I said this:
Originally Posted by whitesox029
That isn't the point. I am not trivializing the difference between "weighted statistical models" and random events any more than I would be trivializing the difference between fish and mammals if I were to say sharks:teeth::whales:baleen.
In a way though, you did grasp my point--guessing 3.5 as a die roll is obviously absurdly stupid.
You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:
Originally Posted by doublem23
NO, YOUR ANALOGY JUST SUCKS, GUY.
And yes, comparing weighted models like PECOTA to random events, again, underscores that you do not have a solid grasp of these ideas.
So to say it's the same thing as rolling a dice and getting 3.5 shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?
I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.
Am I alone here? Was there anyone
who actually understood what I was trying to say?