Stop laptop battery from charging beyond certain point

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 5 of 5 First 12345
• 01-17-2012
MK27
Quote:

Originally Posted by Subsonics
I have to say though, that one incident is insignificant statistically and would count as anecdotal evidence, it could be down to a coincidence etc. Where as having seen 250 incidents would provide some statistical credibility that the observation is not just a coincidence.

Are you sure that Tater's claim is not, in fact, essentially anecdotal?

I would not expect toshiba to take action if just one person phoned this in, of course, and I totally agree that to some third party individual anecdotes are not as meaningful as statistical data. But there is statistical data, and then there is statistical data ;). I also doubt that toshiba would take action just because one person phoned in and said they personally had seen this 200 or 1000 times. The value of "statistical evidence" depends upon how it is gathered. Eg, if you took it to court, the fact that you had 200 busted computers would not be enough evidence unless you could provide further evidence that they busted because they were flawed.

Evidence of that sort is about logic and empirical demonstration, not statistics. I think in mathematics there is the concept of proof, and proof is not about having 200 calculators that say 2+2=5.

Identifying a design flaw is similar -- you need to find the flaw, not just the failures that imply a flaw. Statistical failures only imply the presence of a problem, and may help you to find it, but they do not prove that it exists.

So my point was, if I broke a power jack on a computer in near darkness one night stumbling drunk while talking on the phone, I might regard that, as you say, as coincidence. However, if I broke it while paying full attention, being careful, in a sound state of mind, I would not have to do that more than once to recognize this mechanism is excessively delicate. Observing something 200 times does not necessarily make you a better observer.

Statistics are also very prone to abuse and interpretation (because they are not hard evidence). Take your statistics with a grain of salt. CommonTater saying, "I've been in charge of 250 laptops" is a good reason to pay attention if he has an observation about laptops, but it is in no way proof that what he says is accurate, or to put your brain on hold while considering the possibility.

So, in regard to the original topic,
1) the statistical evidence online buries CT's (essentially anecdotal) sample.
2) altho CT's statistics (if accurate) may imply a certain conclusion, a coherent theory and some logic is required to connect the two, and I have not seen that. Just the "argument to authority" stuff, and a lot of rambling. It is simply too easy to come up with any number of explanations why one person would have observed (or believe, or claim to have observed) a phenomenon in a particular context.
• 01-17-2012
Subsonics
Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27
Are you sure that Tater's claim is not, in fact, essentially anecdotal?

Not at all. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27
I would not expect toshiba to take action if just one person phoned this in, of course, and I totally agree that to some third party individual anecdotes are not as meaningful as statistical data. But there is statistical data, and then there is statistical data ;). I also doubt that toshiba would take action just because one person phoned in and said they personally had seen this 200 or 1000 times. The value of "statistical evidence" depends upon how it is gathered. Eg, if you took it to court, the fact that you had 200 busted computers would not be enough evidence unless you could provide further evidence that they busted because they were flawed.

Evidence of that sort is about logic and empirical demonstration, not statistics. I think in mathematics there is the concept of proof, and proof is not about having 200 calculators that say 2+2=5.

Totally, but I'm not really talking about proofs here more about indications, and proofs as rigorous as mathematical ones does not really exist outside of maths. Besides an empirical demonstration can consist of statistics. However my only point here was that 250 incidents provides stronger indications than 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27
Statistical failures only imply the presence of a problem, and may help you to find it, but they do not prove that it exists.

I would say that it can prove the presence i.e that it exists, but not what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27
So my point was, if I broke a power jack on a computer in near darkness one night stumbling drunk while talking on the phone, I might regard that, as you say, as coincidence. However, if I broke it while paying full attention, being careful, in a sound state of mind, I would not have to do that more than once to recognize this mechanism is excessively delicate. Observing something 200 times does not necessarily make you a better observer.

True, but you could by chance have gotten your self a unit with a fabrication fault that is very rare and not at all typical. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27
Statistics are also very prone to abuse and interpretation (because they are not hard evidence). Take your statistics with a grain of salt. CommonTater saying, "I've been in charge of 250 laptops" is a good reason to pay attention if he has an observation about laptops, but it is in no way proof that what he says is accurate, or to put your brain on hold while considering the possibility.

So, in regard to the original topic,
1) the statistical evidence online buries CT's (essentially anecdotal) sample.
2) altho CT's statistics (if accurate) may imply a certain conclusion, a coherent theory and some logic is required to connect the two, and I have not seen that. Just the "argument to authority" stuff, and a lot of rambling. It is simply too easy to come up with any number of explanations why one person would have observed (or believe, or claim to have observed) a phenomenon in a particular context.

I know that statistics are prone to abuse and interpretation, but that does not mean that used properly (not talking about my example here mind you :D) it can not be used as evidence. But I really just latched on to that last bit I quoted, I don't know anything about batteries. :D
• 01-17-2012
MK27
Quote:

Originally Posted by Subsonics
I would say that [statistics] can prove the presence i.e that it exists, but not what it is.

Yeah, you're right -- this is a bit over the top:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK27
Statistical failures only imply the presence of a problem, and may help you to find it, but they do not prove that it exists.

I guess I got a bit carried away ;). Good thing we don't ban people just for being wrong, lol.
• 02-24-2014
kanak
this is for cyberfish
please tell me what is USB controlled relay. give me details if i can use it
• 02-24-2014
kanak
what is USB controlled relay?
please tell me what is USB controlled relay. May me I am searching for it.
• 02-24-2014
cyberfish
• 02-24-2014
Elkvis
Quote:

Originally Posted by kanak
please tell me what is USB controlled relay. May me I am searching for it.

• 02-24-2014
anduril462
Oh necromancer! necromancer!
Would make you want to bring to life

• 02-24-2014
Neo1

...it was horrible.
• 02-24-2014
Codeplug
A thread like this! Someone should close - before more ppl like me come along.

gg
• 02-24-2014
manasij7479
A dark power dwells in here...
..such as I have never felt before!
It is the shadow of an ancient Horror!