The p-value does not measure the confidence people have that the hypothesis is true. The p-value is the probability that the given results support the hypothesis merely as a result of random chance. This means that every sane person considers the probability of the hypothesis being false as higher than the p-value, sometimes several times higher, depending on circumstances.

For example, if someone tested 20 hypotheses with the same dataset, and only reported one with a p-value of 4%, it is almost certain that the results are meaningless, as per the linked comic. When you factor in the bias toward reporting interesting experiments with statistically significant support for the result, both on behalf of the researcher and the publishing journal, some would consider it generous to have even 20% confidence in an "interesting" result with 4% p-value.

A p-value of 5% is the absolute minimum allowed in most scientific professions, although several require an even smaller p-value. The only reason p-values that large are even allowed, is because of the economics (and sometimes ethics) of performing experiments. Eg it is more worthwhile to do 10 studies with sample size 100, and then 1 study with sample size 1000 to verify the most interesting result, than to do a single study with sample size 2000.

I should like to hear your proposal for gun parts made in anything other than 3 dimensions.

Also note he said a 3D scanner, not a 3D printer, although I'm fairly certain that merely knowing the shape is not sufficient since how it got that shape lends a lot to its mechanical properties.

The headline: Slashdot Finally Listens to Community, Eliminates Beta.

And it would be extra funny if the article were about something entirely different. Now that's a clickbait hook!

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse, in tradition dating back thousands of years. Though nowadays everyone including the judge and lawyers are ignorant of the law an it is not humanly possible to know all the law. Anyhow, who ever heard of a thief getting off because he claims he didn't know *stealing jewelry while wearing a tuxedo* was illegal (the law never mentions jewelry specifically nor tuxedos, does it?), and promised from now on he won't do exactly that? That's about as believable as those cops claiming that stealing *people's private communications using Stingray towers* was not illegal, and then being told OK but don't do it again. I mean, they might have some sort of case if it weren't for the towers impersonating real ones.

That was one of the uses for prisons while they were still open, though they were more exclusive (ie, required applicants to commit some sort of crime to be allowed in).

I guess you didn't understand which criminals I was talking about. Hint: police can commit crimes. And this article is about an illegal activity police have been committing.

That reminds me, there was a recent article about a prisoner shortage. As a bonus, putting these criminals in jail will also most likely stop all this complaining about a prisoner shortage.

Florida Supreme Court rules that a bunch of criminals who broke the most sacred laws of the land, won't get punished for their previous crimes.

Slashdot is losing readership. And getting rid of beta is too hard, so here's a poll on how to improve our clickbait headlines.

Facebook comment: don't worry, I'm OK!

I was thinking Slashdot Headline.

Cool -- recursively self-insulting.

This is rocket science. People are supposed to go "tits up".

I think you mean, first person to set up space snipers to ward off the competition, gets all the space territory they want.

How do you know their strategy isn't "Convince the US to give up research so they won't be 'losers'. Then we can finally get ahead of them."? After all, why else declassify that strategy given its not complete?