18:3918:39, 30 January 2024diffhist−6
Alejandro Mayorkas
Changed "no clear evidence" to "no evidence." The statement about evidence is wrongly associated with the Constitutional experts, who the citation says "did not see a constitutional basis for impeachment." The phrase "have yet to detail clear evidence" is elsewhere in the cited article and does not refer to any authority. It's weasel wording. If I say there is no clear evidence you abuse your spouse, it implies there is some unclear evidence.
19:2319:23, 11 February 2023diffhist−25
m
John Doe
The legal cliche "include ... but are not limited" has no conceivable meaning here. No one could possibly imagine that "include" here means there are two and only two such cases ever.
04:4004:40, 1 June 2022diffhist+226
Fay–Herriot model
Random effects estimation is unbiased if the subgroup-specific effects _are_ uncorrelated with the other predictors. This is not the same thing as the test for correlation failing to reject they hypothesis that they are.
18:0718:07, 19 August 2008diffhist−319
Rule of thumb
Deleted "Statistical Rule of Thumb." This "rule" as stated was both false and overprecise, unlike other uses of the phrase connoting approximation.
18:3918:39, 30 January 2024diffhist−6
Alejandro Mayorkas
Changed "no clear evidence" to "no evidence." The statement about evidence is wrongly associated with the Constitutional experts, who the citation says "did not see a constitutional basis for impeachment." The phrase "have yet to detail clear evidence" is elsewhere in the cited article and does not refer to any authority. It's weasel wording. If I say there is no clear evidence you abuse your spouse, it implies there is some unclear evidence.
19:2319:23, 11 February 2023diffhist−25
m
John Doe
The legal cliche "include ... but are not limited" has no conceivable meaning here. No one could possibly imagine that "include" here means there are two and only two such cases ever.
04:4004:40, 1 June 2022diffhist+226
Fay–Herriot model
Random effects estimation is unbiased if the subgroup-specific effects _are_ uncorrelated with the other predictors. This is not the same thing as the test for correlation failing to reject they hypothesis that they are.
18:0718:07, 19 August 2008diffhist−319
Rule of thumb
Deleted "Statistical Rule of Thumb." This "rule" as stated was both false and overprecise, unlike other uses of the phrase connoting approximation.