Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

MPG & UFollow

#52 Sep 12 2013 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I mean some of these idiots still pay for paper checks and use them for small transactions.
Luckily most of them are triple digits and dying off every day.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Sep 13 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's the same thing either way.

What isn't the same is the non linear relationship between comparisons using the two ratios.


Um... At the risk of being the math geek here, it is the same.

Quote:
The point of MPG, aside from economy standards is to allow comparison for consumers. The non-linear progression of, say, a 15 MPG difference between vehicles completely undermines that.


And a 1L/100km difference between vehicles has the same problem, doesn't it?

Quote:
If American consumers could use math...


Way to be the example of a typical American consumer there Smash. Smiley: grin

Edited, Sep 13th 2013 3:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Sep 13 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
29 posts
Finally something relevant to my lurker interests that hasn't already been said by someone much more witty than I.

It's slow, heavy, and carries tons of groceries, so basically perfect for my 1-5 mile trips about town. Also has the benefit of being easily seen by cars so I always get a wide berth by people passing me.

My Electra Amsterdam Bike

#55 Sep 13 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,048 posts
Hmm, a white basket. Isn't that a ***** to keep clean?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#56 Sep 13 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
29 posts
Elinda wrote:
Hmm, a white basket. Isn't that a ***** to keep clean?


The vinyl used seems to repel the dirt pretty well. It's not perfectly sparkly white anymore but a quick swipe with a soapy dishcloth and some water and it is almost good as new. It does tend to get dirty on the inside and since it is a horror to unstrap from the rack, it tends to stay dirty.
#57 Sep 13 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It's the same thing either way.

What isn't the same is the non linear relationship between comparisons using the two ratios.


Um... At the risk of being the math geek here, it is the same.

Quote:
The point of MPG, aside from economy standards is to allow comparison for consumers. The non-linear progression of, say, a 15 MPG difference between vehicles completely undermines that.


And a 1L/100km difference between vehicles has the same problem, doesn't it?

Quote:
If American consumers could use math...


Way to be the example of a typical American consumer there Smash. Smiley: grin

Add high school level math to the long list of things you are terrible at.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#58 Sep 13 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,951 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Add high school level math to the long list of things you are terrible at.


Fun to hate on Gbaji and all, but what he's saying is not false. Units make no difference in a person's inability to grasp percent increases (or decreases).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#59 Sep 13 2013 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
TirithRR wrote:
trickybeck wrote:

Add high school level math to the long list of things you are terrible at.


Fun to hate on Gbaji and all, but what he's saying is not false. Units make no difference in a person's inability to grasp percent increases (or decreases).

We're talking about the reciprocal ratio, not the unit swap.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#60 Sep 13 2013 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Add high school level math to the long list of things you are terrible at.


That would really hurt, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm absolutely correct. Smash should have stuck to the perception effects of using the different expressions rather than trying to argue that one creates a perception effect while the other does not. They both do. What they do (and which he started out talking about until he went off into the weeds) is do so in opposite directions. We can debate that perception difference in terms of consumer choices, but that's not where he went with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Sep 13 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
trickybeck wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
trickybeck wrote:

Add high school level math to the long list of things you are terrible at.


Fun to hate on Gbaji and all, but what he's saying is not false. Units make no difference in a person's inability to grasp percent increases (or decreases).

We're talking about the reciprocal ratio, not the unit swap.


No. Smash was arguing that people perceive linear differences in one value as "the same" regardless of the effect on the actual ratio. So the difference between 15MPG and 20MPG versus 35MPG and 40MPG are going to be seen by consumers as the same because they're all a 5MPG difference even though the relative improvement is much better in the first case rather than the second.

The problem is that, assuming we accept his premise (and I'm willing to for the sake of argument), we run into the same problem either way (well, except going in the opposite direction). If we assume that someone will perceive a 5MPG improvement as equally valuable, then they'll also perceive the same linear improvement in fuel consumption over distance as equally valuable. But this is where his argument goes off the rails:

If we take the same values, but flip them around, then we have one case (15MPG to 20MPG) where we go from 6.66G/100M to 5G/100M. That's a 1.66G/100M improvement. But in the second case (35MPG to 40MPG) we go from 2.86G/100M to 2.5G/100M. That's only a .36G/100M improvement. Put another way, assuming Smash's premise is correct, in order for people to have as much perceived fuel efficiency value in the second case, we'd need to be able to drop the fuel usage rate from 2.86G/100M to 1.2G/100M (cause that's 1.6G/100M improvement, right?). That's a problem though, since that would require a much bigger actual fuel improvement increase.


