- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Woo, a bug in a beta product.
Admin
And it seems to be fixed now.
Admin
Admin
Looks like a compensation bug though, vote never got added, but it did get removed through cancellation or whatever.
Agree. But funny nonetheless.Admin
Those Frat Boys need to pay better attention, Pizza Girl works for Pizza Hut (not that is an H not an SL).
Admin
The real WTF is that nic and the gang aren't helping physical phil defend pizza girls honour. That Sam has a lot to answer for. OMG!
Admin
Yeah, the real WTF seems to be the book itself.
Admin
There is a 100% margin for error.
Admin
Admin
actually, it adds up to 50% - think about it!
Admin
FINALLY!!!!
you know, I've always been looking for a voting system that can explain how crappy some movies really are, FINALLY something that can truly show the horrible production of some movies, when it's just too crappy to give it a 0% positive.
Admin
Admin
The real WTF is having someone to defend your honor. Come on, Pizza Girl has a name to live up to.
Admin
No, actually it adds up to 308%. Why? Well, -104% voted 'Yes' and 204% voted 'No'. I would argue that most sensible people would consider the negative of 'Yes' to be 'No' (although some here seem to insist on the less-popular 'FileNotFound'). Ergo, that's a net result of 308% voting for 'No'.
Admin
This explains the election.
Admin
The real WTF is the writing on that show. If you haven't seen it, go over to ABC's website and watch an episode or two. It sounds like Dean Koontz's eighth grade creative writing project.
I think the -104% rating is entirely appropriate.
Admin
The number given for b) in the ad is 204%. Supposing that the actual vote is 100% "no", then the error margin is 104% because the number 204 is 104% higher than 100.
If the actual vote is less than 100% "no", then the error margin is even higher, because, 204 is 308% higher than, say, 50.
Admin
You're obviously not giving your full 100% into this.
Admin
Darn, was supposed to be 110%...
Admin
Darn, was supposed to be "110%".
Admin
Have your math teacher's salary sent to me. The percentage concept does not always add up to 100%. It must have a base unit. There can be 100%, 50%, or even 212% of that base unit.
A 10" tall plant can grow to 1'3". This plant is now 150% as tall as before (1'3" = 15").
Some Latin American economies have terrible inflation. Suppose $10 is worth only $2.50 a few months later. Then, there is 400% inflation (I believe), since money is worth 1/4 as much.
In this case it's base unit is "votes". The positive portion above 100% can indicate "ballot stuffing". The negative portion can indicate "votes discarded". In a real election, this kind of information is very useful. I'd want to know whether 53% or 107% of the electorate voted!
Admin
More than 100% doesn't make sense when you're talking ratios... that is to say, anything that is talking about dividing a whole in to smaller parts. Basically that's any application of ratios, including probability.
Example being that if you have 10 cakes you can share them out in a ratio of 4:3:2:1 between yourself, Tom, Dick and Harry... meaning that you get 40% of the cakes.
However more than 100% is valid and useful when you're talking about scaling... such as magnification or giving executive pay rises.
Correct.
Votes are ratios, so they do, technically, add up to 100%, even if the individual values are flawed.
If the voting is based on a broken feedback from orders and cancellation, and thus the number of votes for yes is negative, then the displayed percentages are exactly right.
(for reference... yes: -1, no: 2, total votes: 1, no percent 200% yes: -104, no: 204, total votes: 100, no percent 204% scaling down... -52 102 -26 51 so yes/no is a ratio of -26:51)
captcha: ninjas.... AAAARRGGGGG thunk :P
Admin
You're obviously a republican...
Admin
And you were doing so well.
No amount of ballot stuffing can bring a percentage over 100% and no amount of discarding can bring it under 100%.
Discarding votes can't take the number of votes for a candidate under 0, because there has to be a positive number of votes greater than or equal to the number you want to take away, since if a candidate only has 3 votes, you can't discard 10 of his votes to get -7.
Ballot stuffing can't take it over 100% because 100% in terms of voting means "all votes are for this candidate".
I've just realised I made an error in terminology in my last post...
I said this was an example of a ratio ... I should have said it was an example of a ratio for sharing (there's probably a technical term for them).
With a sharing ratio, such as 3:1, the total of the parts is the whole... you're sharing something out so that one person gets 3/4, the other 1/4.
Ratio's can also be used for scaling such as magnifications.
Your 10" plant and the one that is 15" have size ratio of 2:3.
Perhaps not the best example ... hmmm.
A map can have a scale ratio of 1:500 ... meaning 1cm of map represents 5m of ground ... that's a magnification of 0.2% ((1/500) * 100)
120% of the electorate is a scaling ratio of 12:10 It's not a sharing ratio for the same reason you can't give someone 120% of your money even though you can receive a 120% refund (a 100% refund is £1 back for every £1 you gave them, so it's a 1:1 ratio)
Clear?
Admin
Whoa, 204% negative out of an AMAZING 53 VOTES!
Admin
That's easy -- There were 108 positive votes and -55 negative votes for a total of 53 votes.
Admin
Sure it can. It can't create a percentage of cast ballots that's greater than 100%, but it can create a percentage of, say, electors that's greater than 100%, because the latter is simply the ratio of the number of votes of a certain type to the number of electors, times 100.
Ballot stuffing can produce more votes than electors, so it can lead to a votes:electors ratio that's greater than 1, which means a percentage greater than 100.
There's nothing magical about the term "percentage". It just means "of 100", and it's just a constant factor applied to a ratio. So it makes little sense to say that "a percentage" cannot be this or that (assuming you're talking about real-valued ranges); you have to say what ratio you're considering.
Admin
Doh! Really should have paid more attention.
Admin
Quite correct, but if you go and read the context of the answer, I'm reasonably sure he was implying more than 100% of cast votes. If he wasn't, then my statement is simply not relevant, and he should be less ambiguous.
I'd translate it as "in 100", like miles per hour is how many miles you travel -in- an hour. The distinction is why you can have more than 100% without contradicting the definition.
Also, if you go back an read properly, I didn't state what a percentage can do (a percentage is simply an agreed decimal precision), I stated the two types of data a ratio can represent. A magnification ratio of 1:2 is a completely different thing to a profits division of 1:2 ... they're both the same number and representation, but they have completely different constraints... the former type of ratio can go up over 1000%, the latter can't go higher or lower than 100% and 0% respectively.
Admin
300% inflation (believing is the opposite of knowing).
Admin
108 + -(-55) == 163
Admin
Heh, reminds me of the way the game America's Army reports your point gains.
At the end of a set of rounds, it shows a point breakdown, but it describes a point loss as "a loss of -100 points". Wouldn't that mean that I actually gained 100 points? Cuz, y'know, 10 - (-5) = 10 + 5?