The "neighborhood factor," if there is really such a thing, doesn't really matter because gun control works in all neighborhoods: https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Nutrition studies are notoriously difficult to make accurate. Take, for example, this study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076632) that found that the reported nutrition intake for survey participants was "not physiologically plausible." And this was for one of the most well-regarded U.S. surveys of nutritional intake.
Now, I haven't reviewed the study listed in this article, but I am highly, highly skeptical because of how hard it is to get accurate food consumption information from the public.
Consider, for instance, what you've eaten so far today - what have you eaten, and exactly how many servings of each item have you consumed? If this is hard to do for a couple of meals in one day, imagine how hard it is to make that accurate over an extended period of time.
Are these just loss leaders (like every grocery store offers), or is this a real, long-term effort to lower prices at Whole Foods? Will Amazon be taking a loss on Whole Foods or are these prices actually (using one of Whole Foods' favorite words here) sustainable?
I agree! We wouldn't put up with the same comment being made about a religious, ethnic, or gender group, so why is it okay to say it about an age group? (Note: I am not a millennial according to most definitions, but as a general rule I despise most "generational" research.)
Well, not exactly. It's the probability of seeing your results given your assumptions about the underlying distribution. In your example, you are assuming the coin flips exactly evenly on both sides (50% heads, 50% tails). If, in reality, a coins flip 51% heads and 49% tails (due to, say, the extra weight of the head), then your p-value would not be accurate.
You really don't want this kind of bickering in a military unit where distractions and small mistakes get people killed. It's the one place you can't afford it.
This same justification was used for years to keep blacks out of the military. And women. And gay people. And on and on.
Maybe instead the military could train people how to avoid "distractions and small mistakes," instead of thinking that those issues could be avoided by excluding certain 'undesirable' people.
Except you forget buses often have additional tires per axle and larger tires. And the load balance, and vehicle speed, and a number of additional factors (such as weather and the width of the road) also affect the extent of road damage. I think your back-of-the-envelope estimates are way off. http://www.ndltap.org/events/conference/downloads/LocalRoads14_03.pdf
Is there evidence the machines actually understood each other, or were they just sending random text to each other (which might be more scary, in that it would be a good simulation of human behavior)?
There are many people who are not the intended audience for the law who have still benefited from the law. For example, if you are carrying a large package, the door opener buttons and wider door openings are a direct benefit. Sidewalk cutouts are great when you are riding a bicycle or pushing a stroller. Closed captioning makes it easy to view a TV program when sound is a problem (like at work). The list goes on. So don't think only people in wheelchairs have benefited from the law.
It's like throwing good money after bad. I'm sure often the employees realize the company is in trouble, but...but...but...if the big break happens then everyone who is there will be rich (at least that's the thinking). So maybe I put in a few more weeks, you know, just in case this company hits the start-up lottery. Because I don't want to be that guy who quit the next Facebook at just the wrong time.
CEO's will often use this strategy to manipulate people and then when things do go belly up, it's the employees are who are left with nothing.
These estimates are usually done by comparing health and death rates in polluted and non-polluted areas, and then calculating the "excess" deaths that could be attributed to the pollution (after controlling for a range of other factors).
Having a direct link seems problematic. At what point does the technology control you? Isn't it bad enough already with people dependent on their phones to do anything? It seems at that point we would be giving up a major component of that which makes us human.
It's not clear who was actually rioting. I am no conspiracy theorist, but given how much Milo has to gain from such attention, it is plausible that those who agree with him or like him have the potential to have been involved in the rioting. Or, it could just be opportunists who enjoy rioting and look for any opportunity to cause some mayhem.
People are bad at estimating true risk, particularly when it compares something dramatic (like an airplane crash) and something more mundane (like a car crash). This can cause people to change behavior toward the thing that is actually more risky (e.g., driving on a long trip instead of flying - driving is much more dangerous mile per mile).
Global thermonuclear war is certainly a dramatic, and important, threat to our survival as a species. But, the chance of it occurring is small compared to the risk from climate change (which is already happening, perhaps irreversibly).
Or, maybe we could all just work fewer hours per week. Which would leave more time for, you know, living.
I heard a story from a friend who works with refugees. One family, he found a good job for the father, got them settled, etc. After a few weeks the father had stopped going to work. My friend asked the father what had happened, was there a problem with the work? Was it too difficult to get to work? Did they not like you? No, he said, it was none of these things. He stopped going to work because he realized his children were growing up without him and it was his responsibility to be home to take care of the family. Once that was accomplished, then he would go to work. This then, of course, led to conversations about having to pay for things you need for life and so on, but I think there is a grain of truth here.
Life != work and there would be plenty of great living to do outside of work.
Slashdot Mirror
The "neighborhood factor," if there is really such a thing, doesn't really matter because gun control works in all neighborhoods: https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
I'll just wait for the TV-movie version of the book.
Nutrition studies are notoriously difficult to make accurate. Take, for example, this study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076632) that found that the reported nutrition intake for survey participants was "not physiologically plausible." And this was for one of the most well-regarded U.S. surveys of nutritional intake.