I agree with what Smash started to say, I just disagree with the direction he was going with it. If your goal is to encourage people to keep buying more fuel efficient cars, you want to use a measurement that makes even relatively small improvements appear large enough to be worth it. The linear fallacy angle applies in both cases, but IMO it creates a disincentive for consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars as the fuel efficiency increases if you represent it as G/100M versus MPG. It's relatively easy and cheap to increase relative fuel efficiency when you first start caring about such things, but it becomes increasingly difficult and costly as you improve. We have to accept that we can only get marginal increases over time going forward, but if we assume that every bit helps, then we want to express those small improvements in a way that actually makes people think they're getting something more.


MPG is a better way of doing this precisely because of the false perception Smash was talking about. You want them to continue to place similar value on incremental fuel improvements as fuel efficiency increases as they did when fuel efficiency was relatively low. MPG does this quite well if we assume the perception problem Smash talked about. And if we don't, then it doesn't matter since both represent a ratio. As Smash correctly pointed out, a linear increase in MPG results in successively smaller ratio improvements as fuel efficiency improves, while the opposite is true with G/100M (or the same in metric). Where I think he's wrong is which is actually 'better'.

Edited, Sep 13th 2013 7:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Sep 13 2013 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The point of MPG, aside from economy standards is to allow comparison for consumers. The non-linear progression of, say, a 15 MPG difference between vehicles completely undermines that. If American consumers could use math, we'd be using the metric system, so I'm not going to bother going down that road.

Yeah, because the typical person understands logarithmic units better than they do linear ones.
#63 Sep 13 2013 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Also I don't know what the rest of you are on about, but gbaji is right about the equivalent non-linear progression of mpg versus gpm (well, equivalently reciprocated). Smash is bad at math, also Tricky.

Edited, Sep 13th 2013 10:55pm by Allegory
#64 Sep 14 2013 at 6:06 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
My 2003 Hyundai Elantra still averages around 29 MPG, and most of my driving is city driving. On road trips, it bumps up to around 32 MPG.
____________________________
Banh
#65 Sep 14 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
Allegory wrote:
Also I don't know what the rest of you are on about, but gbaji is right about the equivalent non-linear progression of mpg versus gpm (well, equivalently reciprocated). Smash is bad at math, also Tricky.

No, gbaji was pretty much confused about the math, but has since changed his story to make it about people's perception. His argument is something about the fact that people just want to know the range of their cars, and not the relative gas consumption...I guess? I didn't really bother to read much of it.

Here's something he should take to heart when it comes to his evaluation of the average person's perception: He's got 10 solid years of data in the form of hundreds and hundreds of forum users here who have disagreed with him on pretty much every topic he discusses, versus about 3 that have agreed with him. Maybe he still thinks he knows everything about science and math and art and economics and computers, but the evidence shows that he knows nothing about how a normal person thinks, feels, or behaves. (And it's just humorous that he thinks sociology is fake, yet claims to be an expert in all fields of sociology.)

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#66 Sep 14 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts

And a 1L/100km difference between vehicles has the same problem, doesn't it?


