Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I know all of that, but you always should reference any manipulation in any document; that's Degree 101 - If you change anything, you have to reference the change.

As an aside, you do not have to round but it is good practice. I have a client who wanted measurements to a nanometer.  It was superfluous by a factor of 8 so it wasn't needed to be rounded.  But still, you have to reference that you didn't round, or did round and how.  

Rounding isn't manipulation, and the notation I described above explicitly tells the reader the accuracy.

Very often you do have to round - let's say you surveyed 99 people and 33 chose A, 33 B, and 33 C. Express that as a decimal percentage without rounding... Or any calculation using pi or e. Or any calculation at all that results in an irrational number. Also no measurement is 100% exact so there's always going to be some rounding going on. You're asking for a level of spelling things out that's only usually resorted to when really needed, which it isn't here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Rounding isn't manipulation, and the notation I described above explicitly tells the reader the accuracy.

Very often you do have to round - let's say you surveyed 99 people and 33 chose A, 33 B, and 33 C. Express that as a decimal percentage without rounding... Or any calculation using pi or e. Or any calculation at all that results in an irrational number. Also no measurement is 100% exact so there's always going to be some rounding going on. You're asking for a level of spelling things out that's only usually resorted to when really needed, which it isn't here.

Your argument is largely a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rollover said:

Your argument is largely a red herring.

Why? My argument is that there's nothing odd or suspicious at all about the numbers, they're likely just being reported using very ordinary and routine terminology and methods for writing numbers down.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Why? My argument is that there's nothing odd or suspicious at all about the numbers, they're likely just being reported using very ordinary and routine terminology and methods for writing numbers down.

Because the sample was large enough 1628 people. It could be rounded intentionally and misrepresent the end product.

Edited by rollover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rollover said:

Because the sample was large enough 1628 people. It could be rounded intentionally and misrepresent the end product.

If that's a concern the first question to ask is whether or not YouGov always use the same formatting for expressing their percentage results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riedquat said:

Rounding isn't manipulation, and the notation I described above explicitly tells the reader the accuracy.

Very often you do have to round - let's say you surveyed 99 people and 33 chose A, 33 B, and 33 C. Express that as a decimal percentage without rounding... Or any calculation using pi or e. Or any calculation at all that results in an irrational number. Also no measurement is 100% exact so there's always going to be some rounding going on. You're asking for a level of spelling things out that's only usually resorted to when really needed, which it isn't here.

Rounding is manipulating a figure, as it has changed, that is Math 101.

Very often you do have to round, I don't believe I've said differently.  I am saying it's not necessary to round, you do not have to.  I work with complex algorithms and always have to state how I got to certain figures, including if I rounded or not, in any part of the process.  If I wrote numbers in any module at a degree course and didn't state how I came to them, including rounding, you'd lose marks.  You have to be specific when presenting numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Very often you do have to round, I don't believe I've said differently.  I am saying it's not necessary to round, you do not have to. "

Make your mind up which it is.

Every time you quote a non-integer figure you'll have almost certainly rounded. So I presume from that you say "I've rounded to 2 decimal places" (if that's what you're rounding to) every time you quote a number like, e.g. 5.21. Even though writing it to two decimal places informs the reader that that's what you've done.

What I'd expect in a scientific paper is an estimate of the uncertainty, including the workings as to why the uncertainty is what it is (e.g. 5.21 +/- 0.04, and I wouldn't be very impressed if you said 5.21 +/- 10, the accuracy quoted being inappropriate for the level of uncertainty). That's not the same thing though. There are times when it's appropriate to spell out what you've rounded - if something could reasonably be interpreted as being fundamentally integer when it isn't (which isn't the case for percentages) for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riedquat said:

" Very often you do have to round, I don't believe I've said differently.  I am saying it's not necessary to round, you do not have to. "

Make your mind up which it is.

Every time you quote a non-integer figure you'll have almost certainly rounded. So I presume from that you say "I've rounded to 2 decimal places" (if that's what you're rounding to) every time you quote a number like, e.g. 5.21. Even though writing it to two decimal places informs the reader that that's what you've done.

