Take Two Interactive (Rockstar, 2K, Private Division) canceling games, ending projects and laying off 5% of its workforce

[K^2]

10 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

What you just said is that in your opinion then if GTA 6 sells 500 copies instead of over 10 million, it's closer in every practical way to their sales targets than "Nobody bought the game" which is pretty much where my percentages land. 

0.1% of 10 million is 10,000, not 500. You are trying to pull a strawman already, by taking absurd numbers, and you're not even doing the algebra on that right. That approach is not going to work for you if you can't do the math that goes with your logic.

[snip]

10 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

But maybe you could share that very strict definition of "close" that apparently is present in your highly specialised field of work?

I have already done so at least twice in different ways. When dealing with fractions, you take the ratio and you compare these. If 0 < x < y < z, compare y/x to z/y. That's all I did to place 3.8% closer to 10% than to 1%.

Edited May 20 by Vanamonde

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

21 minutes ago, K^2 said:

0.1% of 10 million is 10,000, not 500. You are trying to pull a strawman already, by taking absurd numbers, and you're not even doing the algebra on that right. That approach is not going to work for you if you can't do the math that goes with your logic.

I find this funny because I kinda left that there on purpose knowing you'd probably get hung up on it. However if you read my comment again, I didn't say that 0.1% of 10 million is 500, I just referenced the same number you used and said that's "pretty much where my percentages land." I'll happily admit it's not very accurate if you think this is not "pretty much"  the same in this context but as far as your original claim goes, it's absolutely irrelevant whether we're talking about 500 or 10 000 sales here. The fact that you did not understand this just highlights exactly how far above your head the entire point flew of you being totally unable to even comprehend what it is that you're so wrong about. I'd argue anyone with a brain would say that if GTA 6 sells 10 000 copies it's closer to selling nothing at all than it is to their sales target. If you truly don't understand why you're wrong about your entire logic through this example, I can't help you but please stop spewing vitriol at people who disagree with you. 

 

55 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I have already done so at least twice in different ways. When dealing with fractions, you take the ratio and you compare these. If 0 < x < y < z, compare y/x to z/y. That's all I did to place 3.8% closer to 10% than to 1%.

Your math is here, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You just repeat that this is the only correct way to define the word "close" in this context and not actually making any kind of argument as to why. Since the rest of your post is just being aggressive, condesceding and attacking my intelligence and character rather than actually spending even one word defending your actual argument, I'll just leave you with your self affirmations but heartily recommend you take a breather and just learn how to be a bit nicer to people. I can recommend a few books. Maybe in a few years from now you'll behave like an actual adult, who knows! If you put in the effort.

[K^2]

15 minutes ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

The fact that you did not understand this just highlights exactly how far above your head the entire point flew of you being totally unable to even comprehend what it is that you're so wrong about.

"I make arithmetical mistakes on purpose, you'll never understand that." Yeah, no, you're right. That's the "Enemy will never expect us to run through a minefield," kind of logic that I'll never understand.

And given that you're now claiming to make an intentional algebraic error while building a strawman of an argument that was a strawman to begin with which you've made out of a statistical interpretation that was stretched to statistical insignificance...

You do remember that this started with a claim that 240k-570k is "1%" of 3.6M-6.2M? With your argument coming down to "500 is 0.1% of 10M," which you know is wrong, and that very fact somehow proves your point.

16 minutes ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

You just repeat that this is the only correct way to define the word "close" in this context and not actually making any kind of argument as to why.

Because entropy is logarithmic. Does that help you? No? You don't understand why entropy maximization gives you the highest confidence when dealing with error bars? Would you like me to explain all of information theory to you in a forum post now?

You asked for the definition. I've given it to you. Now you're moving goal posts to "But you didn't explain!" Enrolments in your local community college are open if you actually want it explained to you.

 

And do you go telling professional athletes that they are awful people because they insult your athleticism by being faster and/or stronger than you, or is it just the intelligence that you're so insecure about? I spend ten years studying theoretical physics, my research was in particle physics, structure functions of mesons specifically. Then I went on to work in game development, and have done work in simulation and animation, resulting in two patents to my name. Working with numbers and models is what I do. This is what I have been doing professionally for over two decades, and have been training for longer. I understand statistics at a level you would take many years catching up to at best. If you find that insulting to your intelligence, that's strictly a you problem. Thinking that you can be as intelligent without putting in an effort as somebody who is using their intellect professionally is just entitlement. I can't make it simpler for you. If you really don't understand that you don't get to magically be as smart as people who worked on being smart, and you keep demanding to be treated as equally smart anyways, you'll have to get used to disappointment.