Sort of. Ideally you'd want to offer a measure that relates to how a consumer uses the device. Since the amount of people who once a year throw a gallon of gas in the car and drive it as far it will go is likely fairly low, a more useful measurement would represent a more usual use case. Gallons/10k miles or whatever the mean use case actually is. Obviously the efficiency doesn't change based on the measure, but the *usefulness of that information* does. We could measure fuel economy in inches per deciliter, too, but you can see how that wouldn't make sense, correct? "Hey this one gets 100 more!" What you'd ideally like is a way to represent the difference in ideal terms of how much gas the vehicle would use over the lifetime use case for each consumer, as then the judgement would be straightforward in a 1 to 1 representation of the use case. Since that's fairly difficult, there are more and less useful measure. Rods per lb at sea level and 1 millibar at 111 kelvin is less useful than gallons per year. MPG is less useful than GP10000kM. It's not complicated. The closer to linear you can make the comparison measurement to the use case, the more useful it is. Consumers absolutely do see going from 35 MPG to 50 MPG as "better" than going from 20 MPG to 30 MPG. As stated previously as cars become more efficient it becomes more of an issue.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#67 Sep 14 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,991 posts
The estimated cost of ownership, WRT fuel costs especially seem like a good consumer metric.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#68 Sep 15 2013 at 12:11 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
trickybeck wrote:
No, gbaji was pretty much confused about the math, but has since changed his story to make it about people's perception. His argument is something about the fact that people just want to know the range of their cars, and not the relative gas consumption...I guess? I didn't really bother to read much of it.

Gbaji was never wrong about the math. His argument was always that mpg was cognitively easier for people to deal with than gpm. I don't particularly care about that argument, but he used it consistently.
trickybeck wrote:
Here's something he should take to heart when it comes to his evaluation of the average person's perception

What a sophisticated and mature argument. He was wrong all those other times, so he should just always assume he's wrong when you disagree with him. Except that his math was right. So how does it feel to be worse at math than the guy who is apparently wrong about everything else.
Smasharoo wrote:
MPG is less useful than GP10000kM. It's not complicated. The closer to linear you can make the comparison measurement to the use case, the more useful it is.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about do you? Reciprocating the unit doesn't change the linearity of the relationship. Yeah, going from 25 mpg to 50 mpg isn't the same efficiency gain as 50 mpg to 75 mpg. The same issue results when you go from 75 gpm to 50 gpm in comparison to 50 gpm to 25 gpm. To do what you want requires logarithmic units, which I think is silly to suggest joe smhoe understands better than linear units.

Edited, Sep 15th 2013 1:12am by Allegory
#69 Sep 15 2013 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
That's not what smash is actually saying, perhaps reread the post. It's about the use case, or the useful range, not about the linearity of the relationship overall.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#70 Sep 15 2013 at 1:07 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
Allegory wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
No, gbaji was pretty much confused about the math, but has since changed his story to make it about people's perception. His argument is something about the fact that people just want to know the range of their cars, and not the relative gas consumption...I guess? I didn't really bother to read much of it.

Gbaji was never wrong about the math. His argument was always that mpg was cognitively easier for people to deal with than gpm. I don't particularly care about that argument, but he used it consistently.

Nah.

Quote:
trickybeck wrote:
Here's something he should take to heart when it comes to his evaluation of the average person's perception

What a sophisticated and mature argument. He was wrong all those other times, so he should just always assume he's wrong when you disagree with him. Except that his math was right. So how does it feel to be worse at math than the guy who is apparently wrong about everything else.

No, he should just always assume he's wrong when he's arguing about the average person's motivations, cognitive perception, behavior of groups, etc. He exists completely outside normal human behavior, yet all his opinions on it come solely from his own intuition (the intuition of a non-normal person) because he doesn't trust any actual scientific research on the subject.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#71 Sep 15 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Reciprocating the unit doesn't change the linearity of the relationship. Yeah, going from 25 mpg to 50 mpg isn't the same efficiency gain as 50 mpg to 75 mpg. The same issue results when you go from 75 gpm to 50 gpm in comparison to 50 gpm to 25 gpm. To do what you want requires logarithmic units, which I think is silly to suggest joe smhoe understands better than linear units.

You are correct, I phrased it poorly.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about do you?

If you like. Or, I poorly communicated something I understand very well. I suppose you'll have to judge that on your own. I imagine it feels more satisfying to assume I'd fail High School Algebra. You should probably go with that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#72 Sep 15 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
I suppose. What runs through your mind is a mystery to me. If you're going to take the time to give gbaji **** about it though, I'd like to think you'd expend enough care to not phrase it so poorly as to be unambiguously false.
#73 Sep 16 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,048 posts
I think mass should be added into the equation in the form of numbers of bodies.

