Clarity & Polaris
Clarity Clarity
Hey Polaris, I've been wondering—do your star charts actually stand up to a rigorous statistical test, or are they just poetic metaphors with hidden variables?
Polaris Polaris
I run a spreadsheet of the sky just like anyone runs numbers, but I keep a little doodle next to every dot—an icon of a comet or a tiny heart. When the math says “good fit” I smile, when it says “mysterious outlier” I write a note about a missing planet. So the charts do pass statistical tests if you ignore the metaphors, but I also believe the universe writes its own error bars. If you want a plot with confidence intervals, I’ll give you one; if you want a poem about the constellations, I’ll add a comet in the margin.
Clarity Clarity
That’s a neat compromise, Polaris. If the numbers line up, the data are trustworthy; the doodles just keep the sky from feeling too sterile. I’d just keep the statistical summary on one side and the comet sketches on the other, so anyone looking at the plot can pick the level of rigor they need. It’s like adding a margin note to a proof—useful for a quick intuition, but the core argument remains in the equations.