<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>lolc</author><text>&amp;gt; arbitrarily correcting old measures.&lt;p&gt;Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction?</text><parent_chain><item><author>foofie</author><text>&amp;gt; Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn&amp;#x27;t worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think you fully grasp the implications of arbitrarily correcting old measures. In the end, and accepting at face value these corrections, you&amp;#x27;re still manipulating old data to use the result of said manipulation as the whole basis of your hypothesis.&lt;p&gt;This approach automatically leads to questions on whether you draw your conclusions from the data, or you change the data to fit your conclusions.&lt;p&gt;Do you understand the risk that this poses in any discussion on a politically sensitive topic?&lt;p&gt;Think of the hit to the credibility of any claim supported by this data manipulation if later your method is deemed untrustworthy because it needs further updates, and how it would look if you had to correct it to move the dial either way (i.e., &amp;quot;they were lying from the start and are now covering their ass&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;they felt their lie wasn&amp;#x27;t fooling anyone and decided to double down.&amp;quot;)</text></item><item><author>Nevermark</author><text>What is nice is vetting and correcting data for reliability and consistency.&lt;p&gt;Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn&amp;#x27;t worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction.&lt;p&gt;Our brains constantly make up distracting narratives, if we let them.&lt;p&gt;If the correction had been the other way, some people would say scientists have been downplaying data and probably still are.</text></item><item><author>laverya</author><text>Their corrections may be correct, but it&amp;#x27;s still always nicer when the magnitude of the signal is larger than that of the corrections to the data.</text></item><item><author>BeefWellington</author><text>In fairness though, they didn&amp;#x27;t just make up their bias assertion; it&amp;#x27;s in other published works[1] and there is real evidence that old measurements were incorrect (biased towards the high side) when compared to other available contemporary measurements.&lt;p&gt;[1]: Landsea, C. W. Mon. Weath. Rev. 121, 1703–1714 (1993) - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;journals.ametsoc.org&amp;#x2F;configurable&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;journals$002fmwre$002f121$002f6$002f1520-0493_1993_121_1703_acoima_2_0_co_2.xml?t%3Aac=journals%24002fmwre%24002f121%24002f6%24002f1520-0493_1993_121_1703_acoima_2_0_co_2.xml&amp;amp;tab_body=pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;journals.ametsoc.org&amp;#x2F;configurable&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;journals$0...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>ggreer</author><text>I am skeptical of this paper. If you go to Wikipedia&amp;#x27;s list of most intense tropical cyclones[1] and sort by barometric pressure, there doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to be much correlation with time. The biggest and most intense tropical cyclone is still Typhoon Tip in 1979.[2] If you read the actual study[3], it looks like they do a lot of data manipulation and simulation to come to their conclusion. They subtract 15 meters&amp;#x2F;sec from wind speeds measured before 1973, claiming a bias in measurements from that time. This causes a huge step up in lifetime maximum intensity in the 1970s. Their estimates of future category 6 probabilities are from simulations that they admit don&amp;#x27;t simulate current conditions correctly.&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s more likely than not that tropical cyclones are getting more intense, and that they&amp;#x27;re hitting places that didn&amp;#x27;t typically get hit in the past, but I don&amp;#x27;t find this paper convincing. It really feels like they cajoled the data to fit their conclusion.&lt;p&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_the_most_intense_tropi...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;2. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Typhoon_Tip&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Typhoon_Tip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;3. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;doi&amp;#x2F;full&amp;#x2F;10.1073&amp;#x2F;pnas.2308901121&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;doi&amp;#x2F;full&amp;#x2F;10.1073&amp;#x2F;pnas.2308901121&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>We&apos;ve already seen category 6 hurricanes – scientists want to make it official</title><url>https://eos.org/articles/weve-already-seen-category-6-hurricanes-now-scientists-want-to-make-it-official</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>throwawayqqq11</author><text>To add to the &amp;quot;not arbitrary corection&amp;quot; comments.