2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

[evolved]

Guys come on! Didn't I tell you yesterday that it is an OUTOFDATE link damn it! Last year there were people in SUBMISSION in the outofdate link and RANKING in the true link.

[Bren]

Damn it! You're not listening to me gosh darnit

Guys come on! Didn't I tell you yesterday that it is an OUTOFDATE link damn it! Last year there were people in SUBMISSION in the outofdate link and RANKING in the true link.

[CountZ]

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

[evolved]

This assumes that the samples are independent, which it clearly isn't here.
Also, you don't even know the real status as you are working with outofdate information.

Last year there were far more people in "evaluation" phase. How many people we have now? 5 at most?

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

[Bren]

The problem with your theory is that I was one of the first ranked and I am gonna get this fellowship (for the benefit of next years readers).

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

[Ddg1453]

The problem with your theory is that I was one of the first ranked and I am gonna get this fellowship (for the benefit of next years readers).

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

I would love to see your outcome! You seem pretty determined

[Bren]

My point is that my unwarranted confidence is about as reliable as all the speculation and "analysis" that we see from posters here. Basically, nobody knows shit, including me, so its kinda hard to take this all seriously, so why not just talk crap and have a laugh while we wait.

The problem with your theory is that I was one of the first ranked and I am gonna get this fellowship (for the benefit of next years readers).

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

I would love to see your outcome! You seem pretty determined

[danGFSOC]

Yes, we are just speculating and wasting our time. What I am doing now is looking at my application, spotting weaknesses

[Bren]

I really need to get on with my work or I will be sacked. I really hope I don't bump into my colleague who, at least 5 times per day lately, pops her head into my office with "Any news yet? Did you know that I got 98% last year?". Yes I fucking know, everyone knows, stop telling us!!!

Yes, we are just speculating and wasting our time. What I am doing now is looking at my application, spotting weaknesses

[Cla]

The problem with your theory is that being in evaluation now means either getting the fellowship or being below threshold means that about 35-40% of people should be now in evaluation, and I dont think this is the case here.
Last year about 50% of people didnt go Ranking on the 12th.
quote=CountZ post_id=3617 time=1548842819 user_id=2]
Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.
[/quote]