The high accuracy, low precision regime seems so strange to me! I think not many would call that situation “high accuracy” with most of the shots missing the bullseye!
Plus it seems like if you just keep increasing accuracy, you necessarily force all the shots to converge on the bullseye, don’t you? Then you get precision “for free” which is strange!
That’s really unstable to me. Grows like a weed, needs constant pruning.
Stable is something like a succulent or a slow-growing epiphyte. Barely needs water or really any attention at all. Grows extremely slowly and can survive long droughts.
Speak for yourself! Last time I went for a walk to get a snack at the local shop, I got scooped up by a giant shark and carried back to the water!
Sadly, there are no rules against politics here, nor are there any rules requiring science content.
Yeah I get that the centre of the distribution is on the bullseye, it just doesn’t fit with the ordinary meaning of the word “accurate.”
It also falls apart with a small sample size. If I fire only a single shot and hit the bullseye, that doesn’t tell you anything. However, in everyday speech most people would describe that as an accurate shot.