So again, think about the wine experts and the wine ratings.

Confidence

Adaptive

Always sample

Maximum sample

Sample radius

0.6, 1.2, 2.4, 0.6, and 1.2.

We talked about this in the context of the, the wine experts.

Narrator So, let me makes this alpha wise expressive and ask another question.

And the first probability histogram will encounter is this distribution of sample means.

Divine...

Wine.

...wine.

Is it the wine?

This wine is superior to that one in scent.

DVR Support Kris Smith

Beer?

This wine is inferior to that one in flavor.

This wine is inferior to that in its bouquet.

So this wine is very, very famous.

You sack of wine!

I prefer red wine to white.

I prefer red wine to white wine.

Do you prefer white wine or red wine?

Which do you like better, white wine or red wine?

Which do you prefer, white wine or red wine?

There's always a little fluctuation from sample to sample.

I like white wine better than red wine.

We start as before.

This verdict essentially rendered any kind of sampling, no matter how small, infringing.

Let's say we sample that randomly, and it comes up Rain is positive.

Yes, why? How long ago?

White wine, please.

There's wine... red wine.

A glass of wine? Can I get you one?

I'll just get your wine for you.

Marie, some more wine, maybe?

Wine.

See you tonight. Uh, drink my wine.

That got my name on it, Tom?

In 2005 they scored an influential court decision over this two second sample.

That was a really cool challenge that one. We stayed up all night on the beat, 24 hours.

And this procedure would also be consistent.

Tom can't tell the difference between expensive wine and cheap wine.

Tom can't tell the difference between expensive wine and cheap wine.