever benefit they demanded in the suit. I meant people filing lawsuits that they know are frivolous because they believe that just filing the lawsuit will benefit them, e.g. by giving them publicity, even though the suit will be dismissed.
It's not frivolous. There's tons of verifiable evidence. If the same things happened on the Trump side, they'd be calling for his head. They were claiming he used Russia to win the last election with NO evidence. Funny how that works.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
Kushim!
Well, dammit, NOW how am I supposed to correct you? It was a once-in-a-lifetime chance! (Yes, I did the math.) 🤣
I'm already a Transcendental Supporter that just joined in the past week so there, I beat you to it.
I was just about to compliment you on your getting attorneys general right and you just blew it, lol
Are the chances of you doing another one 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,001?
The mail in votes have a blue shift because they're moving towards you
nice one 😂
I'm stealing that
Yes! I love this pun.
So the other is red because is "going out"?!
@@fredklier Or the voters are a bit slow
Every time Matt says, “I’m not doing another one”, the probability that he does another one increases by more than 1 in a quadrillion
That's one comma fifteen zeros.
There is a lot of numbers more then a quadrillion... To think about it there is actually more numbers below a quadrillion. :-)
@@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.
It's the final, absolutely ultimate last episode + 1
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.
This number was calculated using a little know formula from astrophysics known as the "Out of Uranus" equation.
lol
Oh damn lol
Awesome!
OK so you just sent my coffee up my nose at the speed of light! A small point though: didn't you mean to say "asstrophysics?!"
Ah a quantum physicist is here.
There are far more people in the world who know how to do a statistical test than those who know how to interpret the results.
That should be on a t-shirt.
This is like FEA analyses in mechanical engineering.
Gentle PSA: Half of all statistics majors graduated in the bottom half of their class.
Lmao my ex roommate is a perfect example. He failed the core classes at least three times before getting his degree
You can work for various news agency with that clickbait skill
@@jbitt1617 I'll pray for you at night until you truly understand this comment.
And the bottom half of statistics majors are just legs
@@thehotdogman9317 i get the comment, it just so happened to also apply to my old roommate lol
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.
He feels the same as the rest of us 😤
Yuppppp...pppppp....ppppppppp
I genuinely hope the US turns into a wasteland devoid of law and order, would love to fight gun control activists
@@tryharderpls Bwhahahahahaha!! Good luck!
If it was easy to understand how it really works then people will be upset.
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 challenge now is to redesign our education system so that the link between the theory and their practical realities is made absolutely clear.
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.
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.
Pack it up boys. Nothing we can do against their z-scores.
Why are you not treating these like common vocabulary while talking down to someone who does?
WORD SALAD ,that is perfect
Certainly no einstein you marxist muppet
@@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
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 TH-cam, 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!
did not expect to see you here but it makes perfect sense! love your stuff
Whut? The number of YT videos still didn't exceed the human population? Dunno why, but that feels so weird to me.
yoooo love your scambaiting vids
@@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).
There are many people named Matt Parker
Of course the math was wrong, nobody can be luckier than dream
Some people got this atleast lmao.
now that's just hilarious
@@georgegividen only the *_EDGELORDS_* in the indie videogame minecraft community know this sick reference
This was the prequel, haha
@@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.
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!"
Brilliant, I love it
Stupidly hilarious. 😂
There's a similar one about being killed by a drunk driver while juggling; never happens. So if you juggle while walking home, you should be fine.
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?
Anyone else scared by the fact that the guy certifying this paper was supposedly an expert witness on hundreds of court cases?
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
the more you look into the problems with expert testimony in court, the worse it looks
Corporations don’t care if their mathematical calculations are flimsy,most of the time they know they’re wrong.
@@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).
Does anyone with a sane mind doubt Trump won with an overwhelming majority?
"these are real numbers here"
*multiplies them all by square root of -1 *
Checkmate
Hero right here, thank you sir!
Are you saying use imaginary numbers that may work LOL
@@theodoresweger4948
Politicians use those all the time, so it's already proven to work
...depending on your definition of what "works", but whatever.
