So…? 🤷‍♀️

There’s even a website that translates it for you: https://www.composerize.com/

deleted by creator

Yeah, that „study“ studies child neglect…

„By age 2 […] those who had spent four or more hours with screens were 4.78 times more likely to have underdeveloped communication skills.“

Wow. Children with no human interaction lacking communication skills, news at eleven.

🥱

Look, there’s no need to repeat your incoherent drivel ad nauseam. Nobody cares what the fuck you think other people will do.

The only valuable thing you’ve said in the last days was, again, „leave standards to experts“.

Since you seem to be really slow on the uptake: you’re not one of them.

Now please go outside and play with the other children, okay?

🥱 Oh look, Mr Gotcha is still on it.

Honey, you were so close from realizing what utter bullshit you’re talking when you moved from „tHeY jUsT sTaNdArDiZeD a CoNnEcToR“ to „it’s a collection of standards!“.

Don’t cry, you can still use as many chargers as you want, that’s okay. You’re okay.

You said it yourself „leave standards to experts“. I suggest you do that and go outside and play with the other 3rd graders, mh?

Or, it’s totally not a non-issue? Like, I remember the time when you had to carry around a fucking proprietary charger for every single fucking device?

Yeah, no shit, you can’t power your megaultragaminglaptop4000™ with a 5 V 500 mA charger. Whodathunk.

D’oh! 🤦‍♀️ Of course, thanks for correcting this.

Yes, please go ahead.

I will even open a bottle of sparkling wine for the occasion!

Edit: btw, does anybody else have Nandor The Relentless‘ voice in their head whenever somebody is named Guillermo?

Yeah, but statistics is a b*tch.

We had a similar technology for a test run some years ago at a train station in Berlin, capital of Germany and largest city in the EU with 3.8M.

The results the government happily touted as a success were devastating. They had a true positive rate of 80% (and this was already cooked since they tested several systems at several locations but only reported the best results), which is really not that good to start with.

But they were also extremely proud of the false negative positive rate, which was below 0.1%. That doesn’t sound too bad, does it?

Well, let’s see…

True positive means you actually identified the people you were looking for. Now, I don’t know the number of people Berlin’s police is actively looking for, but it’s not that much. And the chances of one of them actually passing that very station are even worse. And out of that, you have 20% undetected. That’s one out of five. Great. If I were a terrorist, I would happily take that chance.

So now let’s have a look at the false negative positive rate, which means you incorrectly identified a totally harmless person as a terrorist/infected/whatever. The population for that condition is: everyone passing through that station.

Let’s assume there’s a 100k people on any given day (which IIRC is roughly half of what that station in Berlin actually has). 0.1% of 100k is 100 people, every day, who are mistakenly reported as „terrorists“. Yay.