I was in Disneyland many years ago and even the "leaded crystal" trinkets they were selling were labeled as such... I asked the guy about the warning and he said you'd have to swallow it, have it get stuck, and live to be 100 for enough lead to leach out of the crystal to hurt you. Not sure if that's true or not, but yeah, basically everyone ignores the warnings because they don't reflect reality. Just because it contains something dangerous, doesn't mean the chemical is free to actually do harm. The same warning is on lead bullets too, but that's probably the least dangerous thing about them.
Amazon doesn't have a monopoly, because all of the products available through amazon are available elsewhere. Unless you specifically NEED that amazon branded USB cable over one branded with some other company name.
These books can be sold through other websites, brick-and-mortar, or whatever you like... so Amazon cannot be considered a monopoly under any rational definition. Full Stop.
I wish I could give you mod points, but I've already commented on this thread... you are exactly right though... without knowing how many tests were performed you know nothing, and can't make a judgement about sensitivity and specificity.
While I agree that DTC testing is dangerous and misleading, there is a bigger issue here... the numbers are all complete bunk because the way they selected these patients introduces a massive amount of bias. Given the way they described how they found the data, it is impossible to speak to true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. None of that can be known because they selected for patients who reported to their Dr. having a concerning previous result.
It's also worth noting that Ambry's tests also have the potential for false positives and false negatives, and they aren't introducing that uncertainty into their calculations either.
Agreed. The original article is a massive statistics fail. You have to understand sensitivity vs. specificity. Without knowing the number of tests performed overall, you don't know anything. If they performed 10,000 tests, and those 46 people were the only ones with positives, and the result was incorrect on 40% of those (meaning 18 of them were actually negative despite the positive result) then the rate of false positives is 18/10000 =.18% which is great!
However, that's all pure speculation and BS there, because you don't know how many tests were performed, you don't know how many positives were issued, and as the parent AC pointed out, the selection bias is off the chart because they were specifically looking for patients who reported a worrying result... which excludes people who had a previous positive result but didn't mention to their Dr. that they'd had a previous test done.
Super dangerous behavior on all sides of this one (except the patient who was definitely smart to get a second opinion).
This is the creepiest part of it all. On Instragram (owned by Facebook) I recently got a suggestion to follow my ex-father-in-law. It specifically used the language "follow your friend ". I've NEVER given Instagram permission to look in my contact list, but it regularly suggests I follow people and explicitly states they are in my contacts . I deleted my FB account years before I started using Instagram, and have never installed FB on my current phone, yet here we are.
I can imagine an situation where a victim of some crime goes to court to confront their assailant, and during a break in the trial, FB suggests they friend the attacker. For a social media platform, they are really, really, socially inept. And don't get me started on LinkedIn... they're just as bad.
You've made a bit of a logic error. Facebook themselves already had (and still has) data on over 2 billion users. The 50 million user number is the number that Cambridge Analytics got access to (a subset of all FB users).
I had to google this, because I didn't know her name, but Limor Fried is the founder of Adafruit. That's probably the closest I can get, and yeah, I couldn't remember her name.
Since you've participated in these things, perhaps you can answer a question: Do hackathons like this require you to assign rights to the promoter/host of the hackathon? It seems like anything of value you produced while there should by default remain yours.
Yeah... I had a flight some years ago where someone threw up just as the doors were being closed... the flight crew refused to re-open them due to some regulations or something... the flight had to continue on with the smell of vomit circulating the cabin for 5 hours. It is important to note that we were not all seated together, with 8-10 rows of separation on the flight. 24 hours after landing my entire family got full blown GI distress... and 24 hours after that, nearly every person we had interacted with between landing, and when we started to experience symptoms all started having symptoms. We tried to contain it by having all those people give warning to everyone else, but it was a lost cause. Worst vacation evar! I'm pretty certain that everyone on that flight got violently ill. It'd be nice if airlines could filter the recirculated air, but unlikely given the expense and maintenance requirements.
i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, given that I have not mentioned any specific implementation of it. (neither a specific religion, no a specific implementation of socialism)
Slashdot Mirror
Bob Smith, is that you?
