You need future data to know if it’s an anomaly.

I appreciate what you’re saying and I even more appreciate your honest attempt at talking through it, so thank you for that. I promise I understand that viewpoint 100%.

There’s a number of issues I took with the initial statement:

• you could just as easily argue it’s not a statistical anomaly until you have future years of data. The same way we cannot state it’s a trend is the exact same reason you cannot treat it as an anomaly.

• I say “you could just as easily argue…” as it’s a very general term with a lot of meanings depending on how broadly one applies it. “Anomalies are patterns in data that do not conform to a well defined notion of normal behavior” is one definition I found. Just because there is a trend upward over the next few years doesn’t actually mean it’s not an anomaly either over a much broader period. If the trend continues for 3 years then recedes, one could still say define that period as a statistical anomaly over a broader time frame.

• the framing of statistical anomaly was also used selectively as it applies to the city. How does the trend match up against the state, the country, with crime in those places, with drug use? A trend could easily already well be there. Even the time frame is selective. Again, the application was so general it renders it nearly meaningless.

• this culminates to my ultimate point that it was an incredibly crass and dismissive statement about murder in the state. If that exact same statement were made about an increase in hate crimes every one of you would loose your collective shit and I strongly suspect it would have never been said. The comment was not helpful and only seemingly accurate in the blandest definition.

Given this, what was the point of the statement? I have guesses but they’re beside the point. Ultimately it only serves to shut down conversation about what is driving the murders and treat them as statistics rather than understanding causes.

That thought came into your head and you actively went ahead and posted it. Impressive.

Good to know we’ve got some intellect going on here and not flimsy comparisons.

No it’s not. So we’re clear, your definition of statistic anomalies does not apply to murders over 5 or hate crimes?

Okay, so we need 10 years to determine if we should be concerned about this or not?

How many years?

Forcing you to apply your own logic to other scenarios is strawman? You’ve got to be kidding me. There’s no magic to the number 5. You either apply statistical anomalies consistently or it’s a catchphrase you like throwing around for any number of reasons.

Does your statistical anomaly definition (which seems to get more amorphous as this conversation continues) apply to hate crimes? So if hate crimes went up 500% in a year woild your response be “more data needed to determine if statistical anomaly or not”?

Here’s an insider tip no one talks about here that’s great if you can drive: the Acme near Newport. Rarely packed, super clean, no riff raff, and reasonably priced.

Is your point that a lot of murders happen elsewhere in higher crime areas so it doesn’t matter even though they historically haven’t happened here? What is the amount of murders you should see in Burlington before it’s no longer “these things happen sometimes”?

You say they answered my question. Please quote me where they answered what type of data is required and if 20 murders can also be considered a statistical anomaly - because I’m not seeing it. I’m pressing on this because seeing a bump in stats and just calling it a statistical anomaly is not how statistics work - it’s laziness and ignorance dressed as pseudo intellectualism.

Why doesn’t it prove my point? Are there numbers that don’t qualify as statistic anomalies? What data are you referring to? More years? This isn’t a hard question you’re avoiding.

I haven’t assumed anything. Brushing it off as a statistic anomaly is lazy, as well as avoiding my questions. Your analogy is poor as it uses value rather than occurrences. A better, albeit still shitty one, is finding a dollar in the ground and then finding 5 separate dollars on the ground the next day. It’s still a bad comparison as a lot less goes into someone dropping money than murder. If there were 100 murders last year, saying “let’s see if there are 100 murders next year to know if something is different here” I think we can agree would be quite moronic.

Sure dude. Whatever you say.

Let’s add the return of the McRib as a reason since we’re just saying anything that could potentially stick.

Vail did it.

There were zero murders the prior two years and averaging 1 a year for many years before that. Brushing it off as a statistical anomaly is exactly what researchers do when presented with information that doesn’t conform to their views.

If there were 20 murders would you also just call that a statistical anomaly? What type of data do you require?

Edit: god I forgot how awful the people on this sub are. Truly bottom the barrel.

Im not sure laws are applied in Greenville.

A lot of pest control solutions don’t involve poison or bait such as sticky traps and filling holes. There are numerous kinds of poison and bait options that can be used.

Can you elaborate on your allergy?

They won’t fill holes. That’s an extra service.

Thats very reasonable.

There are like 4 people cutting, wrapping, and tying to your car at all times there. What exactly do you need help with?

Buy all my underwear and socks there, some dress pants, a jacket, heat tech, and a few T-shirt’s. Zero complaints.

I’m told in Japan they’re essentially thought of as local Old Navy, but for us here it’s a bit more chic because the fit and style is way better than ON, Gap, etc. They do simple really well.

Shit…I’ve been hit twice this year by light rail. They practically come out nowhere.

Edit: guys. I’m totally serious. You can tell as I’m using my ‘I’m totally serious’ writing style.

Oof. Really stung you with that one.