unless you^[2] metrize^[3] by something absolute, then the distribution of distributions remains hopelessly subjective^[1]

1. i.e., whichever question interests anyone, will reveal more about where specifically data were collected, and how, rather than about isotropic properties of the data-space ↩

2. "you" could be part of the data-space, although obviously it's easier to remove bias if the study designer isn't navel-gazing ↩

3. the "default metric" in this case would just be radial density, looking out from one subjective point, into the surrounding data-space; ideally, averaging that across multiple points; theoretically, one could hope to move beyond this limited frequentist cloud, although I haven't encountered anything to suggest humanity has done this yet. ↩

Yahyah, a little bit