Editing Talk:2545: Bayes' Theorem

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 
I don't know if the latest (nearly!) global change back to "affected" in the example was intentional or just a cut'n'paste of historical wordings whilst making other tweaks, but I'm not going to go through and change to "infected" a third time (first time, collided with an edit conflict, and so cancelled and worked again on that, albeit with at least one new typo). Yes, in general, being affected or not is correct, but with "affect/effect" confusion (for some) and elsewhere described as "afflicted with" and (still in at least one place) "infected" the example works as well or even better with infections rather than affectations. I was also tempted to change "performant" as not everyone will know exactly what it means, but was stuck for a good substitute ("efficacious" is close, but probably doesn't help a great deal). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 09:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 
I don't know if the latest (nearly!) global change back to "affected" in the example was intentional or just a cut'n'paste of historical wordings whilst making other tweaks, but I'm not going to go through and change to "infected" a third time (first time, collided with an edit conflict, and so cancelled and worked again on that, albeit with at least one new typo). Yes, in general, being affected or not is correct, but with "affect/effect" confusion (for some) and elsewhere described as "afflicted with" and (still in at least one place) "infected" the example works as well or even better with infections rather than affectations. I was also tempted to change "performant" as not everyone will know exactly what it means, but was stuck for a good substitute ("efficacious" is close, but probably doesn't help a great deal). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 09:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
: I would expect the <1-in-1000 sorts of numbers relevant to the comic to apply to genetic conditions and cancer, not to infections. We don't screen wide swathes of asymptomatic population for infections. Even now with all the testing for COVID-19, the positivity rate is above 1%.{{unsigned}}
 
:: I'd say "afflicted" throughout would be best, of the suggestions given. Avoid "sufferer/ing" (is benign, or they're a carrier only?) or similar. "Susceptible" might work if you bake that into a minor scenario rewrite.
 
:: But "affected" is vague... Relatives are "affected" if they change their routine to care for an ill person, however negative they'd test.
 
:: (I also instinctively avoid effect/affect because of the 'P((effect|affect)|(effect|affect))' affect/effect... ;) But not a good reason, just nice to hear it's not only me trying to dodge this in everyday writing!)  [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.215|172.70.162.215]] 08:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 
:::This is why I proposed ӕffect as a compromise position - but mostly to annoy a friend who studies old english.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.50|162.158.91.50]] 13:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 
::::What was thér response? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.227|172.70.85.227]] 10:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 
::::They seemed unrædy to hear it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.50|162.158.91.50]] 13:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 
:: How about "Has condition" and "Doesn't have condition"?  It's not too linguistically confusing and aligns with normal parlance -- "I have a cold".  The table isn't trying to avoid a multi-word solution, as the headers are two-word phrases.  [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.158|172.69.68.158]] 23:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 
This is the second comic to reference Bayes' Theorem: https://xkcd.com/1236/.  Is that worth mentioning in the explanation?  I'm a newbie![[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191|172.70.34.191]] 21:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 
Actually, I forgot this one too: https://xkcd.com/1132/ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191|172.70.34.191]] 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: