Current Events > YouTube Star MrBeast Says He Was Invited to Join 'Titanic' Submersible Trip

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No, it's about 30%. The whole point of confidence intervals is to avoid overstating confidence. Assuming the sampling distribution is normal is a dubious assumption at that low of a sample size. But this is hypothesis testing not confidence interval and 0 out of 10 would be enough to reject some nulls. You don't need to flip the coin a couple hundred more times when you get 10 tails in a row.

Although if you're accepting a bar of under 10% know you to still count as famous then of course 10 is way too small of a sample size, but with a bar that low yes lots and lots of YouTubers are famous.

AceMos posted...

i cant stand adam sandler iive seen a few of his movies and hei s just annoying

Uncut gem?

That is a scary thing to think about. You look back and realize you could have a made a choice that would have lead you to your death.

TonyKojima posted...

9/10 people would have no idea who logan paul is.

You literally can't comprehend the idea that someone doesn't know who Don Rickles is, but then you say this shit, lol.

I looked up Don Rickles on Wikipedia and he seems like the type of public figure only stand-up comedy obsessed boomers would know or care about. Dunno why he was brought up in the same context as Britney Spears. I'd argue she's significantly more well known and culturally relevant, relatively anyway.

AceMos posted...

hey he deserves credit for that i agree and any one who says other wise is scum

the problem is what he should be diong is using his money and influence to bring about political change

if we had universal health care EVERY blind person could get that surgery

LMAO this is such a shitpost.

AceMos posted...

i could not name a single football player currently active does that mean no football players today are famous?

I doubt this since one of them use to post here before getting banned.

I don't care who you are or what year you were born.

If you say "who?" In response to MrBeast you are officially a boomer. No rebuttal.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Right. Whether your reject or fail to reject the null depends on what the null is. You're taking the approach of "small samples tell you nothing," but I'm saying a small sample can be good enough if the sample result is extremely far away from the null hypothesis. No matter what the null is, a sample size of 1 results in fail to reject the null. By 10, you're probably still going to fail to reject the null, but it gives a vague enough picture that it may be possible to reject the null if the null is sufficiently far away from the sample results.

Irrelevant. You are comparing a coin toss (one sample) to a countries population (the sample I provided.)

No one is saying you need to make hundreds of coin tosses to get a picture.

They're both random events with a true parameter value. The difference is with polling the parameter is unknown and with a coin toss the parameter value can be calculated fairly easily. But polling is the same as any empirical probability calculation. You do something a bunch of times and based on the results you have a rough idea of the true value. The more you do it, the better of an idea you have of the true value (hence the smaller confidence level). If you wanted to prove a coin landed on heads exactly 50% of the time and not 49% because the metal on the heads side stuck out further throwing off the center of gravity, then you would have to flip it thousands of times to check that claim. But 49% is near 50%. If however the true value is nowhere near 50%, if your first 10 flips are all Tails, that's sufficient to say this is nowhere near 50%. Sample size relevance depends on the claim and it's difference from the sample results.

It's not that "30 in a sample group should be enough" for a study. It's that you need at least 30 before you can reasonably expect an analysis based upon the normal distribution (i.e. z test) to be valid.

30 is for quantitative variables based on consistency between averages regardless of the shape of the population distribution. But this is a categorical variable, which is affected by how close you expect the true parameter to be near 0 or 100. Here it's important that the parts of the bell curve that stretch into impossible territory are insignificant.

Nowhere do I work even accepts the 30 minimum even. The 100 is the minimum and if they want data regarding the population they won't accept a sample size less than 385 but are happier to see more numbers.

Right, but you have different goals. You're trying to establish what the true value is, which you want a large sample for. If you're just trying to say, "yeah this is nowhere near 50%" then 10 consecutive no's is enough. You don't need to wait until 30 tails in a row before you say "something is not right" and you definitely don't wait until 385 consecutive tails. How many connescutive tails do you need before alarms are set off? That's the sample size for "I poll X people and none of them heard of this."

This is high in the running for most pointless ongoing argument currently on CE.

lmao are y'all seriously debating statistics to argue whether mr beast is a youtube star or not

yes he is, stop being pedantic

I can't be the only one that reads it as MrBreast?

Dabrikishaw15 posted...

That is a scary thing to think about. You look back and realize you could have a made a choice that would have lead you to your death.

Maybe but the way it was said makes it look like Look at me I could have been a victim is just poor taste.

C_Pain posted...

lmao are y'all seriously debating statistics to argue whether mr beast is a youtube star or not

yes he is, stop being pedantic

I often forget how much gamefaqs CAN'T STAND youtubers or streamers, it's sad and hilarious all at once

Gamespoht posted...

I often forget how much gamefaqs CAN'T STAND youtubers or streamers, it's sad and hilarious all at once

The popular ones tend to be horrible role-models for 10-year olds everywhere.
Back in my day we used to go outside and poke a frog with a stick or whatever, it built character.

Gamespoht posted...

I often forget how much gamefaqs CAN'T STAND youtubers or streamers, it's sad and hilarious all at once

Probably has a lot to do with how much the internet props these people up to such points where they are treated as untouchable yet easy to tear down when the time calls for it.

The only online personalities with integrity are the ones who demonitize their apology videos.

Baha05 posted...

Probably has a lot to do with how much the internet props these people up to such points where they are treated as untouchable yet easy to tear down when the time calls for it.

Yeah it's not healthy to put some content creator on a pedestal, but you realize that doesn't account for every youtuber right?

Avirosb posted...

The only online personalities with integrity are the ones who demonitize their apology videos.

They shouldn't.

Revelation34 posted...

They shouldn't.

I think some integrity ought to be in order.
Otherwise they'll just end up running as Republicans.

Avirosb posted...

The only online personalities with integrity are the ones who demonitize their apology videos.

Funnily enough, that includes Pewdiepie, who this board would have you believe is a terrible human being. His apologies are pretty sincere and he demonizes the bad ones.

Right, but in your line of work no one is going to be satisfied with you not trying to find the real value. They don't want you to say "Republican is probably gonna win Oklahoma," they want an estimate of by how much. That's a different goal post, a different level of accuracy.

Baha05 posted...

Probably has a lot to do with how much the internet props these people up to such points where they are treated as untouchable yet easy to tear down when the time calls for it.

I mean how is it different from TV or Movie or Sports or whatever famous people? People do that anyways and they like regular people are human and there are always assholes around.

LightHawKnight posted...

I mean how is it different from TV or Movie or Sports or whatever famous people? People do that anyways and they like regular people are human and there are always assholes around.

Interaction and arguably influence on a much grander scale then has been in the past.