I'll give you a definition. I'll give you a simple formula to use, because I like being helpful. But if you are then demanding that I must explain it to you until you understand why these things work, or otherwise I'm just insulting your intelligence, I have no polite response to it. So just no.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Can there be an agreement to disagree in this situation? Seeing this argument devolve into veiled condescension delivered under the guise of exposition gets tired rather quickly.

 

The crux of the issue revolves around a semantic argument regarding very unspecified generalized terms like "close".

Continuing to repeat and rehash the various specific that make you lean toward your own perspective will gain no head way... why?

The word close when used in mathematical context among peers, is associated with proximity and precision within a specific data set.

However, 

The term "close," when stripped of its mathematical cloak, stands as a subjective term, vulnerable to the whims of individual perception.

In the pursuit of intellectual rigor, it is paramount that we refrain from confining such an abstract notion within the rigid bounds of mathematical precision. The beauty of mathematics lies in its clarity and exactness, qualities that the term "close" cannot claim to possess when divorced from its technical roots... as in the conversation @K^2 continues to insist is the ONLY manner on which it can be applied.

To engage in a discourse that seeks to quantify "close" in the context of sales figures is to embark on a Sisyphean task. The argument that 500 sales are "closer" to 5 million than to zero, based on the peculiarities of null values and the mathematical properties of zero, is a clever sleight of hand. It distracts from the essence of the debate, which is not about the numbers themselves but the meaning we ascribe to them.

In the end, the quest to lend mathematical precision to the term "close" is akin to chasing shadows—a futile endeavor that only serves to obfuscate rather than illuminate the true nature of our inquiry. Let us instead agree upon a definition of "close" that resonates with the collective understanding, one that acknowledges the term's inherent subjectivity and embraces the rich tapestry of human experience that it reflects.
 

 

[K^2]

18 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

In the pursuit of intellectual rigor, it is paramount that we refrain from confining such an abstract notion within the rigid bounds of mathematical precision.

Except that we have a concrete case with concrete numbers. If the number you claim is "close" doesn't fall within the confidence interval even when expand it to 99.75%, trying to substitute another meaning for "close" is the real slight of hand here, making this entire response the very definition of demagoguery.

[NH4Cl Enthusiast]

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

And given that you're now claiming to make an intentional algebraic error while building a strawman of an argument that was a strawman to begin with which you've made out of a statistical interpretation that was stretched to statistical insignificance...

You do remember that this started with a claim that 240k-570k is "1%" of 3.6M-6.2M? With your argument coming down to "500 is 0.1% of 10M," which you know is wrong, and that very fact somehow proves your point.

 

What you fail to understand completely is that what I said to you originally and what I've told you since has no bearing with whatever argument you're rolling around in your head. All that huge brain of yours and yet you lack the basic argumentative skills and basic reading comprehension. Maybe you should go to high school again for a quick refresher and some practical exercises?

 

48 minutes ago, K^2 said:

 

Because entropy is logarithmic. Does that help you? No? You don't understand why entropy maximization gives you the highest confidence when dealing with error bars? Would you like me to explain all of information theory to you in a forum post now?

You asked for the definition. I've given it to you. Now you're moving goal posts to "But you didn't explain!" Enrolments in your local community college are open if you actually want it explained to you.

 

No, you really haven't given any definition. If you go back and read reeeeeaalllly carefully what I asked from you and what you've since said, maybe you'll catch on to it. As refresher, you said "close" is very strictly defined in your field but you have yet to tell me where this definition actually is and what it actually is. So until you point that out to me, at which point I'm happy to concede to misunderstanding, I will just assume you're obfuscating because you've said something stupid and can't admit to it or alternatively that you cannot understand basic sentences. This would be easier if you understood that throwing jargon and saying it's too complicated to explain is not answering the question.

Also now you're accusing me of moving goalposts and assuming something about my ability to understand mathematics, of which you have yet to actually give any kind of actual explanation as to what you're talking about. Instead you're using a lot of energy to explain all the various ways by which I'm not understanding the thing you're not explaining. See, you didn't answer my question at all, you just answered a question that you proposed to yourself. 

