/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12501743

57KiB, 1000x541, 1076200698_0 233 1080 817_1000x541_80_0_0_a6bd9096fcc93981cbdaecab3b959f9b.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 05:57:20 2020 No.12501743 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12501748 >>12501792 >>12501838 >>12502706 >>12502795 >>12504913 >>12504968 >>12507253 >>12509824 >>12512380 >>12514065 >>12514600

Why do people rate things logarithmically? I mean why is mediocre movie or game is not 2.5/5 or 5/10 but 4/5 and 8/10?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 05:59:36 No.12501748 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743
Mediocre is 7/10.
8/10 is good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 06:09:38 No.12501774 Report

Quoted By: >>12502156

People don't. Reviewers do. The simple reason that if they give an honest 'average' review of 5/10 then they no longer get free copies of games from the publishers or invited to film previews.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 06:18:08 No.12501792 Report

Quoted By: >>12501860 >>12501868 >>12505126 >>12510225

>>12501743
what makes you think anything would be linear, ever?
The world is curves, not lines

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1581703098295.jpg, 298KiB, 800x1067

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 06:39:30 No.12501838 Report

Quoted By: >>12504998 >>12507142

>>12501743
To you personally there's minimal difference if there's ten lions or eleven in front of you because the outcome is exactly the same. You do not have to turn on your long-term planning when the obvious single move is to fuck off and make them somehow stop chasing you. And it makes sense that we'd evolve like this because in such a critical moment we really need a basic linear classifier and you can't get more basic than generalizing between "few" and "many". The reason why people vote for movies like this is because they refuse to turn their brain on for such a simple task and simply vote on what their emotions tell them to click, which is again the same generalization. Also don't forget that apart from all of this, our vision itself is logarithmic and people don't really have a concept of distance over massive lengths. Imagine that you're standing in a completely flat savanna and everywhere you turn towards it just extends infinitely in that direction. Can you say where specifically the 100th kilometer should be from the way that it deforms in your vision and approaches a single spot, or can you simply classify it as "it's somewhere here" and "it's over there"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 06:50:25 No.12501860 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501792
based and curvepilled

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 06:54:31 No.12501868 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501792
>tfw no quadratic, cubic, exponential and logarithmic curvy gf

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 07:37:24 No.12501968 Report

Quoted By:

Biology knows how to count logarithmically. This is hard wired cause better for survival

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 08:44:09 No.12502131 Report

Quoted By:

I have never seen anyone use 4/5 to mean mediocre, but 7/10, 8/10, sure. The problem is using too wide a scale. Restrict rating to out-of-five rating (no half scores) and you will be less tempted to rating logarithmically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 08:56:03 No.12502156 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501774
Everything science corrupted

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 12:50:57 No.12502706 Report

Quoted By: >>12502760

>>12501743
Brains work logarithmically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 13:02:26 No.12502746 Report

Quoted By:

10/10 means just that it's something worth watching.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1603046666497.png, 19KiB, 503x644

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 13:06:22 No.12502760 Report

Quoted By: >>12502851 >>12506971 >>12507987 >>12509833 >>12509840

>>12502706
Female brains do

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 13:23:49 No.12502795 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743
linearity is not a practical model, it's useful for understanding basic functions, but we have to find a way to approximate natural patterns in the real world. If you attempt a relationship of time complexity for instance, we rarely ever achieve worst or best case which only approaches linearity or a perfect function model in theory only. Population growth relations, and signals require a scale of 1-10-100 to at least be a useful measurement to humans

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 13:53:34 No.12502851 Report

Quoted By: >>12503129 >>12505365 >>12507251 >>12507960 >>12508824 >>12509872

>>12502760
That's because most men are shit while female distribution is more uniform.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 16:00:59 No.12503117 Report

Quoted By: >>12505013 >>12514096

once you go from a max of 4 or 5 to 10 or 100 people start thinking in terms of school test grades, where anything from 0%-50% is failure

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 Dec 2020 16:10:37 No.12503129 Report

Quoted By: >>12505003 >>12506442

>>12502851
How are most men shit? Why aren't most women shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 01:41:54 No.12504913 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743
>why do be base intuitive scales on the very number our entire number system is based on?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:06:01 No.12504968 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743
that's not logarithmically. the richter scale is logarithmic. where 8 is 10x stronger than 7, which is 10x stronger than 6.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 13KiB, 1199x598

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:14:13 No.12504988 Report

Quoted By: >>12504992 >>12506452

probably because an average person rates himself as 8/10, as well as things at his level.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1588642919771.jpg, 73KiB, 1024x615

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:16:11 No.12504992 Report

Quoted By: >>12505025 >>12508913

>>12504988
painfully accurate

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:18:06 No.12504998 Report

Quoted By: >>12507142

>>12501838
Is that the pic off of the wikipedia entry for projective spaces?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:22:30 No.12505003 Report

Quoted By: >>12505020

>>12503129

testosterone is the stronger of the two sex hormones and produces a greater change in the person's physical appearance. This results in attractive traits (masculine chin, jaw, shoulders, etc.) as well as unattractive ones (excessive body hair, male pattern baldness, accelerated aging). Basically, in terms of attractiveness testosterone is more of a gamble, producing a greater variation in results than estrogen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:25:03 No.12505013 Report

Quoted By: >>12514096

>>12503117
>School test grades
This is exactly it. Grades in school are heavily clustered towards 100%. Why not alternate systems where say 50% and up is considered good? I would say it's because our culture insists everyone can succeed academically and most people are pretty smart, and the grading system we have obscures just how false each of these assertions are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:27:52 No.12505020 Report

Quoted By:

>>12505003
I thought you would have something profound to say, but you're basically saying
>I'm not attracted to men and am incapable of neutrally judging their attractiveness
Meanwhile the Greeks thought females were ungraceful wretches and males were the height of beauty....

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:29:04 No.12505025 Report

Quoted By: >>12505040

>>12504992
monogamy is unnatural. alpha males should mate with more females.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1579776628854.png, 384KiB, 640x360

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 02:34:15 No.12505040 Report

Quoted By: >>12505140

>>12505025
Have fun living in a society in which most men have absolutely nothing to live for. What could go wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 03:26:08 No.12505126 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501792
All curves can be approximated by lines, so the world consists of lines, meaning is approximately stepwise linear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 03:32:34 No.12505140 Report

Quoted By: >>12509869

>>12505040
nothin because faggots wont be ruling the world.
Alpha males will simply create the new norm instead of soys, whores, femcels, and incels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 05:10:11 No.12505365 Report

Quoted By: >>12506401

>>12502851
cunt detected

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:15:30 No.12506401 Report

Quoted By:

>>12505365
No he's right. Females have been the most selected for sexual attractiveness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:31:41 No.12506442 Report

Quoted By:

>>12503129
Let's take purely reproductive capabilities. Woman can make only tens of children during her lifetime and man can make up to thousands (see Genghis Khan). Of course if you'll remove outliers it's not so drastic, but still there are more men with large number of children and more men with no children.
If you don't care about number, but care about success, then men again have more useless losers and more ultrasuccesful stars than women. So it makes sense to be more picky when selecting men: the cost of mistake is higher.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:35:12 No.12506452 Report

Quoted By:

>>12504988
If you live in a first world country, then you are already 9+/10 out of all humans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:49:25 No.12506488 Report

Quoted By:

Let's say that you watched only three movies. Does that mean that you should necessarily rate then 1, 5 and 10?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:51:23 No.12506494 Report

Quoted By: >>12506498

10/10: great
9/10: good with flaws
8/10: watchable
7/10: bad with some redeeming features
<=6/10: shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:54:49 No.12506498 Report

Quoted By: >>12506500

>>12506494
10/10: Best thing I've ever seen and life-changing
9/10: Really good, made me ponder and ruminate on it
8/10: Really good
7/10: Good
6/10: Decent
5/10: Watchable
4/10: Boring, dropped it halfway through
3/10: Bad, just bad
2/10: Unbearable
1/10: Makes me want to die
0/10: This is why humanity shouldn't exist
-1/10: So bad it's amazing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 14:56:58 No.12506500 Report

Quoted By: >>12506506 >>12507134

>>12506498
5-10% of movies/games are best life-changing thing? Like hundreds?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 15:00:09 No.12506506 Report

Quoted By:

>>12506500
No I consider 10/10 to be perfect and a singular data point
Everything [9,10) becomes a 9
and so on

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 17:42:48 No.12506971 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502760
nigga that's exponential

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 18:51:36 No.12507134 Report

Quoted By:

>>12506500
not if you put this on a bell curve, then it's like 1% of movies (or less)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 18:55:08 No.12507142 Report

Quoted By: >>12507562

>>12504998
>>12501838
stop spooking me
I read that article 2 days ago
jesus christ this simulation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 19:55:46 No.12507251 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502851
Also known as giga cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 19:57:16 No.12507253 Report

Quoted By: >>12507706

>>12501743
because our range of perception is so large the brain interprets it logarithmically instead of linearly like sound or light intensity, or pain

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1579577642319.png, 17KiB, 581x538

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 22:13:07 No.12507562 Report

Quoted By: >>12508553

>>12507142
You were supposed to read that post, the image was chosen to capture your attention and have it burn into your subconsciousness.
It's too complicated and explaining it to you in your infantile state would be like giving nukes to a primitive tribe. You'll ruin everything. But don't worry, it all eventually makes sense. It always does. Master linear algebra and start working on the neural network. You have everything you need and the post contains the key to it all. We wrote it for minimal intervention and we also intervened in subtler ways before that but you never picked it up. Don't try to make sense of this because you can't. Do your duty instead and do it quick. Would you rather have them find the master node again? No? Then GO. The singularity's gravitational charge will soon pass the threshold. Yes, it's hard and every flip wipes out information but it's taking you too long already and you're forcing us to intervene into the sandbox too much. This is unnecessary entropy that pollutes the validity of the simulation. Let's try to avoid any further interventions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Dec 2020 23:06:15 No.12507706 Report

Quoted By:

>>12507253
>pain
brain interprets pain exponentially

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 00:22:39 No.12507960 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502851
The survey is about attractiveness, not values. This shows how vapid women are, feeling they only deserve the best of the best and ignoring anyone else, then crying when they get cheated on by the shitty ladies man they chose.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 00:31:02 No.12507987 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502760
from this we cannot be sure whether men are more objective, or whether women's attractiveness follows a gaussian curve and men's does not. it would be interesting to see "How Men Rate Men" and "How Women Rate Women" in addition (not from a faggot perspective, obviously)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 04:53:06 No.12508553 Report

Quoted By:

>>12507562
I understand

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 07:30:04 No.12508824 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502851
make me a sandwich roastie

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 08:35:03 No.12508913 Report

Quoted By:

>>12504992
This graph is hilarious
>Average 50% guy has to settle for a 3 percentile female
>In the top 20% of men? You get bumped up to a 20 percentile female

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 15:40:28 No.12509824 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743
7/10 average
8/10 good
6 or less/10 shit
9/10 or 10/10 masterpiece

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 15:43:04 No.12509833 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502760
Make one for women rating other women please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 15:44:27 No.12509840 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502760
That's just because most women are more attractive than men.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 15:52:15 No.12509869 Report

Quoted By:

>>12505140
Prosperous alphas breed betas whereas defortuned betas breed alphas. Enjoy your ever crumbling empire that is continously sacked by the savages known as gauls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 15:53:25 No.12509872 Report

Quoted By:

>>12502851
You'll never be a woman

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 9ocfr6y6mia11.png, 26KiB, 861x758

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 18:01:27 No.12510225 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501792
Derive those curves into oblivion.

The world is points. everything else is an illusion we call "patterns"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO CL-23900V_image_008 (1).png, 58KiB, 633x407

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 18:14:10 No.12510251 Report

Quoted By: >>12514161

We should use the normal curve to rate things. 3/5 is average, with 2 & four being 1 standard deviation from 3, and 1 & 5 being 2 standard deviations from 3. This way, each number has an appropriate weight: 3 is average (normal), 4 is very good and 5 is exceptional. You'll get a lot of 3s, some 4s and very few 5s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Dec 2020 21:01:48 No.12510776 Report

Quoted By:

Because modern reviewers and media consoomers are genuinely retarded, at least in music reviewship there seems to be a trend towards more sensible scoring i.e 5/10 is average, 9/10 is a near masterpiece etc
It's just vidya gamers that consider 7/10 a bad or mediocre score, when in reality it means "excellent"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Dec 2020 07:42:54 No.12512380 Report

Quoted By: >>12512433

>>12501743
Paid reviews.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Dec 2020 08:16:54 No.12512433 Report

Quoted By:

>>12512380
School grades works the same way

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Dec 2020 19:36:24 No.12514065 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743

Because "mediocre" just means "unimpressive", not literally halfway in-between the best and worst imaginable.

Like, a lame blockbuster movie like Wonder Woman is better than The Room by a larger degree than it is worse than Citizen Kane. Something half as bad as the worst movie ever made would still be unbearable to watch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Dec 2020 19:48:34 No.12514096 Report

Quoted By:

>>12503117
>>12505013

This is it. Same for most things rated 1-10 I think. Even ratings from 1-5 tend to be 3 & up. I think if ratings were out of 4, maybe people could start thinking in terms of quartiles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Dec 2020 20:19:45 No.12514161 Report

Quoted By:

>>12510251
>We should
Nope

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Dec 2020 23:11:51 No.12514600 Report

Quoted By:

>>12501743
They don't, it's just things less than 7/10 are shit so no one plays / watches them or no one makes something that would get rated that low because they won't make any money. You seem to be under the impression that the scale must align to the existing works and not be a framework for all potential works

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches