• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately might be true. I was listening to an episode of radio lab and they even pointed out that we’re in a solar cycle right now that is supposed to be cold and the peak was in 2019. So as the solar cycle swings back it’ll only get worse and worse… not all doom and gloom, humans will adapt we have the brainpower to do it. But I’m gonna miss the wildlife we have today

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Solar cycles repeat every 11 years 5-25 years. It’s not a situation where the sun will give off more and more heat for a long time. For the purposes of climate change, effects of the hot cycle is miniscule compared to what greenhouse gasses do.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I understand this, however when you’re in the middle of a cold cycle and we’re setting record temps daily. That’s a bit worrisome for just how much we’ve fucked up. There are also different kinds of cycle larger ones spanning decades and the mini ones you mention, on the podcast they mention we’re in a mini cold cycle

    • WookieMunster
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      Was it though? Must’ve been nice for those few that hoard all the wealth

  • I_Miss_Daniel
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The cars are out to kill us. In 2020 it was 19 Toyota Coronas. Now it’s five Mitsubishi Sigmas!

    On the plus side, Musk killed the Bluebird.

    • Hot Saucerman
      link
      fedilink
      371 year ago

      Sigma balls. Am I doing this right?


      For seriously though, its explained in the article:

      For those of you who are interested in statistics, this is a five-sigma event. So it’s five standard deviations beyond the mean. Which means that if nothing had changed, we’d expect to see a winter like this about once every 7.5 million years.

    • fearout
      link
      fedilink
      25
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As was mentioned in another comment, it’s a statistical term that measures the standard deviation. It basically tells you how “far” from the center of the bell curve you are with your data points. The higher the sigma, the less likely it is that an observed event was a fluke.

      For example, 1-sigma event has a ~37% chance of being a “coincidence”, and 2-sigma has a chance of about 4.5%.

      In science, 3-sigma (0.135%) is the first publishable certainty, it’s when something becomes significant enough to start a discussion.

      And 5-sigma is the most common threshold for claiming discovery. 5-sigma events have a 0.0000287% chance of being a coincidence or some random happenstance. Or one in 3.5 million.

      Higgs boson discovery was announced after 5-sigma certainty was reached. It means that if that particle didn’t actually exist, the chance of the experiments producing observed results would be 1 in 3.5 mln.

      • Rhaedas
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        It’s also used in business. Six sigma is the holy grail of “close to perfection”.

        • fearout
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Interesting, haven’t heard about that. Can you give an example of how it’s used in business? What is actually measured?

            • fearout
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Thanks. So I guess it doesn’t really measure anything in that field. Looks more like a strategy guideline and a set of techniques.

              • enkers
                link
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If you read the section on etymology of the business term, it was referring to the metric of quality control. Basically it means your QC is so good that a bad unit gets shipped only a tiny fraction of the time.

                Processes that operate with “six sigma quality” over the short term are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO). The 3.4 dpmo is based on a “shift” of ± 1.5 sigma explained by Mikel Harry.