I got the following:
>Imagine that it is one week later and your solution failed! Do you really think your solution will work? (Enter "yes" or "no)
Isn't the answer always going to be "no"? You just told me that it failed.
Imagine that you are trying to find a doctor in a particular specialty. You are able to think of 12 possible reasons the doctor might refuse to see you. Some are more probable than others and some are easier to minimize/solve than others. You have 5 or 6 doctors to choose from and the 12 failure modes apply to each of them differently. For instance, Dr. A may have a 25% chance of saying "no new patients" whereas Dr. B might be "50%" and Dr. C may be "80%". What would be the recommended way to reduce the likelihood of failure without spending an inordinate amount of time mitigating things?
I hope you don't mind my saying "You're very welcome."
(Healthcare, public safety)
And thank you very much for providing these regular figures and interpretations.
The call taker may be required to follow an algorithm (e.g. https://prioritydispatch.net/resource-library/). This is not to discount all your points; everything you wrote is likely true too.
Finally, it's possible that the high arbitrary cutoff for evidence is a reflection of the agency's priorities and resources.
At the end of the article, you wrote "Adding in police and firemen would make it an even 20." Does adding EMS personnel change the estimate at all?
Wow, that's a bit strongly worded.
I'm going to have to figure out why the journal article gave those figures. Maybe I should send your comment to the authors...
I'm trying out Bayes Theorem with a simple example and getting really strange results.
p(disease A given that a patient has disease B) = p(b|a)p(a) / p(b)
p(disease B given existing diagnosis of disease A) = 0.21
p(A) = 0.07
p(B) = 0.01
I get 1.47 or 147%. I know that the answer can't be >=100% because there are patients with A and not B.
Where am I going wrong?
One possible hypothesis for the question about the lack of new institutions may be related to the ability to assuage oneself with comparatively meaningless activities. For example, I can now write an angry message on a city's social media page and make myself feel like I've done something about the lack of fire protection. I will receive just as much social affirmation (aka likes) that way compared to cold calling all my neighbors and asking them if they'd like to form a committee to raise our taxes and staff an additional fire station.
Why do you think California is unusually strict?
I've read that Less Wrong attracts people with mental health concerns so articles about using mental health related information may be useful.