I usually just cherry pick the data that makes me happy. Works every time.
It’s missing the last two panels where he pulls out a knife and carves up the data
That’s how you get your paper published. Find the stat with the happiest (see, statistically relevant) outcome, publish based solely on that.
I’ll take a no any day over an " I dunno,maybe, probably not, your methods might have been totally backwards and there’s not enough funding to ever do this again the right way." that’s often what data seems to whisper to me.
My personal favourite is “are you sure that’s in the design specs?”
But is it DATA or DATA?
Data should move to a country that lacks the phonemes to properly pronounce your name (looking at you Spanish and your piddly 5 vowel sounds). You end up just answering to anything that sounds similar.
The first one
just happened to me today, still recovering
NO is good scientific information! Now you just take your old grant application, insert NOT and NO throughout as necessary, and reapply!
I hate it when I realize I failed to understand something (especially if I was very certain that I did). Making the possibilities set slightly smaller offers little consolation.
Otherwise I agree.
Well, now you have succeeded in understanding the limits of your previous comprehension, and that’s the rung you need to stand on to see further. Onward and upward, friend.
Incorrect, the smile should be beaming in the last panel. One small step for mankind and all that jazz. :-D
Jokes on you, I was testing my null hypothesis
