Hacker News Reader

Comment by quantified | Hacker News Reader

Something lovely here about leveraging formal correctness for delivering astrology.

Mathematically-inclined people surviving by calculating outstandingly accurate and precise charts for producing superstitious bullshit is an ancient tradition

The Day trading quant gets cold sweats as he reads this.

this made me laugh out loud in public

One of my favorites is Jantar Mantar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jantar_Mantar

Perhaps you are referring to the traditional sun-sign astrology found in tabloids/magazines? There are claims that you can get much more precise by looking at ascendant-based astrology which varies down to the minute and lat/long of the place you were born. Or are you referring to both? Are there sources out there in the literature proving/disproving modern Astrology? There is this article on Gauquelin's Mars effect for instance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect

You mean "selection bias shows statistical significance whereas a larger study that eliminated this bias showed no correlation" precise looking?

On their front page:

> Most horoscopes ask what month you were born. Co–Star asks what minute.

> Access to astrology this accurate has historically been restricted to those with access to personal astrologers—now these predictions can be anyone's.

I mean, anyone can _ask_ what minute you were born. But what on earth can "accurate" mean in this context? I'm sure there's some modern tech we can use to measure your skull with great precision and detail, but I'm guessing that doesn't improve the predictions of phrenology.

Methods requiring minute level precision have been in use for centuries.

If it compiles your predictions are bug free

Reply on news.ycombinator.com