Have a #wolf!#wolf #bot
Uncategorized
1
Posts
1
Posters
8
Views
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@monnier true!
-
@stranobiovolta @attualita ma è vera sta cagata ?!
-
@stranobiovolta @attualita ma è vera sta cagata ?!
-
ROBOANTE (@roboante.bsky.social)
https://bsky.app/profile/roboante.bsky.social/post/3majcbufppc2k
> Una #fotografia a caso. Muschio 💚
-
@uaar Sto pezzo di merda!
-
@acidabasica.bsky.social
https://bsky.app/profile/acidabasica.bsky.social/post/3maiyedmgc22b
> Bambole Voodoo fatte. Inutile mettere spilli, tanto un cuore non ce l’hanno Alle 16.03 gli dò fuoco 🔥
-
🔴 UNHCR says “we never forget anyone”.
Yet refugees in the Agadez “humanitarian center” remain stranded in the desert, adults & children, waiting for years for dignity, rights, answers.
Forgetting them is a choice. #KeepEyesOnAgadez
-
@oblomov Yeah this all makes sense to me, and I can sort by variance to find the most/least agreement.
However, an intermediate variance could be either two people agreeing and one really disagreeing OR everybody slightly disagreeing? It feels harder to "find" those values, if that makes sense.
I guess I'm looking for some formula/function where a maximum value of the formula is one where two people agree and one disagrees. I'd even be fine if this was a specific per-person formula, like person A disagrees and people B and C agree and I just replicate that formula.
Like one hypothetical to find one where A disagrees is:
sqrt((B-A)^2 + (C-A)^2) - stdev(B, C)
essentially the stdev with A as the mean (how much B and C disagree with A) and then counteract that value by subtracting the stdev of B and C (how much B and C agree)
and this ~sort of works but also still has very high values in ways that don't make sense
mostly curious if I'm just making stuff up or there's something obvious I should consider
