I think if anything they would be biased towards having fewer allergies than normal people. Which suggests that 0.21% (1 in 500) is a reasonable bound for how rare a moon dust allergy could be.
senkora
joined 2 years ago
Assuming a representative sample, the best point estimate is 1/12 (8.33%), and the 95% confidence interval is 0.21% to 39%.
Longer explanation here: https://lemmy.zip/comment/19753854
The number of allergic people in a population of size N can be modeled as a Binomial(N, p) distribution, where p is the probability that any individual person is allergic.
The maximum likelihood estimate for p when we observe 1 allergic person out of 12 is just 1/12, or 8.33%. This is our best guess if we had to name an exact number.
We can get a 95% confidence interval on the value of p using the Clopper-Pearson method with the following R code:
> binom.test(x=1, n=12, p=1/12)
…
95 percent confidence interval:
0.002107593 0.384796165
…
So we know with 95% confidence that the probability that any individual person is allergic to moon dust is with the range 0.21% and 39%.
Yeah, okay, that’s pretty useless. I agree with them…
This is called context collapse:
Context collapse or "the flattening of multiple audiences into a single context"[1] is a term arising out of the study of human interaction on the internet, especially within social media.[2]Context collapse "generally occurs when a surfeit of different audiences occupy the same space, and a piece of information intended for one audience finds its way to another" with that new audience's reaction being uncharitable and highly negative for failing to understand the original context.[3]
I can’t even think of a sadder drink than that.
+1. If your library makes it impossible to recover from errors, then it will be unusable from any program that requires recovering from errors.