<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Retire Standard Deviation</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/retire-standard-deviation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/retire-standard-deviation/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 13:20:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Swierczekml</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/retire-standard-deviation/comment-page-1/#comment-1114812</link>
		<dc:creator>Swierczekml</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:55:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=34070#comment-1114812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s interesting that the numbers are reversed in the excerpted part of the article above(15.7 is actually the STD, 10.8 is the MAD), but if you go to the original article (via the link), the numbers are listed correctly.  Was there a correction made to the original article that didn&#039;t make it into the excerpt?  If the author didn&#039;t recognize that the numbers were listed incorrectly in the original article, I question his judgement as to their relative usefulness!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting that the numbers are reversed in the excerpted part of the article above(15.7 is actually the STD, 10.8 is the MAD), but if you go to the original article (via the link), the numbers are listed correctly.  Was there a correction made to the original article that didn&#8217;t make it into the excerpt?  If the author didn&#8217;t recognize that the numbers were listed incorrectly in the original article, I question his judgement as to their relative usefulness!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gwern</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/retire-standard-deviation/comment-page-1/#comment-1107817</link>
		<dc:creator>Gwern</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=34070#comment-1107817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some &lt;a href=&quot;https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7064435&quot;&gt;criticism&lt;/a&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7064435">criticism</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James James</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/retire-standard-deviation/comment-page-1/#comment-1107717</link>
		<dc:creator>James James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:12:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=34070#comment-1107717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You seem to be focusing on the sensible and interesting answers to this year&#039;s Edge question, whereas Steve Sailer is focusing on the wrong, dishonest ones.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You seem to be focusing on the sensible and interesting answers to this year&#8217;s Edge question, whereas Steve Sailer is focusing on the wrong, dishonest ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
