I other words, (again, if your calculations are correct) if this were a typical HN discussion about A/B testing a conversion goal, we'd all be ridiculing anybody who suggested a result almost 3 standard deviations from the mean _wasn't_ "statistically significant", yet climate change (sceptics|denialists) will no doubt _still_ argue the relevance of this…
The bigger problem (as others have alluded to) is that we don't really know what the tail of the distribution looks like. There's no obvious reason to think it's gaussian.
