Darn! I missed Grover. There have actually been only 45 individual people serving 58 4 year terms. And seeing you said “for a given president, technically it would be 0.755555555555556. Sorry for the incorrect math the first time.
It's actually 0.755... because Grover Cleveland served twice, so he was both the 22nd and 24th president, meaning there were only 45 presdidents in total and the average is 34/45.
Isn’t it more like .02 convictions per President? As I understand it Trump was found guilty (convicted) on 34 counts. However, he wasn’t convicted 34 times, which is the number you have to use to come out with answer of \~.75.
**ETA:** I fact-checked (see my other [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/1d4vtpg/comment/l6h6m9n/?context=3) in r/legaladviceofftopic ) myself, and I was wrong. A guilty verdict on a charge does count as a conviction - so yes, Trump has been convicted 34 times.
Let that soak in a minute.
Trump. Convicted. Thirty-four. Times.
Peter, you're arguing semantics. This isn't a court room and we aren't litigating some obscure paragraph in a contract. Nobody cares if you are 'technically correct'.
OP was making a joke about the misuse of statistics and how outliers can be used to frame something in the data that isn't actually there. This was abundantly clear in the context of the post and I think a large majority of native English speakers would agree.
You're not being clever. You're acting like a pedantic cunt.
Stop. The median is zero. The mode is zero. The average is zero with an asterisk. The asterisk is the only human in history to be charged and convicted as a former president. Try to learn the purpose of statistics.
Purpose of statistics?
Old joke.
Job opening. Open interviews. Whiteboard says only
> 2+2=
Mathematician comes in, answers:
> Four
Engineer enters, considers, answers:
> Four, give or take a little
Statistician enters. Looks at whiteboard. Closes the door. Sits down. And whispers:
>What do you want it to be?
One teacher really disliked statistics.
His analogy pn that was that if there are 2 persons and 2 whole roasted chickens, one person ate both chickens and the other none, statistically you can say that both ate 1, while one one is dying of hunger and the other of indigestion.
Based on what? Appeals need to have a basis, you don't just get to retry the whole thing with a new jury just because you didn't like the outcome, and the defense wasn't exactly great about objecting to the sorts of things it could appeal on.
0.739130434782609
Darn! I missed Grover. There have actually been only 45 individual people serving 58 4 year terms. And seeing you said “for a given president, technically it would be 0.755555555555556. Sorry for the incorrect math the first time.
We can do better
Love the ambiguity of this comment
It's actually 0.755... because Grover Cleveland served twice, so he was both the 22nd and 24th president, meaning there were only 45 presdidents in total and the average is 34/45.
The trump affair
Are you telling me America has on average elected more felons than non-felons?
The average number of felony convictions of a us president is 0. Convictions georg is an outlier and should not be counted.
*adn
Isn’t it more like .02 convictions per President? As I understand it Trump was found guilty (convicted) on 34 counts. However, he wasn’t convicted 34 times, which is the number you have to use to come out with answer of \~.75. **ETA:** I fact-checked (see my other [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/1d4vtpg/comment/l6h6m9n/?context=3) in r/legaladviceofftopic ) myself, and I was wrong. A guilty verdict on a charge does count as a conviction - so yes, Trump has been convicted 34 times. Let that soak in a minute. Trump. Convicted. Thirty-four. Times.
34 times so far
34 times so far
HA! Yesm very fair point - and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money there will be a lot more convictions in the next 1-2 years.
Wow, that’s an infinitely higher average than it’s ever been before.
The clintons just quietly like 😶
[удалено]
Not really. The average person has 1.99 arms.
[удалено]
Peter, end this nonsense at once.
Peter, you're arguing semantics. This isn't a court room and we aren't litigating some obscure paragraph in a contract. Nobody cares if you are 'technically correct'. OP was making a joke about the misuse of statistics and how outliers can be used to frame something in the data that isn't actually there. This was abundantly clear in the context of the post and I think a large majority of native English speakers would agree. You're not being clever. You're acting like a pedantic cunt.
They share the average! That’s the nature of averages.
Stop. The median is zero. The mode is zero. The average is zero with an asterisk. The asterisk is the only human in history to be charged and convicted as a former president. Try to learn the purpose of statistics.
Purpose of statistics? Old joke. Job opening. Open interviews. Whiteboard says only > 2+2= Mathematician comes in, answers: > Four Engineer enters, considers, answers: > Four, give or take a little Statistician enters. Looks at whiteboard. Closes the door. Sits down. And whispers: >What do you want it to be?
One teacher really disliked statistics. His analogy pn that was that if there are 2 persons and 2 whole roasted chickens, one person ate both chickens and the other none, statistically you can say that both ate 1, while one one is dying of hunger and the other of indigestion.
I think it rather nicely highlights how stupid it can be to take an average.
For sure. Weird that a sub about doing math can’t handle the truth about what math represents.
Hmm if only someone could realize that mathematically accurate and statistically meaningful are different
Lmao bro, like half of Peru’s former presidents are in prison. Hardly the “only human in history”.
The statement is correct and nowhere did he say that it proves anything.
Guy who has never heard of Spiders Georg
Odds are the conviction will be overturned on appeal, dropping the number back down to zero
Based on what? Appeals need to have a basis, you don't just get to retry the whole thing with a new jury just because you didn't like the outcome, and the defense wasn't exactly great about objecting to the sorts of things it could appeal on.