• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The context they used it was the statistical term, though.

    They aren’t describing something’s appearance. They’re describing the nature of the distribution.

    They then are describing the visual aesthetic of the distribution, which is at odds with the description of the distribution. This is exactly my point. It stands.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes it was.

        The word “skew” cannot apply to a population in any other sense than a statistical sense. It cant be stretched and malformed as the nonstatistical definition would suggest.