482
Statisticians, is this true?
(infosec.pub)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
482 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
10325 readers
1804 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think I will ever figure out the order to read these things.
Just... Why? Wouldn't you want it to be formatted in a way that's immediately obvious what order to read them?
I used bluesky lately (which i guess uses the same format?) and it looks like so because we are viewing a reply(3) to a post (2) that cite another post (1)
Thanks. I hate it.
So convenient.
Same
Genuine question: what's confusing about this post?
There are some that are confusingly structured, but this one should be quite obvious
Obvious would be top to bottom. You know, like how every human reads.
For replies, yes. And that is the case. But the first one is a quote, not a reply
And it makes sense to put the reply before the thing they're replying to.