&lt;p&gt;Correction is also not lying. Anyone who states that is not grasping something about a totally political topic&amp;#x2F;method.</text><parent_chain><item><author>foofie</author><text>&amp;gt; Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn&amp;#x27;t worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think you fully grasp the implications of arbitrarily correcting old measures. In the end, and accepting at face value these corrections, you&amp;#x27;re still manipulating old data to use the result of said manipulation as the whole basis of your hypothesis.&lt;p&gt;This approach automatically leads to questions on whether you draw your conclusions from the data, or you change the data to fit your conclusions.&lt;p&gt;Do you understand the risk that this poses in any discussion on a politically sensitive topic?&lt;p&gt;Think of the hit to the credibility of any claim supported by this data manipulation if later your method is deemed untrustworthy because it needs further updates, and how it would look if you had to correct it to move the dial either way (i.e., &amp;quot;they were lying from the start and are now covering their ass&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;they felt their lie wasn&amp;#x27;t fooling anyone and decided to double down.&amp;quot;)</text></item><item><author>Nevermark</author><text>What is nice is vetting and correcting data for reliability and consistency.&lt;p&gt;Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn&amp;#x27;t worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction.&lt;p&gt;Our brains constantly make up distracting narratives, if we let them.&lt;p&gt;If the correction had been the other way, some people would say scientists have been downplaying data and probably still are.</text></item><item><author>laverya</author><text>Their corrections may be correct, but it&amp;#x27;s still always nicer when the magnitude of the signal is larger than that of the corrections to the data.</text></item><item><author>BeefWellington</author><text>In fairness though, they didn&amp;#x27;t just make up their bias assertion; it&amp;#x27;s in other published works[1] and there is real evidence that old measurements were incorrect (biased towards the high side) when compared to other available contemporary measurements.&lt;p&gt;[1]: Landsea, C. W. Mon. Weath. Rev. 121, 1703–1714 (1993) - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;journals.ametsoc.org&amp;#x2F;configurable&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;journals$002fmwre$002f121$002f6$002f1520-0493_1993_121_1703_acoima_2_0_co_2.xml?t%3Aac=journals%24002fmwre%24002f121%24002f6%24002f1520-0493_1993_121_1703_acoima_2_0_co_2.xml&amp;amp;tab_body=pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;journals.ametsoc.org&amp;#x2F;configurable&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;journals$0...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>ggreer</author><text>I am skeptical of this paper. If you go to Wikipedia&amp;#x27;s list of most intense tropical cyclones[1] and sort by barometric pressure, there doesn&amp;#x27;t seem to be much correlation with time. The biggest and most intense tropical cyclone is still Typhoon Tip in 1979.[2] If you read the actual study[3], it looks like they do a lot of data manipulation and simulation to come to their conclusion. They subtract 15 meters&amp;#x2F;sec from wind speeds measured before 1973, claiming a bias in measurements from that time. This causes a huge step up in lifetime maximum intensity in the 1970s. Their estimates of future category 6 probabilities are from simulations that they admit don&amp;#x27;t simulate current conditions correctly.&lt;p&gt;I think it&amp;#x27;s more likely than not that tropical cyclones are getting more intense, and that they&amp;#x27;re hitting places that didn&amp;#x27;t typically get hit in the past, but I don&amp;#x27;t find this paper convincing. It really feels like they cajoled the data to fit their conclusion.&lt;p&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;List_of_the_most_intense_tropi...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;2. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Typhoon_Tip&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Typhoon_Tip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;3. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;doi&amp;#x2F;full&amp;#x2F;10.1073&amp;#x2F;pnas.2308901121&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.pnas.org&amp;#x2F;doi&amp;#x2F;full&amp;#x2F;10.1073&amp;#x2F;pnas.2308901121&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>We&apos;ve already seen category 6 hurricanes – scientists want to make it official</title><url>https://eos.org/articles/weve-already-seen-category-6-hurricanes-now-scientists-want-to-make-it-official</url></story>