You can compare whatever you want. But there are good comparisons and there are bad comparisons, and this is the latter.
Also we’re talking about cars that roll off an assembly line, not people. If the death rate is higher in people, do you blame the people? Another bad comparison.
What are you even talking about? Failure rates in manufacturing are governed by the same statistics rules as human errors or deaths for sufficiently large n. And 35,000 is sufficiently large n .
Jesus Christ. You really need this spelled out, don’t you?
Machines coming off an assembly line are almost completely identical, which you cannot say for humans.
We can fix errors in vehicle manufacturing very easily, which you also cannot say for humans.
You’re comparing death rates in humans across locales, which is looking for environmental variables and not biological ones. When comparing death rates among different vehicles, you’re looking for manufacturing errors.
This is a bad comparison and statistically insignificant.
1 works against your point, 2 is irrelevant or you need to expand on what you mean, 3 is misunderstanding what is being compared when you compare samples of two different pops. a population in one environment being compared to a population in another, the difference is the environment. a car population of one make being compared with a car population of a different make, the thing being compared is the manufacturing and design.
you appear to be working from a conclusion backwards that this is an invalid comparison and grasping for why.
a population in one environment being compared to a population in another, the difference is the environment. a car population of one make being compared with a car population of a different make, the thing being compared is the manufacturing and design.
you appear to be working from a conclusion backwards that this is an invalid comparison and grasping for why.
Buddy, you just explained exactly why it’s a bad analogy…
At this point I don’t know how to be anymore clear, and I’m done trying. If you still don’t understand, that’s on you.
If machines coming off an assembly line are virtually identical, then a smaller sample size can be used due to reduced variation. Larger samples are required to control for variation.
I think you guys are just blowing smoke for kicks at this point. Your stats reasoning doesn’t display even a superficial understanding.
You’re just intentionally ignoring #2, ignoring the fact that we were comparing machines vs. humans, and arguing in bad faith because you know you’re wrong, and you’re bad at your job and trying to save face. We’re done here.
You can compare whatever you want. But there are good comparisons and there are bad comparisons, and this is the latter.
Also we’re talking about cars that roll off an assembly line, not people. If the death rate is higher in people, do you blame the people? Another bad comparison.
What are you even talking about? Failure rates in manufacturing are governed by the same statistics rules as human errors or deaths for sufficiently large n. And 35,000 is sufficiently large n .
It’s a valid comparison and statistically sound.
Jesus Christ. You really need this spelled out, don’t you?
Machines coming off an assembly line are almost completely identical, which you cannot say for humans.
We can fix errors in vehicle manufacturing very easily, which you also cannot say for humans.
You’re comparing death rates in humans across locales, which is looking for environmental variables and not biological ones. When comparing death rates among different vehicles, you’re looking for manufacturing errors.
This is a bad comparison and statistically insignificant.
1 works against your point, 2 is irrelevant or you need to expand on what you mean, 3 is misunderstanding what is being compared when you compare samples of two different pops. a population in one environment being compared to a population in another, the difference is the environment. a car population of one make being compared with a car population of a different make, the thing being compared is the manufacturing and design.
you appear to be working from a conclusion backwards that this is an invalid comparison and grasping for why.
Buddy, you just explained exactly why it’s a bad analogy…
At this point I don’t know how to be anymore clear, and I’m done trying. If you still don’t understand, that’s on you.
If machines coming off an assembly line are virtually identical, then a smaller sample size can be used due to reduced variation. Larger samples are required to control for variation.
I think you guys are just blowing smoke for kicks at this point. Your stats reasoning doesn’t display even a superficial understanding.
You’re just intentionally ignoring #2, ignoring the fact that we were comparing machines vs. humans, and arguing in bad faith because you know you’re wrong, and you’re bad at your job and trying to save face. We’re done here.