PandaSwim

This is a blog about whatever I feel like reblogging. Mostly One Piece, Supernatural, Doctor Who, and other stuff. Some of it's personal, most of it's not. I'll try not to piss people off? Ok? Alright, sounds great.

[radondoran]

Visit Original Link

[orestian-deactivated20180120]

[cimuran]

[bouldr-art]

You know how this ends…

[dv-ptl]

[mysharona1987]

A reminder: Women can be every bit as horrible, creepy and misogynistic as any sad loner stalker dude on Reddit can be.  

Christ. I have male friends. They’d never even think or say out loud such horrific, monstrous things. Not once.

Misogyny is not limited to gender, you understand.  

[hackedmotionart]

[iguanamouth]

I'd like to make a request. An Iron Maiden... but with hands instead of spikes. Think about it.

why even stop there lets keep this awful finger train goin

[iguanamouth]

[cowbeing]

@catamantics

[thatssothreeeyedraven-deactivat]

[micdotcom]

Piers Morgan fell right into JK Rowling’s self-drag trap

[characterlimit]

I can’t believe Piers Morgan is fucking dead

[mk2501-deactivated20200928]

“Monty Python and the Holy Grail’s censor negotiation letter from 1974“

[atomicephemera-deactivated20170]

[dieselpunkisdad]

Survivorship Bias

I have posted about survivorship bias and how it affects your career choices: how a Hollywood actor giving the classic “follow your dreams and never give up” line is bad advice and is pure survivorship bias at work.

When I read up on the wikipedia page, I encountered an interesting story:

During WWII the US  Air Force wanted to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. The Center for Naval Analyses ran a research on where bombers tend to get hit with the explicit aim of enforcing the parts of the airframe that is most likely to receive incoming fire. This is what they came up with:

So, they said: the red dots are where bombers are most likely to be hit, so put some more armor on those parts to make the bombers more resilient. That looked like a logical conclusion, until Abraham Wald - a mathematician - started asking questions: 

- how did you obtain that data? - well, we looked at every bomber returning from a raid, marked the damages on the airframe on a sheet and collected the sheets from all allied air bases over months. What you see is the result of hundreds of those sheets. - and your conclusion? - well, the red dots are where the bombers were hit. So let’s enforce those parts because they are most exposed to enemy fire.  - no. the red dots are where a bomber can take a hit and return. The bombers that took a hit to the ailerons, the engines or the cockpit never made it home. That’s why they are absent in your data. The blank spots are exactly where you have to enforce the airframe, so those bombers can return.

This is survivorship bias. You only see a subset of the outcomes. The ones that made it far enough to be visible. Look out for absence of data. Sometimes they tell a story of their own.

BTW: You can see the result of this research today. This is the exact reason the A-10 has the pilot sitting in a titanium armor bathtub and has it’s engines placed high and shielded.

[white-aster]

If you want to think scientifically, ALWAYS ask what data was included in a conclusion. And ALWAYS ask what data was EXCLUDED when making a conclusion. If they have excluded information because “it doesn’t exist” or “it was too hard to get” or “it was good data but was provided by people we don’t like”, then that is a BIG RED FLAG that the analysis was flawed.

[meret118]

Another example of this is originally doctor’s thought smoking protected people from developing dementia until someone pointed out it was because smokers didn’t usually live long enough to get the most common forms.

[cassiebones]

Anna Kendrick is very important.

[wednesdays-in-paris-at-cafes]

God bless this woman.

[lesbianfreyja]

the phrase “curiosity killed the cat” is actually not the full phrase it actually is “curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back” so don’t let anyone tell you not to be a curious little baby okay go and be interested in the world uwu

[violet-nomad-deactivated2018120]

See also:

Blood is thicker than water The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.

Meaning that relationships formed by choice are stronger than those formed by birth.

[espurr-roba]

Let’s not forget that “Jack of all trades, master of none” ends with “But better than a master of one.”

It means that being equally good/average at everything is much better than being perfect at one thing and sucking at everything else. So don’t worry if you’re not perfect at something you do! Being okay is better!

[theshantiestme11ophone]

These made me feel better

[thelifeofatubaplayer]

Also, “great minds think alike” ends with “but fools rarely differ”

It goes to show that conformity isn’t always a good thing. And that just because more than one person has the same idea, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.

[eattheacid]

what the fuck why haven’t i heard the full version to any of these 

[terror-billie]

“Birds of a feather flock together” ends with “until the cat comes.”

It’s actually a warning about fair-weather friends, not an assessment of how complementary people are.

[james-winston]

[thesnicketfile]

Lemony Snicket's Advice on Writing a Nice Thank-You Note

1. Do not start with the thank you.

2. Start with any other sentence. If you first say, “Thank you for the nice sweater,” you can’t imagine what to write next. Say, “It was so wonderful to come home from school to find this nice sweater. Thank you for thinking of me on Arbor Day.”

3. Then you’re done.

I recommend learning how to write a very good thank-you note. A child who can write a nice thank-you note can turn into a cocaine dealer five years later and be remembered as the child who wrote nice thank-you notes.