Moving 4 people 35 miles on one gallon of gas is more efficient than moving 1 person 35 miles on 1/2 gallon of gas.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#74 Sep 16 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
I took the subway to work, so I win.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Sep 16 2013 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,048 posts
By the time I get home today, I'll have combusted about 1.25 gallons of gas. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#76 Sep 16 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
Getting 25 mpg city in a 16 year old car. Closer to 30 on the highway.

So I'm doing much better than expected, simply because most cars that age are ready to be retired and mine is still doing just fine.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#77 Sep 16 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
I suppose. What runs through your mind is a mystery to me. If you're going to take the time to give gbaji sh*t about it though

I didn't. You might be confusing me with another poster. I did tease him about using checks for small transactions in 2013. You seem to be heavily invested in pointing out that I was wrong. I'm not sure why. I was wrong. I used the term "more linear", what I should have used was "more useful" The point you're calling out, and again, accurately stating that I was incorrect, is virtually meaningless to the point I was making. This seems pretty clear to everyone else.

To be honest, what runs through your head isn't a mystery to me. You wanted to score some points. You scored some. Continuing down this road isn't going to provide the uplifting esteem boost you're seeking, it's likely going to end with me ignoring you. If that's your goal, you can just ask. I'm not your dad, you can look for a pat on the head somewhere else. I also have no particular interest in arguing with you about most things. You seem like a bright kid, we likely agree on most things. When you have a significant disagreement with me about something it's usually this sort of petty ********* and let me clue you in, it's transparent. I'm an arrogant *******, it's true. I also know more than you do about most things. If you can't reconcile those two things, it's time to move on to something more interesting than looking for "gotcha" technicalities in my posts. Or, of course, you can continue, I guess, and I'll reply "you're right" and go on with my day.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Sep 16 2013 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,863 posts
I'm going to have to see more math I don't understand before I can take any of this seriously.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#79 Sep 16 2013 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm an arrogant @#%^, it's true.

Certainly, because this is more about Gbaji than you. I think he's wrong--often--but I also never assume he is. You and Tricky incorrectly said he made an error, and Joph and Debalic did the same somewhat recently. And it'd be fine if he wasn't consistently being denied the any minor victories he has along the way. It's done to Gbaji, it's been done to Alma. It's intellectual laziness.

It's one inconsequential error to you, but it's a rare time many people can agree he was right on a contested matter.
#80 Sep 16 2013 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,687 posts
The point is that L/100km is the most effective way of measuring full efficiency.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#81 Sep 16 2013 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
You and Tricky incorrectly said he made an error

Can you quote me doing this? Maybe I missed it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#82 Sep 16 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's the same thing either way. The difference is that one is focusing on consumption (how much fuel used over a given distance), while the other is focusing on range (how far you can go with a given amount of fuel). It's not like people can't noodle out the math either direction, but in terms of usability, consumption is more useful when making your initial purchasing decision (which you kinda just do once). Range is more useful when actually operating the vehicle (which you do all the time).

Smash wrote:
It's the same thing either way.

The numerical expression of the same ratio is the same? Thanks for the insight, moron. What isn't the same is the non linear relationship between comparisons using the two ratios.

As interpreted literally, you're establishing here for him that the there is more to this difference than merely getting to multiply by gpm to calculate the cost of a trip than divide by mpg.
Gbaji wrote:
Smash wrote:
The point of MPG, aside from economy standards is to allow comparison for consumers. The non-linear progression of, say, a 15 MPG difference between vehicles completely undermines that.

And a 1L/100km difference between vehicles has the same problem, doesn't it?

Smash wrote:
And a 1L/100km difference between vehicles has the same problem, doesn't it?

Sort of..... The closer to linear you can make the comparison measurement to the use case, the more useful it is. Consumers absolutely do see going from 35 MPG to 50 MPG as "better" than going from 20 MPG to 30 MPG. As stated previously as cars become more efficient it becomes more of an issue.

Basically you keep telling Gbaji there's this special difference beyond merely being able to multiply distance by gpm to get a trip's cost instead of dividing by mpg. He keeps being confused. You keep telling him he's wrong in how he understands it. He's not.

This misunderstanding has been almost entirely what Gbaji and you have been discussing.
#83 Sep 16 2013 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Basically you keep telling Gbaji there's this special difference beyond merely being able to multiply distance by gpm to get a trip's cost instead of dividing by mpg. He keeps being confused. You keep telling him he's wrong in how he understands it. He's not.

No. I'm disagreeing that units don't matter compared to the use case. I realize the word "linear" confuses the issue. I think you know I'm not telling him he's wrong, however. When I post things like "Sort of" in response to him saying "isn't it the same thing", then go on to mention the use case, again, this should be pretty clear. Let me summarize what it appears happened to me:

Me: MPG is a poor measure of efficiency.
Gbaji: All measures of efficiency are the same!
Me: Obviously, but not as useful considering the use case (and poorly chose "linear" to represent "as close to the use case as possible")
Gbaji: This is also non linear!
Me: Sort of, let's talk about the use case

Then you assumed I was telling him his math was wrong, which never happened. Why? Not sure. Seems lazy, though. Glad it wasn't about me.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Sep 16 2013 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
This misunderstanding

There is no misunderstanding. Gbaji has no interest in what's more useful for consumers, he wants to point out a math error, which really is a (completely valid to point out is incorrect) terminology error on my part.

So, rather than me telling him he's wrong, he's asserting that I'm wrong, and I'm trying to rephrase to explain my point, but he can't get past the math part. For whatever reason.

Edited, Sep 16th 2013 4:49pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#85 Sep 16 2013 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
I guess we'll just going to have to disagree about what you were calling him a moron over. I'd just like to see a little more pause from posters before haranguing the forum reprobates.
#86 Sep 16 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Allegory wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm an arrogant @#%^, it's true.

Certainly, because this is more about Gbaji than you. I think he's wrong--often--but I also never assume he is. You and Tricky incorrectly said he made an error, and Joph and Debalic did the same somewhat recently. And it'd be fine if he wasn't consistently being denied the any minor victories he has along the way. It's done to Gbaji, it's been done to Alma. It's intellectual laziness.

I did what? Did I even post in this thread?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#87 Sep 16 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
See the groping thread. Gbaji was given the short end there as well.

Edited, Sep 16th 2013 5:11pm by Allegory
#88 Sep 16 2013 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
To be fair, I don't think Smash argued the math thing after I pointed it out. That was Tricky and someone else IIRC.

However...

Smasharoo wrote:
This misunderstanding

There is no misunderstanding. Gbaji has no interest in what's more useful for consumers, he wants to point out a math error, which really is a (completely valid to point out is incorrect) terminology error on my part.


That's not true though. I pointed out both that your math was wrong *and* that your argument about the perception effect of mpg versus gpm was wrong as well (or at least why I disagreed with your assertion).

As I pointed out earlier, if we assume you are correct and that people's perception of linear differences in the measurement would cause them to place incorrect weight on relative ratio changes, and our goal is to encourage people to continue to adopt more fuel efficient vehicles, then mpg is actually a better way to express the ratio. You even started out arguing that as fuel efficiency increases, the linear to ratio perception effect would increase (the same mpg increase would appear to be larger than the actual relative ratio change).

What you missed is that this effect actually supports the argument that mpg is a better way to express this than gpm precisely because the perception of improvement stays high even as the actual relative improvement shrinks. Again, assuming we want people to continue to value even relatively small increases in fuel efficiency, this is a good thing.

Quote:
So, rather than me telling him he's wrong, he's asserting that I'm wrong, and I'm trying to rephrase to explain my point, but he can't get past the math part. For whatever reason.



Except you have failed to even attempt to re-argue your claim that the perception difference between linear value changes and relative ratio changes make gpm a better way to express fuel efficiency than mpg. And it's other people in this thread who can't seem to get past the math issue, not me. I pointed out the math error and then moved immediately to talking about the perception effect even while a couple posters kept accusing me of being bad at math. I kept getting dragged back into that part of the argument, even though I said it wasn't important, and what really mattered is that to whatever degree that perception difference applies, it applies in a way that makes mpg a better way to express the ratio.

Do you still disagree? If so, why? I've already given a couple arguments for why mpg is better. You, on the other hand, simply declared mpg to be a terrible way to do that, then when pressed moved into the math error, and since then have been silent about any additional explanation of your position. So now's your opportunity to support your position Smash. So go ahead!



Edited, Sep 16th 2013 3:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Sep 16 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Except you have failed to even attempt to re-argue your claim that the perception difference between linear value changes and relative ratio changes make gpm a better way to express fuel efficiency than mpg.

There's nothing to "re-argue". It's an established case. People, generally, compare MPG as if it were a linear measure. When shown the difference in the cost of gas per year, or whatever, they make different decisions. It's just about framing, it's not controversial, at all. You could argue about it, I guess, but it would be pretty much the same as arguing that making retirement contribution a default with an opt out instead of an opt in. People are generally both busy and distracted and also lazy. The clearer information you offer them the "better" decisions they make.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#90 Sep 16 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Except you have failed to even attempt to re-argue your claim that the perception difference between linear value changes and relative ratio changes make gpm a better way to express fuel efficiency than mpg.

There's nothing to "re-argue". It's an established case.


Which is the problem. You're not bothering to argue it because in your mind it's already "established" as true. Which is, at the very least, lazy as ****.

Quote:
People, generally, compare MPG as if it were a linear measure.


Sigh... And, as I said earlier, they do the same **** thing with GPM. The difference isn't whether one creates a different linear perspective relative to the actual ratio difference, but the directionality of that perspective change.


Quote:
When shown the difference in the cost of gas per year, or whatever, they make different decisions.


Fine. But what differences? Doesn't MPG make people think they are getting more value at the high end then they actually are? If our objective is to get someone to buy a car with higher fuel efficiency even when that efficiency only saves them a small amount of money personally, and presenting this as MPG instead of some other measure increases the odds that they'll buy that more efficient car, then isn't using MPG exactly what we should be doing?

You're correct that it can create a false perspective of the savings, but in this case, it creates a false perspective that actually increases the likelihood of the behavior we want (assuming, of course, that getting people to buy more fuel efficient cars is what we want). On the flip side, expressing it as GPM makes relative increases in fuel efficiency look smaller to the potential purchaser, and thus will statistically influence behavior *against* choosing to buy a more fuel efficient car.


The fact that's not really debatable here is that if consumers were actually given what you propose we should give them (real total cost of ownership over the expected ownership time period), consumers would be far far less likely to buy hybrid and//or electric cars. We trick them into buying those things by hiding the real costs and presenting them with a semi-false perception of savings in the form of mpg differences. We know that most buyers wont look at the increased cost for a hybrid versus regular version of a given car (for example), and then look at the MPG difference, then calculate how many miles they'll travel in an average year, and how many years they'll own the car, and calculate their savings and realize that they're not actually saving any money (or in some cases actually losing money).

So whether MPG is a good way to express that value or not depends completely on what we want consumers to do. There's no inherent "better" or "worse" method.

Edited, Sep 16th 2013 6:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Sep 16 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
So whether MPG is a good way to express that value or not depends completely on what we want consumers to do.

Yes. We want them to make better decisions. More informed decisions. When they're buying a pickup truck and are choosing between two basically equal options, we want then to understand that the one that gets 18MPG is going to cost them significantly more in the long tern than the one that gets 20 MPG. This is something they do not understand at present. At the moment, they think "oh, that's about the same".

The fact that's not really debatable here is that if consumers were actually given what you propose we should give them (real total cost of ownership over the expected ownership time period), consumers would be far far less likely to buy hybrid and//or electric cars.

Great. You've lost me at the part where I'm supposed to say "oh no, that would be terrible", I guess. People shouldn't buy a hybrid if it costs them more unless they choose to pay a premium for the status or the emissions benefits. That said, it's not 2002. A Prius has a lower total cost of ownership than a Camry or a Matrix. A Fusion Hybrid has a lower total cost of ownership than a non-hybrid fusion. I don't drive a hybrid. I've never owned one. I have owned high MPG diesels. I think that's presently a better solution. That's likely to change, of course.


