Confidence or ... ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| BernardSwiss Nov 03, 2011 6:27 PM EDT |
Recent history considered, I would think that using "Precise" in the name of their next release is rather daring... I don't mean that in a mean way, but it's begging for put-downs and snide remarks that will outlive the release, if they don't deliver a rock solid, problem-free distro. It's been some while since they've managed to do that -- and standards have gotten higher since then. |
| jdixon Nov 03, 2011 6:47 PM EDT |
> ...it's begging for put-downs and snide remarks that will outlive the release, if they don't deliver a rock solid, problem-free distro. Why? Precision has nothing to do with accuracy. Yeah, I realize most people don't understand that, but you'd hope the people who would bother making such remarks would. |
| tuxchick Nov 03, 2011 6:51 PM EDT |
Dream on, jdixon :) |
| BernardSwiss Nov 03, 2011 7:17 PM EDT |
jdixon is, of course, technically correct. But the difference doesn't necessarily make a difference. :-P |
| Grishnakh Nov 03, 2011 8:20 PM EDT |
Actually, I think "precise" is exactly the right word for the new Ubuntu. They are being very precise with Unity, as they are being very consistent with what they're trying to do with it. For those who don't know the difference between precision and accuracy, let's think about a bullseye-type target that you shoot with a gun or bow and arrow. Let's suppose there are two archers, each with their own target. Archer A shoots a bunch of arrows at his target, and none of them are very close to the bullseye, but they're all evenly distributed in a large circle around the center of the target: one's near the top, one's near the bottom, one's near the left side, one's near the right, etc. Now archer B shoots a bunch of arrows, and his are all in a really tight grouping, none of them more than an inch or so from any other. Sounds great, like Robin Hood, except this tight grouping of arrows is nowhere near the bullseye, it's way off in the upper-left corner of the target. In this example, archer A has shown excellent accuracy, while archer B has shown excellent precision. Archer A's arrows are all clustered around the bullseye, so that makes him accurate, but not very precise since none of them are very close to the bullseye. Archer B's arrows are all clustered very close together making him very precise, but not very accurate because he didn't come close to actually hitting the bullseye he was aiming at. Ubuntu is being precise, but not accurate: they're consistent in their message that you need to use a touchscreen-inspired interface on your PC that makes you much less efficient so that we can all use the same type of interface on all our computing devices, regardless of the cost in productivity. They're being inaccurate because no one really wants this except for a few misguided fools, so they're missing the real target, which is an improved UI (improved as in actually works better, not just looks nice, or would be fitting on a completely different type of device). |
| gus3 Nov 03, 2011 9:49 PM EDT |
That is, bar none, the best explanation of accuracy and precision I have ever read or heard. +1 Grishnakh |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 04, 2011 12:05 PM EDT |
Hey Big G, Having now read your second paragraph to the end, I withdrew my critique. However, while both you and gus3 [aka The August Gus III] may disagree, shooter A is not accurate in most real cases where the exact target value is not known with certainty. Indeed, where measurements are concerned the lack of precision would be worrying, since it implies random large errors of unknown origin. Nonetheless, where the target is predefined, as you describe, in a statistical sense your shooter A might be considered to be accurate. But only statistically. YBT |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!