no, YOU'RE off topic
- Member for
- 4 years 1 week
- View recent blog entries
|7 hours 53 min ago||well played||
|21 hours 39 min ago||teenage daughter?||
Get her to watch this: http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/20/7862133/run-the-jewels-killer-mike-elp-love-advice-video
|1 day 21 hours ago||That is, zero sense if you||
That is, zero sense if you think about it as an investment in human capital. If you think of your education as a "consumption good", and that he truly enjoys the experience that much more, that's a different matter.
|1 day 21 hours ago||Labor economics says "no"||
There is a lot of serious research in labor economics which suggests that, for most students, the whole undergraduate degree is not even worth that much. Doubling the cost makes zero sense.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||Wow, this looks like shit||
Sorry, I like Hackett and all, but this watch looks like crap.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Center not study||
This is not for one study. Faculty salaries, grad student support, organizing/hosting conferences (expensive), and then actual research support (also expensive).
Great scholars at that center. Well deserved.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Simply beautiful.||
Simply beautiful. You're the man.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||reference||
Can't figure out if that's a reference W's big brown beaver or to Southbound pachyderm
|8 weeks 5 days ago||saxophone|
|9 weeks 3 days ago||deleted||
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Won't reach the goal||
The website says:This campaign launched on Nov 7, 2014 and will only receive funds if it reaches its goal by Feb 11, 2015."
The goal is $1,000,000...
|10 weeks 20 hours ago||"The Evolution of||
"The Evolution of Cooperation" (with William Hamilton) Science, 211, (27 March 1981)
“Evolution of Cooperation without Reciprocity”with Rick L.Riolo and Michael D.
Cohen, Nature, 414 (22 November 2001), pp. 441-443.
|10 weeks 23 hours ago||Very rare||
He's probably one of the top 4 or 5 most cited political scientists and he has published in outlets like Science, I think. So that's why.
|10 weeks 1 day ago||Bob is great||
|13 weeks 4 days ago||I sure hope so||
I sure hope so
|16 weeks 4 days ago||Gambler's fallacy||
Look it up
|17 weeks 5 days ago||Well played||
Well player, sir
|19 weeks 1 day ago||stats.ncaa.org||
Probably has what you're looking for.
Look for football and game by game results.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Bayesian updating||
Starting odds of victory at 50% for every game doesn't strike me as particularly reasonable. Could you build in some bayesian updating to your model, perhaps using Vegas odds as your prior?
|24 weeks 3 hours ago||yes, that's right. One||
yes, that's right.
One way to think about this is that the initial regression results were estimated using the smallest bins possible (i.e., one bin per observation). By binning, we artificially boost the R^2, and also introduce some bias in the regression estimates. This suggests that the first model should be the one we use to predict, not the last model (though we probably shouldn't put too much stock in these predictions anyway).
For DG, we have:
78.564 - .5677 × 146.1 = -4.37697
|24 weeks 6 hours ago||Binning and R^2||
I don't think your binning/averaging approach works. It only compresses the data around the best fit line, which simply reduces the variance to be explained. Given the definition of R^2, it’s not surprising at all to see its value jump near 1.
If you’re worried about outliers and high leverage points, try using some form of robust regression (e.g., M-estimator). Though to be honest, I’m really not sure that would be worth it: to my eye, the plots don’t seem to reveal any huge outlier issues.
Overall, I would say a .31 R^2 is actually pretty impressive given that this is just a bivariate relationship.
|1 year 1 day ago||Same reaction||
I don't comment often but I have to say I had the same reaction. This was a careless and insensitive post. This website is an important platform for you, and that comes with responsibility.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Slow mo is awesome||
Thanks for figuring out
|1 year 20 weeks ago||good stuff||
I even like the light dose of personal anecdotes. Thanks!
|1 year 24 weeks ago||thanks dude||
|1 year 29 weeks ago||I like this feature||
I really like this new feature. Keep it coming!
|1 year 32 weeks ago||great read||
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Sexist!||
Ha! I was sooo ready to call you a dumb sexist f**k. But yeah, this is 100% right...
|1 year 35 weeks ago||wow!||
|2 years 12 weeks ago||delete||