you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

who speaks haltingly with the same errors a Chinese makes?

The resident expert on Chinese grammar mistakes.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

New theory: Tom is Chipit and Snow. Taking a que from US politics he's created these personas to distract from real conflicts.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

New theory: Tom is Chipit and Snow. Taking a que from US politics he's created these personas to distract from real conflicts.

I like it.

Now let's see the evidence.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Shill.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Shill.

Six sigma certainty.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Ah, TIL, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

This guy's been talking about that for the last month or two, though I'm not sure if he's used that term. He needs his marble machine to operate without errors for an entire concert.
https://www.youtube.com/c/Wintergatan/videos

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That's along the same lines, but I was going for the over the top scientific certainty, which functionally maxes out at 5, so I went for 6.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-5-sigma-means-0423423/

The table below summarizes various σ levels down to two decimal places.

σ (sigma) Confidence that result is real. 1σ 84.13%. 1.5 σ 93.32%. 2 σ 97.73%. 2.5 σ 99.38%. 3 σ 99.87%. 3.5 σ 99.98%. 4 σ 100% (almost).

For some fields of science, however, 2-sigma isn’t enough, nor 3 or 4-sigma for that matter. In particle physics, for instance, scientists work with million or even billions of data points, each corresponding to a high energy proton collision. In 2012, CERN researchers reported the discovery of the Higgs boson and press releases tossed the term 5-sigma around. Five-sigma corresponds to a p-value, or probability, of 3×10-7, or about 1 in 3.5 million. This is where you need to put your thinking caps on because 5-sigma doesn’t mean there’s a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the Higgs boson is real or not. Rather, it means that if the Higgs boson doesn’t exist (the null hypothesis) there’s only a 1 in 3.5 million chance the CERN data is at least as extreme as what they observed.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

For him it's a little simpler. He just let's the machine go and counts all the marbles on the floor after a few hours. No marbles no problems.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's a complex marble machine.

I have some experience with inspecting gear profiles, and this fella is a hands-on guess and test type.
He's manually adjusting the locations of the gears, but there are a million other issues that could contribute to process variation.
For example: concentricity issues with the gear axis relative to any given bearing surfaces (on each individual tooth).
It's a nightmare of machined surfaces of custom gears.

I'm impressed with the machines reliability; given his methodology.