58 minutes ago, K^2 said:

 

 

And do you go telling professional athletes that they are awful people because they insult your athleticism by being faster and/or stronger than you, or is it just the intelligence that you're so insecure about? I spend ten years studying theoretical physics, my research was in particle physics, structure functions of mesons specifically. Then I went on to work in game development, and have done work in simulation and animation, resulting in two patents to my name. Working with numbers and models is what I do. This is what I have been doing professionally for over two decades, and have been training for longer. I understand statistics at a level you would take many years catching up to at best. If you find that insulting to your intelligence, that's strictly a you problem. Thinking that you can be as intelligent without putting in an effort as somebody who is using their intellect professionally is just entitlement. I can't make it simpler for you. If you really don't understand that you don't get to magically be as smart as people who worked on being smart, and you keep demanding to be treated as equally smart anyways, you'll have to get used to disappointment.

I'll give you a definition. I'll give you a simple formula to use, because I like being helpful. But if you are then demanding that I must explain it to you until you understand why these things work, or otherwise I'm just insulting your intelligence, I have no polite response to it. So just no.

Given how much you're boasting here I'd say I'm not the one with ego problems...

So far all you've done is blow a lot of hot air and dodged almost every argument while telling everyone else they're wrong but not actually why they're wrong.

Seriously, I'm sure you're good at maths and statistics and I'm sure you're better at it than me. I have no problem with people being better at maths than me. You're just not making much sense and have probably the worst argumentative and discussion skills that I've seen in a while, backed up with a looooot of hubris and bow you're just projecting it all on me. I engage in this conversation out of some kind of morbid curiosity (again) and it hasn't failed to entertain so far.

It's funny because all I've done so far is just try to get you to actually just explain your argument and you're throwing a tantrum and then saying I'm doing it. My 6-year old niece does something similar.

[MechBFP]

Everyone is clearly aware that your argument boils down to “take linear graph paper and draw lines at 1, 3.85, and 10 and measure the distance with a ruler”. 
So yes, you are right in this context. It is utterly meaningless when talking about statistics, but pat yourself on the back none the less for figuring that out. 
 

EDIT: For fun though graph the same numbers using log10 or natural log and measure it again and see what happens. 

Edited May 20 by MechBFP

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

You do remember that this started with a claim that 240k-570k is "1%" of 3.6M-6.2M? With your argument coming down to "500 is 0.1% of 10M," which you know is wrong, and that very fact somehow proves your point.

No. There was never such a claim. Please read again - or, alternatively, pinpoint where it was stated.

And we still don't have the numbers about users that asked for a refund - so, to tell you the true, all bets are off anyway.

Edited May 20 by Lisias
Entertaining grammars made slightely less entertaining...

[Gargamel]

Thread temp locked for review 

[Vanamonde]

Some grumpy and personal remarks removed. Thread re-opened. Keep things civil, please. 

[K^2]

5 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

No, you really haven't given any definition. As refresher, you said "close" is very strictly defined in your field but you have yet to tell me where this definition actually is and what it actually is. So until you point that out to me, at which point I'm happy to concede to misunderstanding, I will just assume you're obfuscating because you've said something stupid and can't admit to it or alternatively that you cannot understand basic sentences.

8 hours ago, K^2 said:

I have already done so at least twice in different ways. When dealing with fractions, you take the ratio and you compare these. If 0 < x < y < z, compare y/x to z/y. That's all I did to place 3.8% closer to 10% than to 1%.

To which you replied:

7 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

You just repeat that this is the only correct way to define the word "close" in this context and not actually making any kind of argument as to why.

 

So you have accepted that quote as the definition, and were simply confused to why that is the definition. Going back to what you're asking of me:

5 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

where this definition actually is and what it actually is

There is the definition, and that is the definition, as accepted by you already in this thread. Since you are now telling me that "why" isn't the issue, the question is answered. So now we're just waiting for this part, right?

5 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

at which point I'm happy to concede to misunderstanding

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Lisias said:

No. There was never such a claim. Please read again - or, alternatively, pinpoint where it was stated.

Right here, as previously quoted.

On 5/17/2024 at 3:37 PM, Lisias said:

You see, given this margin for errors, 1% is not that off.

This appears right below the numbers providing the range. Make sure to follow to the full post for the context. I stand by my summary.

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

You do remember that this started with a claim that 240k-570k is "1%" of 3.6M-6.2M?

 

[Skorj]

This is a nerdy and pedantic argument even by the standards of this forum.  Sheesh. I believe you guys were talking past each other for a while there, and getting increasingly upset because of it.  Is 3.8% closer to 1% than 10% might as well be one of those internet troll questions, because different people will see a different "obvious" answer based on their own assumptions about what the question means.  It's easy to believe someone who sees a different obvious answer is being disingenuous.  Does "closer" mean for you additively, or multiplicatively?  That will depend on your background.  Neither answer can be objectively correct.

One thing I learned early in my career was that arguments between reasonably intelligent people are usually like that.  People reasoning from differing understandings of the problem, but not syncing carefully on the basis for their conclusions, whether data or assumptions or terminology. 

[Fizzlebop Smith]

1 hour ago, Skorj said:

This is a nerdy and pedantic argument even by the standards of this forum.  Sheesh. I believe you guys were talking past each other for a while there, and getting increasingly upset because of it.  Is 3.8% closer to 1% than 10% might as well be one of those internet troll questions, because different people will see a different "obvious" answer based on their own assumptions about what the question means.  It's easy to believe someone who sees a different obvious answer is being disingenuous.  Does "closer" mean for you additively, or multiplicatively?  That will depend on your background.  Neither answer can be objectively correct.

One thing I learned early in my career was that arguments between reasonably intelligent people are usually like that.  People reasoning from differing understandings of the problem, but not syncing carefully on the basis for their conclusions, whether data or assumptions or terminology. 

Just wait.. you are about to summarily *educated*.. not be me but by the self appointed powers that be.

Where I personally think you deserve a standing ovation for the objective presence of mind to realize there is a semantic argument that is subjective in nature... 

And also personally consider the fact that one POV is largely based on a technically specific background which holds (what I am guessing to be) a minority view, makes you double correct.

However.. you are wrong.. oh so wrong..

 

Edited May 21 by Fizzlebop Smith

[MARL_Mk1]

Just checking in, still nothing, bleh

We can only burn prograde from here

[DeadJohn]

1 hour ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

Just checking in, still nothing, bleh

We can only burn prograde from here

This thread is somehow in orbit around itself. People are trying to formulate mathematical proofs to define the word "close".

[Ker Ball One]

59 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

This thread is somehow in orbit around itself. People are trying to formulate mathematical proofs to define the word "close".

The mental gymnastics to scrape hope from T2's financial frugality,  rivals the orbital mechanics to solve the 3 body problem.

[modus]

Well, since there's not much more to do here, I really enjoyed the discussion 

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, Skorj said:

This is a nerdy and pedantic argument even by the standards of this forum.  Sheesh. I believe you guys were talking past each other for a while there, and getting increasingly upset because of it.  Is 3.8% closer to 1% than 10% might as well be one of those internet troll questions, because different people will see a different "obvious" answer based on their own assumptions about what the question means.  It's easy to believe someone who sees a different obvious answer is being disingenuous.  Does "closer" mean for you additively, or multiplicatively?  That will depend on your background.  Neither answer can be objectively correct.

One thing I learned early in my career was that arguments between reasonably intelligent people are usually like that.  People reasoning from differing understandings of the problem, but not syncing carefully on the basis for their conclusions, whether data or assumptions or terminology. 

7 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Just wait.. you are about to summarily *educated*.. not be me but by the self appointed powers that be.

Where I personally think you deserve a standing ovation for the objective presence of mind to realize there is a semantic argument that is subjective in nature... 

And also personally consider the fact that one POV is largely based on a technically specific background which holds (what I am guessing to be) a minority view, makes you double correct.

However.. you are wrong.. oh so wrong..

 

If you are above this petty argument, it beats me what you get out of announcing it 

[Lisias]

5 hours ago, Ker Ball One said:

The mental gymnastics to scrape hope from T2's financial frugality,  rivals the orbital mechanics to solve the 3 body problem.

It's all they have left in life. Prey.. uh.. Pray for them.

[K^2]

11 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

This thread is somehow in orbit around itself.

Kugelblitz

[Xindar]

30 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Kugelblitz

Huh, you learn something new every day. Thank you good person

[Scarecrow71]

12 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

This thread is somehow in orbit around itself.

Schroedinger's Thread.  It is both linear and circular at the same time, and there is no way to validate it one way or the other.

Or something like that.  I'm sure someone will tell me I'm applying the principle wrong.

[DeadJohn]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Schroedinger's Thread.  It is both linear and circular at the same time, and there is no way to validate it one way or the other.

Or something like that.  I'm sure someone will tell me I'm applying the principle wrong.

Next fight: Schrödinger, Schroedinger, Schrodinger.

 

[K^2]

1 hour ago, DeadJohn said:

Next fight: Schrödinger, Schroedinger, Schrodinger.

Just call him the dead cat guy. He would have appreciated it.^*

 

_{* That part is a lie.}

[Scarecrow71]

31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Just call him the dead cat guy. He would have appreciated it.^*

 

_{* That part is a lie.}

I'd say to just call him the Dead or Alive guy...but that would spin this discussion right round, like a record, baby, right round.