cm0002@infosec.pub to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 4 days agoStatisticians, is this true?infosec.pubimagemessage-square80linkfedilinkarrow-up1491arrow-down16
arrow-up1485arrow-down1imageStatisticians, is this true?infosec.pubcm0002@infosec.pub to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 4 days agomessage-square80linkfedilink
minus-squareSkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·3 days agoGenuine question: what’s confusing about this post? There are some that are confusingly structured, but this one should be quite obvious
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 days agoObvious would be top to bottom. You know, like how every human reads.
minus-squareSkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 days agoFor replies, yes. And that is the case. But the first one is a quote, not a reply
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 days agoAnd it makes sense to put the reply before the thing they’re replying to.
minus-squareRekorse@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 days agoYou have to read the posts and then put them in order yourself. I see these a lot and I’m still only ever like 90% sure I’m ordering them right. The other commenter is right, its a stupid way to list a chain of events considering its out of order and doesn’t even start with “1”.
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.
You have to read the posts and then put them in order yourself. I see these a lot and I’m still only ever like 90% sure I’m ordering them right.
The other commenter is right, its a stupid way to list a chain of events considering its out of order and doesn’t even start with “1”.