Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Steve]

Nice try.

Not so nice really. I lean toward pathetic.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I neither agree nor disagree. I note it has been stated so. However, I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.

You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing.

 

[catsmate]

Oh good grief.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Or...someone who is actually interested in the topic.

That's a stretch. You declaimed on why a photo showed what you were sure was a lithium battery fire despite having zero relevant expertise to say so. Then the fire brigade said unambiguously the car had no lithium battery. So then you decide the photo must be fake evidence planted to mislead you because it's impossible you were wrong.

That's not indicative of being interested in the topic unless the topic is never ever accepting you might just be wrong.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That's a stretch. You declaimed on why a photo showed what you were sure was a lithium battery fire despite having zero relevant expertise to say so. Then the fire brigade said unambiguously the car had no lithium battery. So then you decide the photo must be fake evidence planted to mislead you because it's impossible you were wrong.

That's not indicative of being interested in the topic unless the topic is never ever accepting you might just be wrong.

Schrödinger's Range Rover.

Boy, that guy has some cool stuff.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh hey Vixen you're back. Care to respond to me now?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.

You mean "facts" like diesel needs high pressure to burn, or any electrical fault in an automobile's wiring harness will immediately cut off all lights, or that welding steel doesn't involve melting it?

I'm sure you're sense of infallibility causes you to think such things are factual when you write them, but your claim that you are only interested in facts is, frankly, quite amusing.

 

[zooterkin]

It doesn't matter, though, does it? They've confirmed that the vehicle where the fire started was a diesel. What remaining issue do you have?

For someone interested in the topic, you spend an awful lot of time talking about other things.

The vehicle where the fire started, concerns about which were what prompted you to start this thread, has been confirmed to be a diesel. Are you now satisfied that no-one is hushing up an EV-started fire in this case?

What extra facts do you need?

Vixen, you seem to have skipped over my posts. Please answer my questions, since they are absolutely germane to this thread you started. What questions remain to be answered?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I neither agree nor disagree. I note it has been stated so. However, I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.

The most important fact of which Vixen chooses to remain ignorant is that the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has stated unequivocally that "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle."

 

[ferd burfle]

By normed I meant normed to the normal distribution. If the salient measurement is the z - standard deviation from the mean, often designated as '50' to represent the mean and as being easy to understand. So, if Dunning & Kruger say a person at the 11th percentile often incorrectly estimates their ability at the 62nd, then we are looking at a z score of -1.23 (reality) versus 0.62 (belief). If you look at the Gaussian curve you can see the area represented by z = -1.23 and +0.62, you'll see that it mostly falls within the 'average band' one standard deviation and slightly more below the mean (to the left of it) and almost one sd the right of it. Note the sheer number of the population that fall within ± one standard deviation (=50%) ipso facto. So far, so good?

So someone passes a 'normed' IQ test via Mensa at the 98th percentile (the imputed pass mark for entry). This we can see this it at z = 2.05 (standard deviations from the mean). Agreed? So then to juxtapose the parallel situation of such a person who scores at the 98th percentile with the earlier Dunning-Kruger character "at the 11th percentile who thinks they are at the 62nd", then in my case, such a person has overestimated their superiority over myself by z = +1.35 standard deviations. Look at the area under the curve in the wiki link, above, and you can see the number of people in the population is now quite rarified and of course, that is what standard deviations from the mean reflect: a point of comparison within a normally distributed population. Obviously, human measurements can never follow the exact course of abstract statistics because other variables come into play, due to genetic conditions, for example that can skew the tails at either side.

And once again you state this statistics fact incorrectly. +/- one standard deviation contains a little over 68% of the population.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I was chuckling because he thinks 98th percentile is anything special.

Having gone back this makes me wonder even ignoring the issues with IQ...Vixen are you claiming it isn't?

 

[JayUtah]

Having gone back this makes me wonder even ignoring the issues with IQ...Vixen are you claiming it isn't?

My chuckle comes from her apparent belief that the Dunning Kruger effect is a scale on which it even makes sense to think about percentile score.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Having gone back this makes me wonder even ignoring the issues with IQ...Vixen are you claiming it isn't?

I wonder if she thinks getting a score of 98 (presumably out of 100) on a "logic" test is the same as being in the 98th percentile for logical ability.

 

[novaphile]

The report indicates the referral rate depends on vacancies in the various job sectors.

Other factors come into play too.

For example, I was a clerical assistant (public servant) when I sat the clerk's exam in 1986.
Since I already worked for the Department of Defence, they were given the opportunity to make the first offer. Since they were familiar with my work at that establishment over the previous months, They immediately transferred me to a 'base grade' position, and put me on higher duties as a clerk class 2/3.

None of the above is any indication of my ranking after the exam. I was approached by one of the managers who said: "You passed the exam, and we'd like to offer you this new position."

I do have one small claim to fame.

At the 'Post Office' exam, in 1983 (IIRC), one of the tests was to memorise a page of suburb/postcode combinations and then try to populate the postcodes for all those suburbs after the list had been taken away.

Apparently, I was the first person who scored 100% on that test, and to this day, have no idea how. (I'm tempted to say 1 million monkeys, 1 million exams...) Sadly, I didn't end up working for the Post Office because I didn't have a motorcycle license and could not find any way to achieve one. (Poverty sucks.)

 

[EHocking]

That was the common understanding.

Perhaps a common misunderstanding at your school.

Chances of passing very slim, obviously owing to limited number of places but still very competitive.

Again you demonstrate that you don’t understand the “scoring” listed at the CS website.
Chances of “passing” the Fast Stream tests are not dependent on the number of places available , your test score is.
100% of applicants could achieve a passing score on the Fast Stream test (100% test pass rate) - this still has no bearing on the success rate of the Fast Stream applications - which is only dependent on the number of positions available.

Odd that those of logical superiority should not even understand the “passing” criteria of a test they are taking in order to gain employment - even when the employer explains the “passing” and selection process.

The boast of “passing” the Civil Service Fast Stream doesn’t seem to be the logical cognition flex you hoped it would be.

 

[novaphile]

Note that the above was a long way to say:

Passed two exams (three if you count the Clerical Assistant's exam) presumably with similar results.

The outcome was determined by other external factors.

 

[erwinl]

And once again you state this statistics fact incorrectly. +/- one standard deviation contains a little over 68% of the population.

Yes. But those are just numbers, man.
You can’t expect an accountant to have a feel for them, can you?

 

[Vixen]

You do not regard the press release from the fire department as evidence that the driver of the initial vehicle attempted but failed to extinguish the fire?

And you don't have any opinion on whether there is a fire extinguisher in photo 1 in this post? Because that's the photo of the "pictured" vehicle we're discussing. This is your post from November 6. In it, you clearly claim that there is an extinguisher to the right of the vehicle.

How come you're being coy here? You said the photo showed an extinguisher and now you're reluctant to come to the same conclusion.

I'll tell you what. We'll make a compromise.

• The pictured vehicle seems to have a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
• The Fire Brigade press release reports that the driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful.

Do you agree with the two above statements?

Both statements appear to be self-evident truths as far as they go.

 

[Vixen]

And once again you state this statistics fact incorrectly. +/- one standard deviation contains a little over 68% of the population.

± 1 sd from the mean is indeed 68%.

 

[Foster Zygote]

± 1 sd from the mean is indeed 68%.

So, not 50%.