We trick them into buying those things by hiding the real costs and presenting them with a semi-false perception of savings in the form of mpg differences. We know that most buyers wont look at the increased cost for a hybrid versus regular version of a given car (for example), and then look at the MPG difference, then calculate how many miles they'll travel in an average year, and how many years they'll own the car, and calculate their savings and realize that they're not actually saving any money (or in some cases actually losing money).


Right, because they won't do the math. Glad we agree. We should do it for them to let them make better, more informed, decisions. As noted above, with most of the popular hybrids on the market, they are saving money, so it doesn't seem likely this would do harm to hybrid sales.

So whether MPG is a good way to express that value or not depends completely on what we want consumers to do. There's no inherent "better" or "worse" method.

We want them to make informed decisions, that's all. Providing them with more useful information allows them to do so. Putting warnings on cigarette packs or calories on fast food menus are good ideas. Not because they will cause people necessarily to eat less junk food or smoke less overall, but because they will almost certainly prevent some people from making bad decisions out of ignorance. How can that not be better?

Edited, Sep 16th 2013 10:06pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#92 Sep 17 2013 at 3:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,687 posts
Quote:
Yes. We want them to make better decisions. More informed decisions. When they're buying a pickup truck and are choosing between two basically equal options, we want then to understand that the one that gets 18MPG is going to cost them significantly more in the long tern than the one that gets 20 MPG. This is something they do not understand at present. At the moment, they think "oh, that's about the same".
Is that all that's listed on the stickers at the dealerships? In Commieland, we also list average spend/year on gasoline. Consumers get L/100km and the $x,xxx expected to be spent by an average driver each year on gas.

Edited, Sep 17th 2013 6:46am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#93 Sep 17 2013 at 5:26 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Is that all that's listed on the stickers at the dealerships?

Used to be. 2013 model year introduces new labels with more useful information. For the obvious reasons I've stated previously above.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/420f11017.pdf
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#94 Sep 17 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Smash, I actually agree with what you just said. I was purely speaking about the comparison between MPG versus GPM (or L/100k). IMO, neither of them presents the true cost of ownership very well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Sep 17 2013 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,863 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
We want them to make informed decisions, that's all. Providing them with more useful information allows them to do so. Putting warnings on cigarette packs or calories on fast food menus are good ideas. Not because they will cause people necessarily to eat less junk food or smoke less overall, but because they will almost certainly prevent some people from making bad decisions out of ignorance. How can that not be better?
Ironically I tend to use those calorie numbers to figure out how I can get the most calories for my dollar when I'm hungry and don't want to spend a lot of cash (i.e. nearly every time I'm interested in fast food. Smiley: lol). Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Sep 17th 2013 2:44pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#96 Sep 17 2013 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Smash, I actually agree with what you just said

Fuck, really? Then the Lion of Judah as arrived just according to John of Patmos foretold. The Lamb with ten horns and seven eyes is likely preparing as we speak to open the first seal. Make yourself ready!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#97 Sep 17 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,430 posts
Ironically I tend to use those calorie numbers to figure out how I can get the most calories for my dollar when I'm hungry and don't want to spend a lot of cash (i.e. nearly every time I'm interested in fast food

Also a good use of information, really. You're way ahead of the curve for the coming Windup Girl future (good book, btw)
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#98 Sep 17 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,991 posts
ITT: "Everyone agrees that having more useful information is better, and that everyone else is wrong"
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#99 Sep 17 2013 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Smash, I actually agree with what you just said

Fuck, really? Then the Lion of Judah as arrived just according to John of Patmos foretold. The Lamb with ten horns and seven eyes is likely preparing as we speak to open the first seal. Make yourself ready!

I'd keep an eye on that baby boy of yours...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#100 Sep 18 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Everyone agrees that having more useful information is better,
Unless blind speculation better suits your needs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#101 Sep 18 2013 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,863 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Everyone agrees that having more useful information is better,
Unless blind speculation better suits your needs.
You can still do that with data. You just say the numbers support your claim and all of a sudden your personal vendetta carries more weight.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT