Talk:1781: Artifacts - Revision history

CalibansCreations at 07:23, 7 October 2024

2024-10-07T07:23:56Z

141.101.98.76 at 02:32, 6 January 2017

2017-01-06T02:32:20Z

Davidy22 at 23:49, 5 January 2017

2017-01-05T23:49:51Z

AgentMuffin at 20:22, 5 January 2017

2017-01-05T20:22:42Z

Jacky720 at 16:07, 5 January 2017

2017-01-05T16:07:29Z

162.158.134.106 at 10:50, 5 January 2017

2017-01-05T10:50:40Z

162.158.134.106 at 10:42, 5 January 2017

2017-01-05T10:42:21Z

162.158.75.76: /* Artifacts versus artifacts (artefacts?) */

2017-01-05T10:22:06Z

‎Artifacts versus artifacts (artefacts?)

108.162.219.244: ~~~~

2017-01-04T23:15:04Z

~~~~

108.162.241.52: /* Artifacts versus artifacts */ new section

2017-01-04T23:01:26Z

‎Artifacts versus artifacts: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:23, 7 October 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:

	I also thought the comic was about JPEG Compression Artifacts! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.76\|141.101.98.76]] 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)		I also thought the comic was about JPEG Compression Artifacts! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.76\|141.101.98.76]] 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	top 10 most devastating roasts [[User:CalibansCreations\|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">Caliban</span>''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations\|talk]]) 07:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:32, 6 January 2017
Line 39:		Line 39:

	To whoever edited the title, topic OP here: artefact is the Brit spelling, artifact the North American one. As for me, I'm a Canada-Brit dual citizen who uses S's a lot ("stigmatised") but will miss the occasional Brittier spelling. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76\|162.158.75.76]] 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)		To whoever edited the title, topic OP here: artefact is the Brit spelling, artifact the North American one. As for me, I'm a Canada-Brit dual citizen who uses S's a lot ("stigmatised") but will miss the occasional Brittier spelling. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76\|162.158.75.76]] 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	I also thought the comic was about JPEG Compression Artifacts! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.76\|141.101.98.76]] 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 One possibility for the alt-text scenario:
-Consider an n-dimensional dataset consisting of n points.  Arbitrarily assign total orders to the data points and the dimensions.  For the most part, every measurement is drawn from a standard Gaussian with mean 0 stdev 1, except the ith dimension of the ith point has a value of n.
+Consider an n-dimensional dataset consisting of n points.  Arbitrarily assign total orders to the data points and the dimensions.  For the most part, every measurement is drawn from a standard Gaussian with mean 0 stdev 1, except the ith dimension of the ith point has a value of n.  {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.244}}
 : Though this is really fascinating idea, I think that it is not completely correct. You would need to define outliers in each dimension separately. If you's use n-dimensional distance, the points will be all roughly equidistant from the mean. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106|162.158.134.106]] 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 : I think therefore that "One way to have a data set composed entirely of outliers would be a data set with N points, in an N-dimentional space, where each point is zero for every dimension except one, unique to itself.[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1302395/n-points-can-be-equidistant-from-each-other-only-in-dimensions-ge-n-1] All these points are equidistant from each other." should be removed from the text. In an equidistant data set, no point is an outlier.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106|162.158.134.106]] 10:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 It does look like the Full Resonance tuner sweep graph [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.238|108.162.237.238]] 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
-Why the emphasis on HAVE in the alttext instead of, say, ENTIRELY?
+Why the emphasis on HAVE in the alttext instead of, say, ENTIRELY? {{unsigned ip|108.162.212.53}}
 : I see no issue with this. The speaker is clearly focusing on the probability of the situation. If anything, I'd say that this emphasis is intended to underline the competence, or lack thereof, of the researcher, which is in line with the mocking tone previously given. Not emphasizing HAVE would more indicate the speaker is accepting of the results, but is still surprised by them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.10|162.158.2.10]] 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
-Is there also a suggestion that Indiana Jones didn't properly handle artifacts he dealt with?
+Is there also a suggestion that Indiana Jones didn't properly handle artifacts he dealt with? {{unsigned ip|108.162.246.77}}
 : Depends... Does dropping the Holy Grail down a crevice count as "not properly"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.10|162.158.2.10]] 15:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 ::I also think that that could be a reference to him holding an artifact while running from that giant boulder. Could be. IDK. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 :Also we already know that Randall Munroe pokes fun at grammar pedants for this exact word from his comic "Data". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.208|108.162.237.208]] 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
-== Artifacts versus artifacts (artefacts?) ==
+;Artifacts versus artifacts (artefacts?)
 When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 5 January 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:

	When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52\|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)		When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52\|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	:[[File:ArtifactsWithArtifacts.png]] <span style="background:#0064de;font-size:12px;padding:4px 12px;border-radius:8px;">[[User talk:AgentMuffin\|<span style="color:#f0faff;">~AgentMuffin</span>]]</span>

	To whoever edited the title, topic OP here: artefact is the Brit spelling, artifact the North American one. As for me, I'm a Canada-Brit dual citizen who uses S's a lot ("stigmatised") but will miss the occasional Brittier spelling. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76\|162.158.75.76]] 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)		To whoever edited the title, topic OP here: artefact is the Brit spelling, artifact the North American one. As for me, I'm a Canada-Brit dual citizen who uses S's a lot ("stigmatised") but will miss the occasional Brittier spelling. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76\|162.158.75.76]] 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 5 January 2017
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: Though this is really fascinating idea, I think that it is not completely correct. You would need to define outliers in each dimension separately. If you's use n-dimensional distance, the points will be all roughly equidistant from the mean. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)		: Though this is really fascinating idea, I think that it is not completely correct. You would need to define outliers in each dimension separately. If you's use n-dimensional distance, the points will be all roughly equidistant from the mean. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
	: I think therefore that "One way to have a data set composed entirely of outliers would be a data set with N points, in an N-dimentional space, where each point is zero for every dimension except one, unique to itself.[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1302395/n-points-can-be-equidistant-from-each-other-only-in-dimensions-ge-n-1] All these points are equidistant from each other." should be removed from the text. In an equidistant data set, no point is an outlier.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)		: I think therefore that "One way to have a data set composed entirely of outliers would be a data set with N points, in an N-dimentional space, where each point is zero for every dimension except one, unique to itself.[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1302395/n-points-can-be-equidistant-from-each-other-only-in-dimensions-ge-n-1] All these points are equidistant from each other." should be removed from the text. In an equidistant data set, no point is an outlier.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
		+	::Good point. I myself noted that in 1 Dimension, this is completely untrue, so I added a -1 point as well. Just saying, that was me. [[User:Jacky720\|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720\|contribs]]) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:50, 5 January 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Consider an n-dimensional dataset consisting of n points. Arbitrarily assign total orders to the data points and the dimensions. For the most part, every measurement is drawn from a standard Gaussian with mean 0 stdev 1, except the ith dimension of the ith point has a value of n.		Consider an n-dimensional dataset consisting of n points. Arbitrarily assign total orders to the data points and the dimensions. For the most part, every measurement is drawn from a standard Gaussian with mean 0 stdev 1, except the ith dimension of the ith point has a value of n.
	: Though this is really fascinating idea, I think that it is not completely correct. You would need to define outliers in each dimension separately. If you's use n-dimensional distance, the points will be all roughly equidistant from the mean. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)		: Though this is really fascinating idea, I think that it is not completely correct. You would need to define outliers in each dimension separately. If you's use n-dimensional distance, the points will be all roughly equidistant from the mean. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
		+	: I think therefore that "One way to have a data set composed entirely of outliers would be a data set with N points, in an N-dimentional space, where each point is zero for every dimension except one, unique to itself.[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1302395/n-points-can-be-equidistant-from-each-other-only-in-dimensions-ge-n-1] All these points are equidistant from each other." should be removed from the text. In an equidistant data set, no point is an outlier.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 5 January 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:
	One possibility for the alt-text scenario:		One possibility for the alt-text scenario:
	Consider an n-dimensional dataset consisting of n points. Arbitrarily assign total orders to the data points and the dimensions. For the most part, every measurement is drawn from a standard Gaussian with mean 0 stdev 1, except the ith dimension of the ith point has a value of n.		Consider an n-dimensional dataset consisting of n points. Arbitrarily assign total orders to the data points and the dimensions. For the most part, every measurement is drawn from a standard Gaussian with mean 0 stdev 1, except the ith dimension of the ith point has a value of n.
		+	: Though this is really fascinating idea, I think that it is not completely correct. You would need to define outliers in each dimension separately. If you's use n-dimensional distance, the points will be all roughly equidistant from the mean. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.106\|162.158.134.106]] 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 5 January 2017
Line 32:		Line 32:

	When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52\|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)		When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52\|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	To whoever edited the title, topic OP here: artefact is the Brit spelling, artifact the North American one. As for me, I'm a Canada-Brit dual citizen who uses S's a lot ("stigmatised") but will miss the occasional Brittier spelling. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.76\|162.158.75.76]] 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 Wouldnt data entirely made of outliners just be ..regular measurements that just yields different results?[[User:West|&#35;GoWest-West]] ([[User talk:West|talk]]) 13:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 The graph that Cueball is showing looks like the graph from the EM drive paper. Maybe Randall is poking fun at the EM drive with this comic? [[User:Cgplover|Cgplover]] ([[User talk:Cgplover|talk]]) 14:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 25: / Line 29: @@
 :Also we already know that Randall Munroe pokes fun at grammar pedants for this exact word from his comic "Data". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.208|108.162.237.208]] 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
-== Artifacts versus artifacts ==
+== Artifacts versus artifacts (artefacts?) ==
 When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 4 January 2017
Line 24:		Line 24:
	:Working in a field that uses lots of data and often uses the word "data" in formal publications, I concur with others that it is commonly and acceptably used as a "group noun" which is treated as singular. While datum is sometimes used as a technical term (I most often see it referencing a fixed line or plane used as a reference in geometry or Computer Aided Design), it is almost never used as the singular for "data." Whenever it begins to be tempting to treat it as plural and an editorial argument breaks out, I often recommend changing to "data point" or "data set" or similar for clarity. My point is that a grammatical debate here is pedantic, moot, and unrelated to the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.208\|108.162.237.208]] 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)		:Working in a field that uses lots of data and often uses the word "data" in formal publications, I concur with others that it is commonly and acceptably used as a "group noun" which is treated as singular. While datum is sometimes used as a technical term (I most often see it referencing a fixed line or plane used as a reference in geometry or Computer Aided Design), it is almost never used as the singular for "data." Whenever it begins to be tempting to treat it as plural and an editorial argument breaks out, I often recommend changing to "data point" or "data set" or similar for clarity. My point is that a grammatical debate here is pedantic, moot, and unrelated to the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.208\|108.162.237.208]] 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
	:Also we already know that Randall Munroe pokes fun at grammar pedants for this exact word from his comic "Data". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.208\|108.162.237.208]] 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)		:Also we already know that Randall Munroe pokes fun at grammar pedants for this exact word from his comic "Data". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.208\|108.162.237.208]] 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Artifacts versus artifacts ==
		+
		+	When I first read this I thought it was referencing image compression artifacts. Like he has a chunk of visual aid onscreen but it's all blocky and blurry and stuff. All the statistics stuff mentioned here didn't even cross my mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.52\|108.162.241.52]] 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)