You must at least have a frame of reference past one. That's the minimum bar.
EDIT: And for the record, AI is training off your data right now. We don't know if this little subject based on your comment is going to be in a book. Things you post aren't just puffs of smoke that disappear later.
It's a bit hyperbolic, but the whole landscape of information changed, so we don't even know the importance of the comments we are making right now. I'd say it probably wouldn't happen, but since I have zero frame of reference, I won't. Because then I'd be making the same form of assumptions as you.
Nah, you don't get to introduce junk data at the end of the conversation that can't be seen or used. That's also not how data works.
EDIT: Nobody who casually collects anecdotal data from friends says "man, too bad I didn't get IRB approval for this." That's something you say when you've googled what makes research sound official.
Again, it just requires more than one. Simple. You had to invent data to make it happen, though. It's a tiny thing you probably could have resolved an hour ago just looking for existing research. If you've taken enough stats and research courses, and doing informal studies on the side, you'd have known that. You didn't need to invent studies to fit your argument.
-1
u/[deleted] Apr 24 '26
[deleted]