What I'd expect in a scientific paper is an estimate of the uncertainty, including the workings as to why the uncertainty is what it is (e.g. 5.21 +/- 0.04, and I wouldn't be very impressed if you said 5.21 +/- 10, the accuracy quoted being inappropriate for the level of uncertainty). That's not the same thing though. There are times when it's appropriate to spell out what you've rounded - if something could reasonably be interpreted as being fundamentally integer when it isn't (which isn't the case for percentages) for example.

As an aside, you do not have to round but it is good practice

And, as you say "very often" you have to.  Which is what I am agreeing to, but there are no rules saying you have to, unless they're put in as rules e.g. "display this as a round down integer."  when I said you very often have to round, it's more in the readability of a figure.

You sometimes get so wound up in your argument, you don't make clear sense.

Rounding up the coordinates of flood plain from nanometers to centimetres is not needed, it's simply not.  However, in reporting the speed of a car, it's does make sense i.e. reporting a Focus RS 156mph, not 156.4 (although I've seen the latter figure used).  It also depends on the measuring equipment, in what it's accuracy is; I've seen RINEX data to 9 decimal places, I've seen satellite data to 1m.

If you're figure is 41.5%, do you round down or up?  I was taught you do either, but make sure you indicate the rounding.

Anyway, we both think each other is wrong, lets not drag this pout for 3 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

You sometimes get so wound up in your argument, you don't make clear sense.

You'd prefer I resorted to baby talk, over-simplifications, and talking down to people?

Quote

If you're figure is 41.5%, do you round down or up?  I was taught you do either, but make sure you indicate the rounding.

The pretty much universal standard is to round up there unless you're just truncating (in which case I would expect it to be specified). I've never heard "do either but indicate." There are situations where there's a good reason for not rounding up but rounding up at halves is much, much more common.

edit: Thinking just positives here, "round away from zero" is quite common, which of course goes in the opposite direction for negatives.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riedquat said:

You'd prefer I resorted to baby talk, over-simplifications, and talking down to people?

The pretty much universal standard is to round up there unless you're just truncating (in which case I would expect it to be specified). I've never heard "do either but indicate." There are situations where there's a good reason for not rounding up but rounding up at halves is much, much more common.

edit: Thinking just positives here, "round away from zero" is quite common, which of course goes in the opposite direction for negatives.

You don't need to simplify anything.  But sometimes you miss the woods for the trees.

I was taught, very clearly, below .5 you round down, above you round up and if it's .5 you do either and indicate.  However, at University, I was taught if you modify any numbers, you explain what you did and why.  Rounding is modifying numbers.  If something is 15.2 and you say it's 16, you explain why it is 16.  I'm not getting into an argument further about this, as it's soooooo off topic and we're not going to agree.

 

Edited by HairyOb1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone following the Vote Leave funding spat...a High Court ruling today appears to censure the Electoral Commission. Vote Leave broke spending rules but only after taking advice from the EC that later turned out to be incorrect. It takes us one step nearer to a full court investigation into the ref funding - and the extraordinary govt spending - which I think all sides agree needs to be sorted out.

The Electoral Commission let Vote Leave break EU referendum spending laws because the watchdog misinterpreted them, the High Court has ruled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been musing on the apocalyptic no-deal chaos announcements in the meeja - a splash of red headlines on the Gruniad. Have to say they're pretty underwhelming...

 - Driving licences - worst case, gonna cost a fiver (max £11) for one or two docs you can get from the PO. And we're not asking for any changes so onus is on EU to offer similar.

 - mobiles. Staying the same with the main providers. The scare stories must be about the 10-15% of other suppliers who haven't confirmed plans yet, but market pressure likely to ensure they come onboard.

 - passports - risk losing six/nine months when you renew. This change is happening regardless of Brexit...

A Home Office spokesman said: “To meet international guidelines relating to maximum passport validity, Her Majesty’s Passport Office no longer carries over any validity from a previous passport.

And I still think the govt will trade fishing rights for aviation/transport access.

On that note, I see the scallop war talks broke down yesterday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thehowler said:

For anyone following the Vote Leave funding spat...a High Court ruling today appears to censure the Electoral Commission. Vote Leave broke spending rules but only after taking advice from the EC that later turned out to be incorrect. It takes us one step nearer to a full court investigation into the ref funding - and the extraordinary govt spending - which I think all sides agree needs to be sorted out.

The Electoral Commission let Vote Leave break EU referendum spending laws because the watchdog misinterpreted them, the High Court has ruled.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45519676

 

HMG spend £9m of taxpayer money on a leaflet; and had all the trappings of state working on Remain. All of it. With HMG bells on.

I can’t adequately put into words how little fecks I give on vote leave spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GrizzlyDave said:

HMG spend £9m of taxpayer money on a leaflet; and had all the trappings of state working on Remain. All of it. With HMG bells on.

I can’t adequately put into words how little fecks I give on vote leave spending.

State spent that much as their view was to remain.

Just now, thehowler said:

I've been musing on the apocalyptic no-deal chaos announcements in the meeja - a splash of red headlines on the Gruniad. Have to say they're pretty underwhelming...

 - Driving licences - worst case, gonna cost a fiver (max £11) for one or two docs you can get from the PO. And we're not asking for any changes so onus is on EU to offer similar.

 - mobiles. Staying the same with the main providers. The scare stories must be about the 10-15% of other suppliers who haven't confirmed plans yet, but market pressure likely to ensure they come onboard.

 - passports - risk losing six/nine months when you renew. This change is happening regardless of Brexit...

A Home Office spokesman said: “To meet international guidelines relating to maximum passport validity, Her Majesty’s Passport Office no longer carries over any validity from a previous passport.

And I still think the govt will trade fishing rights for aviation/transport access.

On that note, I see the scallop war talks broke down yesterday...

I love this.  I genuinely do.  we've moved form they need us more than we need them.  They'll roll over.  We'll be much better off when we leave, to now simply saying oh well, it's only money.

Brexit will cost us all more money.  It will lose the country money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

State spent that much as their view was to remain.

I love this.  I genuinely do.  we've moved form they need us more than we need them.  They'll roll over.  We'll be much better off when we leave, to now simply saying oh well, it's only money.

Brexit will cost us all more money.  It will lose the country money.

Only because remainers are doing the negotiations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frederico said:

Only because remainers are doing the negotiations 

No, it's because we were never going to get a good deal and people fell for that nonsense.

The truth is, everything we've been told about it, has proven untrue, and it will cost us al. more money, and it will lose the country money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HairyOb1 said:

No, it's because we were never going to get a good deal and people fell for that nonsense.

The truth is, everything we've been told about it, has proven untrue, and it will cost us al. more money, and it will lose the country money.

I think we should at least try some different negotiators, i don't really get why we are paying them 40 billion for such a shit deal. Whatever it is with May in charge it will be shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

No, it's because we were never going to get a good deal and people fell for that nonsense.

The truth is, everything we've been told about it, has proven untrue, and it will cost us al. more money, and it will lose the country money.

Don’t forget a house price crash. 🙂

7 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

State spent that much as their view was to remain.

I love this.  I genuinely do.  we've moved form they need us more than we need them.  They'll roll over.  We'll be much better off when we leave, to now simply saying oh well, it's only money.

Brexit will cost us all more money.  It will lose the country money.

Sounds like a dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GrizzlyDave said:

Don’t forget a house price crash. 🙂

Sounds like a dictatorship.

Yes, and the conservatives out for a generation.

It doesn't, it's like when PR was in a referendum, they paid for the campaign against it.  Nothing wrong there, even though I was pro PR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Yes, and the conservatives out for a generation.

It doesn't, it's like when PR was in a referendum, they paid for the campaign against it.  Nothing wrong there, even though I was pro PR

Did they have a vote in parliament on the remain policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

Yes, and the conservatives out for a generation.

It doesn't, it's like when PR was in a referendum, they paid for the campaign against it.  Nothing wrong there, even though I was pro PR

If the taxpayer is funding campaigning, equal funding and ability to use the offices of state are needed for the different sides of the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frederico said:

Did they have a vote in parliament on the remain policy?

They didn't need to.  Just like for PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Bank of England Base Rate   313 members have voted

    1. 1. What do you predict the Bank of England base rate to be at the end of 2018?


      • .25% or lower
      • .5%
      • .75%
      • 1% or higher

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.