Now, I haven't reviewed the study listed in this article, but I am highly, highly skeptical because of how hard it is to get accurate food consumption information from the public.
Consider, for instance, what you've eaten so far today - what have you eaten, and exactly how many servings of each item have you consumed? If this is hard to do for a couple of meals in one day, imagine how hard it is to make that accurate over an extended period of time.
Are these just loss leaders (like every grocery store offers), or is this a real, long-term effort to lower prices at Whole Foods? Will Amazon be taking a loss on Whole Foods or are these prices actually (using one of Whole Foods' favorite words here) sustainable?
I agree! We wouldn't put up with the same comment being made about a religious, ethnic, or gender group, so why is it okay to say it about an age group?
(Note: I am not a millennial according to most definitions, but as a general rule I despise most "generational" research.)
Well, not exactly. It's the probability of seeing your results given your assumptions about the underlying distribution.
In your example, you are assuming the coin flips exactly evenly on both sides (50% heads, 50% tails). If, in reality, a coins flip 51% heads and 49% tails (due to, say, the extra weight of the head), then your p-value would not be accurate.
What's the experiment? There have been transgender people living in the world as long as there have been people.
You really don't want this kind of bickering in a military unit where distractions and small mistakes get people killed. It's the one place you can't afford it.
This same justification was used for years to keep blacks out of the military. And women. And gay people. And on and on.
Maybe instead the military could train people how to avoid "distractions and small mistakes," instead of thinking that those issues could be avoided by excluding certain 'undesirable' people.
Except you forget buses often have additional tires per axle and larger tires. And the load balance, and vehicle speed, and a number of additional factors (such as weather and the width of the road) also affect the extent of road damage. I think your back-of-the-envelope estimates are way off.
http://www.ndltap.org/events/conference/downloads/LocalRoads14_03.pdf
Is there evidence the machines actually understood each other, or were they just sending random text to each other (which might be more scary, in that it would be a good simulation of human behavior)?
How many Olympic-sized swimming pools would it fill?
There are many people who are not the intended audience for the law who have still benefited from the law. For example, if you are carrying a large package, the door opener buttons and wider door openings are a direct benefit. Sidewalk cutouts are great when you are riding a bicycle or pushing a stroller. Closed captioning makes it easy to view a TV program when sound is a problem (like at work). The list goes on. So don't think only people in wheelchairs have benefited from the law.
Spend a couple of weeks exclusively using a chair and see if the rules still seem draconian to you.
It's like throwing good money after bad. I'm sure often the employees realize the company is in trouble, but...but...but...if the big break happens then everyone who is there will be rich (at least that's the thinking). So maybe I put in a few more weeks, you know, just in case this company hits the start-up lottery. Because I don't want to be that guy who quit the next Facebook at just the wrong time.
CEO's will often use this strategy to manipulate people and then when things do go belly up, it's the employees are who are left with nothing.
Where it would it score on the positive-to-negative impact?
Mod this post up if you think this is a good question.
How much do you value your own life? I pay for, you pay for me. That's how society worked.
Yes, that pesky nanny state government. Always trying to keep people from getting cancer. Those bastards!
These estimates are usually done by comparing health and death rates in polluted and non-polluted areas, and then calculating the "excess" deaths that could be attributed to the pollution (after controlling for a range of other factors).
Having a direct link seems problematic. At what point does the technology control you? Isn't it bad enough already with people dependent on their phones to do anything? It seems at that point we would be giving up a major component of that which makes us human.
Is that you, Bernie?
It's not clear who was actually rioting. I am no conspiracy theorist, but given how much Milo has to gain from such attention, it is plausible that those who agree with him or like him have the potential to have been involved in the rioting. Or, it could just be opportunists who enjoy rioting and look for any opportunity to cause some mayhem.
Just make the person who opened the spam mail pay the $4000. You get the ransom paid and that person will definitely be more careful next time.
People are bad at estimating true risk, particularly when it compares something dramatic (like an airplane crash) and something more mundane (like a car crash). This can cause people to change behavior toward the thing that is actually more risky (e.g., driving on a long trip instead of flying - driving is much more dangerous mile per mile).
Global thermonuclear war is certainly a dramatic, and important, threat to our survival as a species. But, the chance of it occurring is small compared to the risk from climate change (which is already happening, perhaps irreversibly).
Throw in free health care and I'll pull your weeds.
Or, maybe we could all just work fewer hours per week. Which would leave more time for, you know, living.
I heard a story from a friend who works with refugees. One family, he found a good job for the father, got them settled, etc. After a few weeks the father had stopped going to work. My friend asked the father what had happened, was there a problem with the work? Was it too difficult to get to work? Did they not like you?
No, he said, it was none of these things. He stopped going to work because he realized his children were growing up without him and it was his responsibility to be home to take care of the family. Once that was accomplished, then he would go to work. This then, of course, led to conversations about having to pay for things you need for life and so on, but I think there is a grain of truth here.
Life != work and there would be plenty of great living to do outside of work.