From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 12/10/25 17:22, Tom Elam wrote:   
   > On 12/10/2025 3:24 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >> "...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you   
   >> provide: it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't   
   >> bothering to control for.  Since you've not improved the dataset, all   
   >> you've done is to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of   
   >> that variance."   
   >   
   > Yes, but that scatter was only 1 variable, OAT, that affects kWh used.   
      
   Which you represented as your work product, not your starting point.   
      
   Cherry-picking again, with what you choose to lie through omissions.   
      
      
   > A major part of that apparent scatter was that there were other   
   > independent variables in hand at the time but not controlled in the   
   > scatter plot. When the additional independent variables are introduced   
   > the kWh variance was significantly reduced.   
      
   Not documented then, and adding in additional variables can help to   
   tighten up a correlation, but it depends on how the weighing factors are   
   tweaked...but that doesn't mean that there's solid scientific principles   
   which justify the weighting factor values:  over time, one learns who's   
   the better cheat by if the factors are based on optimizing the   
   correlation versus having solid scientific principles for their value.   
      
      
   > The main ones are changes we   
   > made in the house that reduced energy lost rate and thus energy required   
   > to maintain temperature. Those changes are documented by date and expense.   
      
   Just because you used some obvious potential variables isn't proof that   
   you couldn't have missed others which were less obvious/easy.   
      
   The statistics joke is that you're searching for your lost quarter under   
   the streetlight, not where the quarter was actually dropped.   
      
      
   > No data were "massaged" other than ...   
      
   "Other than" is the confession.   
      
      
   > I'm doubting if you every built a regression model.   
      
   Whereas I'm seeing better why you had to work into your upper 70s.   
      
      
   > Inquired?  Nope.   
   > Called you out on the holes in your lame brag attempts?  Yup!   
   >   
   > Which is the same as asking for more to fill in the "holes".   
      
   Nope:  you chose to try to fill in your discrepancies.  No one came to   
   your house and put a gun to your head to force you to post.   
      
   > You are the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's a   
   > trophy home. Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel   
   > full of $1+ million mansions. Compared to Alan's 500 sq ft Vancouver   
   > condo you might be right, but in this area!   
   >   
   > If it really is so humble, then you wouldn't be trying to compare   
   > yourself to an urban condo...right?  /s   
   >   
   > Wrong. In the Vancouver market my home is a "trophy" worth well over $1   
   > million. Not here, where housing is much more affordable.   
      
   Oh, so what you actually meant to say was that your "$1M" claim actually   
   was how much it could be worth in Vancouver if it got teleported there.   
      
      
   > We traveled a record number of days this year, almost 3 months. Not   
   > because of you, because of some great opportunities.   
      
   Oh so then you're admitting that your prior insult attempt of:   
      
   "If I had to live in your tiny house and in small town NJ I'd be   
   more likely to look for cheap international tickets and travel too!"   
      
   ...when you're doing it, changes to looking for "great opportunities" /s   
      
   Ironic that the statement came right after you admitted that your   
   current housing is 'more affordable'.   
      
   Of course, considering Tommy's history & style of cherry-picking and   
   stretching of things like what's "almost", a brag attempt of "almost 3   
   months" could be as modest as just (2 months + 1 day) = 61 days.   
      
      
   > Already planned 2 weeks in France next year, 2 weeks at Beaver creek   
   > and some time in Florida. More to come.   
      
   So 2026's looking to be another cheap year, at least so far.   
      
      
   > Travel has to compete for time doing other things, after all.   
      
   Unfortunately the case.  Disruptions from unexpected health issues are   
   an increasingly common factor as one gets older, for example.  And some   
   folk will be tempted to count days in the hospital as "vacation away" /s   
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)