I laughed wayyy too hard reading this
I multiplied them by i and then to be safe, I did it again!
“If everyone voted the same way they did last time we should have gotten the same result!” is peak thinking
(gerrymandering excepted)
"Statistics don't lie; statisticians however do"
The only liar I see here is the one who refuses to review Matt Parker's report in the description. Stop talking sht and try to prove it for once.
@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.
@Roger Loquitur wow this has got to be the gayest nerd fight I've ever seen.
@Roger Loquitur awww...bummed I didn't use a word you could report me for? Cry. A. River.
@Roger Loquitur loser
"If people voted the same as they did the last election we'd get the same result."
Mind: blown
Amazing comment, day made
Woooooow👁️👄👁️
Assuming the same number of people voted.
Assuming no significant gerrymandering or voter disqualification campaigns
@@williamchamberlain2263 Or population shift. 4 years means that those who were 14 could vote the next time and some people will have died.
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.
I agree. It's so easy to apply the wrong theorem if you don't know the exact conditions of it
100%, at least for elementary statistics. Advanced statistics has some really hairy math.
@@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 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.
"To each their own" also applied in math these days.
Completely agree!
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!”
@@stephendonovan9084 oh yeah totally agree and they are so unashamed in their gas lighting it's what their supporters expect
Statistically I've always been younger in my past age so there is a 1 in quadrillion chance I am as old as I am today. Take that, age!
Bruh.... 😂😂😂
Lovely😂
Big brain
@loquacious So when did you write your comment? In the past?
@@stuckonautomatic Soon. Very soon.
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.
Because mules were paid per vote.
@@brvolleyball Nice conspiracy theory.
Because people don't always do what they're told
@@brvolleyball how many mules were caught to prove your point? Mules for Trump?
Matt: "Artist's Impression"
*a completely black screen*
Also Matt: "(Not to scale)"
But! Which way was up?! It's important to have scale AND orientation. 😅
I need this in higher resolution
This is the type of content I love but I think the artist needs attribution.
This was amazing
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.
Matt, the smoke alarm in my house has a microphone to hear other smoke alarms and it went off during your little demonstration...
Better call the insurance company!
Good analogy for America - one alarm goes off and all the others go off without knowing why they're doing it and adding to the confusion.
I gave him a thumbs down for the stupid alarm scene.
2 seconds would have been plenty.
I don't know why but this is hilarious to me. Rip your ears lol
Mine actually talk to each other and spread roomers.
Indiana Jones also had a last crusade, but that didn’t stop the franchise.
Part time.
That's one in a quad.
It really should have... :)
And X-men had a last stand...
This comment makes no sense. The movie it is about the last crusade, not claiming that it's the last movie they are going to make
“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.
Well, it is being invested now.
@@iwishiwaswrongbutimnot517 no, it’s really not. not by anyone serious, just by dismissible partisan hacks AKA 😂🤣 cyber ninjas
@@iwishiwaswrongbutimnot517 lol just laughing at this again 🤣
@@iwishiwaswrongbutimnot517 what happened? 🤔
@@iwishiwaswrongbutimnot517 is it?
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 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 LOL you are so dramatic....
@@jamescollier3 Yes because no Republicans threaten or attack liberals because of the heard mentality of the Trump people.
@@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.
Had a good giggle at the artists impression of a quadrillion years in the future!
I wanted to point out that it was technically "to scale", we just haven't figured out the reduction rate🤔
@@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).
Fun Fact: Dream is more likely to win the presidency than to have his speedrun world record.
nah, dreams run was 1 in 10^22 and 1 quadrillion^4 is 10^60
@@sweetsweetalib4857well assuming he is american that puts his odds at 1/300million a hell of a lot better than his odds were in his speed run
@@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.
"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.
This guy is on to something
Mixing math(s) and current events
I say, keep these videos coming
@@Illiteratechimp Same. Having very real events to ground the mathematics makes for a very interesting video
If youve only ever seen Parker comment on elections there is no way he goes on to other content. Impossible may I say
@@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
@@brysonsmith1523 one in a quadrillion chance
I love your statement, "Nothing says, 'I've read this and paid close attention,' like some underlining." It really made me smile. Thank you!
pffft try multicolor highlights :P
Are you a teacher? This sounds like something a teacher would say 😆
well, I mean, to be fair, I never underlined for essay preparation, and I never paid much attention either
"For a start, I've ignored DC" Don't worry, so has the US for the past 200 years
This isn't the USSR nobody is forced to live in DC
explain why people willingly choose to live in ohio then
@@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.
@@SongOfStorms411 They already gave part back to Virginia.
13:24
“Artist’s impression (not to scale)” earned a like and a laugh. These videos are a rare breed of educational and entertaining.
oh my thanks for the comment, completely missed that
@@see3655 Sure thing :D
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.
Well they should have consulted college freshman Hunter Adcock first, then. He has an incredible ability to vaguely remember test answers!
@@ahall9839 Freshman Hunter Adcock would have done better than those guys, vague memory and all
Newsflash, even someone with a PhD will say things if you pay them enough.
Got to pay off those Uni debts somehow.....
Same with a youtube creator
@Roger Loquitur Do you?
@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.
@Roger Loquitur You don't.
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.
well, this does become less and less likely as you scale up though.
Nothing is statistically impossible,
Just statistically improbable
Uhhhh sure 😂
People living in a specific area might not even talk to each other. "Area" can be many things.
In 1964,Barry Goldwater got 1 per cent of the vote in Harlem after voting against the Civil Rights Bill.
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.
it's good to have a demonstration of the wrong, even if it's not going to work on fanatics.
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.
A lot of people actually do you head instead of heart to make up their minds
"I hope America is watching here. These are real numbers"
He's technically correct. They aren't complex numbers.
Technically all real numbers are complex numbers.
@@seneca983 "You are technically correct. The best kind of correct." - Bureaucrat #1
√2 you are being irrational :D √2
@@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.
I don't know. They look pretty imaginary to me.
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
There are zero qualifications to be an “Expert Witness.” Sadly.
I like how they continually slam higher education until the moment they feel it's important to drop someone's credentials
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?
.
What exactly are you taking about?
@@wyterabitt2149 The odds of a specific event occurring can be really low, doesn't mean it didn't happen. We just don't think of statistics well.
@@GodwynDi It looked like you were pretty much suggesting the opposite of this at first, that's why I asked!
@@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."
How much is a quadrillion? Just googol it
🌽 ee
Har.
Answer: To each their own.
That's sounds too Googolplex for me.
Bezos is half way there
If it literally says "more than one in a quadrillion" and not "one in more than a quadrillion" then technically...
oooh, nice catch.
Dream's chance of getting his pearl and blaze rod luck was more than one in a quadrillion
@@iwersonsch5131 no lol. both chances combined together result in less than one in a quintillion. what a scumbag dream is
@@iwersonsch5131 no it was actually 1 in 7 trillion, but that doesn't change anything.
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.
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????
A mystery we will take to our graves.
@@zeebeeplayz Guys i think i just solved the mystery. Anyone know where I can go to the Headlines of the Newspapers for this amazing discovery?
Thats the whole point though, manufacturing controversy
unknowable mysteries of the universe.
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.
"More than 1 in a quadrillion" -- You know what's more than 1 in a quadrillion? One.
Common Core says infinite probabilities as long as you can explain it away.
@Roger Loquitur no
Or Stuffing the ballot with 100 thousand votes - eight times - making 800 thousand votes
@@vivianaravot5483 hmm, but can you... Lol
@@damianpos8832 wisdom says 1+1=2 no matter what.
Alternatively, one comma fifteen zeros can mean very precisely one
So there's a one in precisely, assuredly, unmistakably, irrefutably, completely, absolutely, no-backsies, one chance? That's almost correct.
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)
Only if you're a commie.
@@Miollvynir Found the fash, bash the fash.
@@anonymouspokemon4623 Your TH-cam account was created on Dec 16, 2020 😂 Great job here, troll!! Everyone in your village will be issued extra rations of bread today!
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.
cf: Florida. Early count was for Biden, but Trump ended up winning it. Because they counted the mail-in votes first.
It's called conditioning.
Also, repetition is the most common rhetorical device used in propaganda.
In person votes should always be counted last.
@@notsure1350 So that's why Trump supporters thought Trump would win.
@@pewpew9711 I dont know. I'm not what you could really call a Trump supporter.
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.
........ How does one put 1 in a quadrillion into a lawsuit? Makes no sense.
@@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 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.
did you know that 63.7 % of facts on internet are true?
Did you ever tell any of these preposterous facts in a sworn affidavit?
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.
You can come up with statistics to prove anything, forfty percent of all people know that.
The Barney Stinson approach...
The probability of winning when you send everybody home tends to 1.00
-- Gollin's Law
Just a warning: “It’s backed by 126 republicans in the senate.” Matt means the house, not the senate.
He says he meant Congress, by which I think he means the union of the 2 sets.
@Harry Sage right wingers will find any fault in an argument to pick it apart
Oh he misspoke. If the fact checkers have taught me anything it's that his entire argument is now invalid.
@@torlumnitor8230 You then go on and assume that he is trying to invalidate the entire argument.
He said as much in his own comment that is seen before this one.
They literally just assumed the states votes were coming in completely randomly.
mm hmm
sa
sa
You mean to tell me they didn't put every single ballot in a giant bag, shook it and had someone draw them out blindfolded??
They didn’t assume, they’re not that stupid. They knew what they were doing when they were broadcasting this bullshit information.
@@nickthompson1812 You really believe that?
@@nickthompson1812 Yes they knew they were lieing
"That's one, comma, fifteen zeroes."
That's Numberwang!
OH YES!
The best game show in the whole world of all time, EVER!
I'm sorry, but shifty-six is not a number!
*LET’S ROTATE THE NEWS ROOM!!!*
@@CephalicMiasma4 Of course it is, as in the popular phrase, "I only have shinty-six days left to live"
@@JoeBleasdaleReal That's what's already been happening the fema camps.
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.
ah yes, and 2.7 members of the average household have voted :p cuz y'know, 0.7 is an entire human :)
Excellent take!
You can if you work with quantum statistics!
It really helps to know that they aren’t necessarily natural numbers, integers, rational numbers or algebraic numbers.
@@ror3D nice attempt, but probabilities in QM are always real as they are the square of the absolute value of the (complex) wave function.
"What's the biggest number everyone has heard of?"
"Err, quadrillion?"
"Yeah, that'll do."
Obviously catering to the elderly.
All under 30 and tech savy should be familiar with a googolplex.. cause google.
@@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?”
Googleplex
Googleplex
They used the STANDARD DEVIATION? That must mean it is correct.
*Deals standard hand of poker*
This Lawsuit: "There is no way I could have been dealt this hand. It's a one in 13,000,000 chance!
They forgot to factor in the wild Joker.
What type of poker? Holdem would not give you those odds for example but say 7 card stud without considering the other exposed cards would be much higher.
@@eshootziscrs2868 replace the word 'poker' with any game that uses a classic deck of cards and the concept will be the same.
@@Alfonso162008 really? What math arrives at that.
For example even though the number of cards within the deck do not change, the number of cards dealt to a specific player, "the hand" does vary.
The odds of being dealt four Aces in holdem is exactly and always zero since a player only gets two cards.
A player in seven card stud for example can get four Aces ( 4:51x3:50.....)
The odds of getting dealt a specific card are the same for the first card but become proportionally greater with each additional event.
There are only 1326 possible starting hand combinations in holdem. Yet to get two Aces for example is 220:1 but to get any pair is 16:1. And two get two specific cards it is 2:51x1:50. The number of cards dealt therefore increase the probability that you will NOT be dealt a specific hand based solely on the number of possibilities.
So suggesting 1 in 13,000,000 first suggest that there are over thirteen million possible combinations whereas with a two card hand there are not that many possibilities.
However again if you want to suggest this hand as specific based upon some historic event like saying getting dealt the exact same hand three times in a row then those separate events are considered as one event and the numbers get much higher.
Make sense? Point being the comment has no basis or provides no relative comparison or analogy because it offers no actual basis.
Presumedly that was the point of the comment to suggest that the lawsuit offers no comparative basis and no useful conclusion.
But the video only offers the same argument in reverse without showing any actual flaw because no calculations are ever done.
Just some thoughts
In math it's called 52!, or 52 Factorial: 52 x 51 x 50 x 49.... x 2 x 1. In a fair shuffle the chances that the cards work out in the *exact* order that they do is 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. And yet it happened.
That artist's rendering of blackness of space made me chuckle
I'd really like to see one to scale though
I have a similar picture of a polar bear eating vanilla ice cream in a snow bank. LOL!
"not to scale" made me laugh outloud.
@@lesliefranklin1870I did that in an art class once at school, and the teacher made me draw the nose and paws
I need an artist to do some quality cosmological illustrations, do we know who Matt got to do this?
"I'm not doing any more of these"
Oh you'll be back.
Time will tell
You'll remember that I served you well
Hello, fellow Calvin&Hobbes fan! :-)
Of course he will.
Left leaning peeps tend to be triggered by anything.
@@niemandhatdieabsichteinenk8755 You guys really like to copy me
“1 x Donald Trump”
Implies there’s more than 1 Donald Trump which is terrifying
There is. We have his son, Donald Trump Jr., and his grandson, Donald Trump III.
@@MarioManTV isn't donald trump jr, the donald trump? named after his dad? correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's it no?
@@Fantastic_Mr_Fox Depends where you put the 'J'.
@@ColTaylorDyath The "J." in President Donald J. Trump's name stands for "John", rather than "Jr."
What’s sad is that I failed Statistics and still understood where this probability went wrong 😑
Garbage in garbage out.
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).
Matt, admit it, you were proud to get to say "Attorneys General" - I saw that twinkle in your eye
And yet I said “Senate” instead of “Congress” by accident at one point, so it all cancels out.
@@standupmaths It's all good, the graphic said "House Republicans" so we knew what you meant!
@@standupmaths this video's a bit of a Parker Square eh?
Definitely one of my favourite compounds plural.
He looked much prouder when he actually got to a quadrillion ;)
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.
Just want to add this goes for both sides. Both sides are garbage.
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.
To quote The Thick of It: ‘You’re asking the wrong expert!’
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.
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!
@@ishoottheyscore8970 I didn't put odds on it then either. Those odds I provided were retrospective, they were in hindsight.
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!
I mean he certainly is a great witness, not everyone has the ability to sound so correct, while already being wrong on the first assumptions.
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.
@@ronanstephens1597 he probably is a specialist in psychology since he knows exactly how to say numbers that sound really big in the jury's brain
@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.
I don't think we can trust Matt as a source, he takes 40% of his 'sick' days off on Monday and Friday - proper suspect!
There was once a Dilbert cartoon on this.
Sorry for my English, apparently I can't type
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?
Just look at all those rubix cubes
@@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!
18:54 - "These are Real numbers here"
Good thing he didn't start going into imaginary numbers, or he might have lost the crowd!
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)
that made my day
@@JMacSD man, it's a mathematician joke. Look up imaginary numbers.
That's an irrational argument of transcendental proportions.
@@Gribbo9999 bruh this roast fire
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
"more than 1 in a quadrillion" well 50% is more than one in one quadrillion, so I guess they're not wrong
That's what I was thinking everytime it was said, like, which direction on the numberline are we moving in here?
The direction of more
@@nicko_mode3356 ah yes, my favorite direction: more
@@tylerajohnson03 you say that like you don’t drive more every day
@@jacobhafar538 turn at the next more, your destination will be on the more
Three rules of political arguments:
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Do we have any statistical lies to show that it is plausible that Biden really won the election?
Lesen is for sure important
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
@@christophergraves6725 The statistics that Trump will always lie means more votes for Biden by Americans.
@@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.
Small correction, the lawsuit was backed by 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives. The Senate only has 100 total members
And both houses make up Congress as a whole.
well if you say that the democrats have -26 Senate seats it could be true
With the math's in the lawsuit that's still more correct than the lawsuit :P
"backed by 126 Republicans in the House of Representatives" really is a sad note on the state of democracy in the US.
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
every single mistake he made here was covered in my 10th grade discrete math and statistics class
You took discrete and statistic math classes in 10th grade?
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.
Great explanation, I upvoted this comment.
Hm. So did the moderators apply the same method to the former records as well? Because...
@@lemsrache8377 No, I'm pretty sure they corrected any bias.
@@lemsrache8377 he was caught cheating and ended up kinda admitting it
"These are real numbers here!"
Complex, quaternions, duals and Clifford algebras: Are we a joke to you?
What about octonions?
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?
Numberisist, I am complex and claim equal representation in any counting system.
@@pauljackson3491 in case you hadn't solved it yet, happy to help with some plain 2d orientations for quaternions:
// w = m_data[0], x = m_data[1], y = m_data[2], z = m_data[3]
void Quaternion::setRotateX(XsReal rad)
{
rad *= 0.5;
m_data[0] = cos(rad);
m_data[1] = sin(rad);
m_data[2] = 0;
m_data[3] = 0;
}
void Quaternion::setRotateY(XsReal rad)
{
rad *= 0.5;
m_data[0] = cos(rad);
m_data[1] = 0;
m_data[2] = sin(rad);
m_data[3] = 0;
}
void Quaternion::setRotateZ(XsReal rad)
{
rad *= 0.5;
m_data[0] = cos(rad);
m_data[1] = 0;
m_data[2] = 0;
m_data[3] = sin(rad);
}
@@tomctutor - lol very good...I wonder how zero feels bc he does not even count?
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: Don't mail in vote
Democrats: Please mail in vote
More mail in votes are democrats
Republicans: *Shocked pikachu face*
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 💀
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.
"more than 1 in a quadrillion". Classic sales tactic. No one realizes that 1 in 5, or 20% is more than 1 in a quadrillion, as are many numbers.
Can you explain this?
Haha I'm pretty sure they meant "one in more than a quadrillion"
@@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!
My favorite is always “up to 15% or more”.
@@sianmilne4879 No, I'm quite certain they meant MORE THAN 1 in quadrillion.
Statistically speaking everything that has happened has a 100% chance of having had happened.
"60% of the time, it works everytime" Ron Burgundy
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.
Most underrated comment
Omg you just blew my mind!!! It's as if... this was destiny 😱
@@Shellackle assuming it's not deterministic
Some reason TH-cam has brought you back into my algorithm and I've enjoyed watching this again.
I would guess that people have been looking at the videos following the Fox News defamation settlement with Dominion
Figures don't lie but liars do figure.
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
Tres commas. Wait... Cinco commas.
The three comma club baby
That's a quadrillion commas!
No, it is 4 000 000 000 000 000
Actually its just a one followed by fifteen zeros, no commas. We only put commas into numbers to make them easier for humans to read.
Cicchetti is doing a 'how to ruin you career as a economist in 10 pages' challenge
1. Do we actually know if he had a career to begin with?
2. I am sure he got paid enough to make it worth it.
Putting out bullshit to serve the whims of wealthy and powerful people rarely limits your career, especially in economics (cf. George Mason University)
I'm sure he'll have a lucrative career at Fox News as a statistical correspondent. These people are thick of thieves, but it's not a simile.
@@PaulFisher Exactly. Someone won a Nobel for doing so.
If you were given say a million dollars, would you do what he did? :D
TL;DW: They assumed the difference between batches of votes would be purely random, despite all evidence that they were, in fact, not random.
Artist's impression
(not to scale)
that made me laugh so hard I had to pause the video.
@@birdbrainiac same here it's brilliant
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.
@@e.d.5766 Exactly, I'd say media can be as opinionated as they like, as long as they don't present baseless lies and deception as fact.
CNN, FOX, and MSNBC aren't news. They're 24/7 political entertainment/propaganda. Actual news (like half hour nightly news programs) are much better.
Those aren't news and the people aren't journalists. Those are all merely commenters.
Lets be honest, its not news at all.
13:27 pfffft why should I even bother giving Matt the time of day when his artist's rendering of space wasn't to scale? lol :D
As bad as Apple's performance graphs when they launched the M1 Macs!
NB I am typing this on my Mac, as I speak...er, write.
And it was just a solid black graphic. lol
He is clearly a communist.
I thought iT was to scale, but subject to legal squabbles to say so, as iT lacked underlining.
I had to tell my wife about the art to to scale.
Where did the 15,000,000 votes from 2020 go in 2024?
Such unnerving news coming out of the US recently
I can't remember how many times I was warned not to assume independence of random variables in uni
It could have been like.. a quadrillion times
14:40 so there’s a one in “quadrillion” chance that the 2016 election is also the 2020 election? Now that’s a statistical breakthrough!
The problem is this is written with the express purpose of "make an argument that sounds good on the news"
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 Trumpbecile bullcrap
@@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
@@VauxhallViva1975
Is there Russian dressing on that word salad?
@@VauxhallViva1975 Well take your evidence and present it in a court of law eh?
This was basically statistical malpractice. How does that guy from rutgers still have a job?
Tenured professors can't be fired except in very limited circumstances. Unless the commit an actual crime, they have a guaranteed job forever.
Using someone's title to make an argument is stupid regardless. You will always find a few fringe people with a PhD or MD (I know a few myself). A bio PhD who doesn't believe in evolution, a doctor who thinks high cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, etc. That's why community consensus is more important in these fields.
@TheOneTold technically he's both, if we're gonna get pedantic
@@rabbits2345 appeal to authority is really annoying...
Wow, someone syndicated in mainstream media lied to you using things you arent well studied in as a way to have you not question it? Say it ain't so. There couldn't possibly be decades worth of material of mainstream outlets doing exactly that for their own political gains.
@@ianmolnar8889 Yeah, the right wing media’s while business model is making money off of being wrong
"A lawsuit was filed; that means people are talking this seriously." I want to live in that world, where people don't file frivolous lawsuits for personal/political benefit.
What other reason could there be?
Yeah, what do you think lawsuits are for? I'm confused as to what your standard is here.
@@BigDaddyWes Ok I'm not sure whether this is a joke, if it is sorry, but to be clear, I didn't mean people filing frivolous lawsuits because they expected to win and get whatever benefit they demanded in the suit. I meant people filing lawsuits that they know are frivolous because they believe that just filing the lawsuit will benefit them, e.g. by giving them publicity, even though the suit will be dismissed.
To piggyback off of this, if you haven't seen John Oliver's video on SLAPP suits, it's worth a watch or three.
It's not frivolous. There's tons of verifiable evidence. If the same things happened on the Trump side, they'd be calling for his head. They were claiming he used Russia to win the last election with NO evidence. Funny how that works.
"... he's been the court expert on many cases..."
What I'm hearing, we should re-check many court cases.
If this a court expert, just imagine the number of lawyer preparing their cases. Maybe this video will be in court, as proof....
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.
that is why if someone bring an expert to review an evidence, the other party has the right to also bring their own expert.
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.
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.
Exactly.
Stats don't lie, statisticians do.
Common knowledge. Sorry, no PhD. Gotta work for it!
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.
@dan g ....and what about the ,cheating at all costs , Biden supporters?
@dan g You had to edit..QED ?
Thank you for including a Cornetto Trilogy reference right at the end! New subscriber, just for that.
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.
Not just incredibly likely, but if I flip a coin, it has a more than one in a quadrillion chance of landing on either a head or a tail or it's side.
I'd argue the odds for most things are somewhere between incredibly likely and nigh impossible.
Not if it's more than one in a quadrillion against, ie, the odds are somewhere between 0 and 1 in 1 quadrillion
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.
"a few months", or be be more exact: about 480 months +- 20 at a 95% confidence interval
Revenge of the math,
Return of the data,
And at spreadsheet's end.
- A Parker trilogy
To be a true PARKER trilogy, it should be off by one and actually have 4 installments.
@@avantesma1 Ooooo, maybe "A Parker Trilogy" could be the name of the 4th one!
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.
I really love the Artist that made the picture for the planets.