I'm a big fan of Tesla and what they are doing... but I totally agree with you. They can't be exempted from this just because they make cool stuff.
I was in Disneyland many years ago and even the "leaded crystal" trinkets they were selling were labeled as such... I asked the guy about the warning and he said you'd have to swallow it, have it get stuck, and live to be 100 for enough lead to leach out of the crystal to hurt you. Not sure if that's true or not, but yeah, basically everyone ignores the warnings because they don't reflect reality. Just because it contains something dangerous, doesn't mean the chemical is free to actually do harm. The same warning is on lead bullets too, but that's probably the least dangerous thing about them.
Uh... how about just distribute the accounts to the devices... all 150 million of them. Not everything needs to be connected these days.
Amazon doesn't have a monopoly, because all of the products available through amazon are available elsewhere. Unless you specifically NEED that amazon branded USB cable over one branded with some other company name.
These books can be sold through other websites, brick-and-mortar, or whatever you like... so Amazon cannot be considered a monopoly under any rational definition. Full Stop.
But if you want to speak to them you have to call them all "Alexa"
I wish I could give you mod points, but I've already commented on this thread... you are exactly right though... without knowing how many tests were performed you know nothing, and can't make a judgement about sensitivity and specificity.
While I agree that DTC testing is dangerous and misleading, there is a bigger issue here... the numbers are all complete bunk because the way they selected these patients introduces a massive amount of bias. Given the way they described how they found the data, it is impossible to speak to true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. None of that can be known because they selected for patients who reported to their Dr. having a concerning previous result.
It's also worth noting that Ambry's tests also have the potential for false positives and false negatives, and they aren't introducing that uncertainty into their calculations either.
Agreed. The original article is a massive statistics fail. You have to understand sensitivity vs. specificity. Without knowing the number of tests performed overall, you don't know anything. If they performed 10,000 tests, and those 46 people were the only ones with positives, and the result was incorrect on 40% of those (meaning 18 of them were actually negative despite the positive result) then the rate of false positives is 18/10000 = .18% which is great!
However, that's all pure speculation and BS there, because you don't know how many tests were performed, you don't know how many positives were issued, and as the parent AC pointed out, the selection bias is off the chart because they were specifically looking for patients who reported a worrying result... which excludes people who had a previous positive result but didn't mention to their Dr. that they'd had a previous test done.
Super dangerous behavior on all sides of this one (except the patient who was definitely smart to get a second opinion).
I think you underestimate the entrenchment factor here. Micro$oft is the new "Nobody ever got fired for using IBM."
Get Ajit Pai to say it, then I'll believe it... no wait, I won't. Get him to do it... then I'll believe it.
This is the creepiest part of it all. On Instragram (owned by Facebook) I recently got a suggestion to follow my ex-father-in-law. It specifically used the language "follow your friend ". I've NEVER given Instagram permission to look in my contact list, but it regularly suggests I follow people and explicitly states they are in my contacts . I deleted my FB account years before I started using Instagram, and have never installed FB on my current phone, yet here we are.
I can imagine an situation where a victim of some crime goes to court to confront their assailant, and during a break in the trial, FB suggests they friend the attacker. For a social media platform, they are really, really, socially inept. And don't get me started on LinkedIn... they're just as bad.
You've made a bit of a logic error. Facebook themselves already had (and still has) data on over 2 billion users. The 50 million user number is the number that Cambridge Analytics got access to (a subset of all FB users).
And cultures that desire only a male heir?
Check the calibration on your sarcasm detector.
Except Instagram, you can trust them over Facebook!
So what did he say about telling the truth enough times?
we don't deserve to serve you
... That's all I needed to hear, and I couldn't agree more.
I had to google this, because I didn't know her name, but Limor Fried is the founder of Adafruit. That's probably the closest I can get, and yeah, I couldn't remember her name.
I'm gonna throw Elizabeth Holmes in with that crowd too...
Hmm. That doesn't sound fair to me at all. Maybe sign the rights AFTER you win, but not before.
Since you've participated in these things, perhaps you can answer a question: Do hackathons like this require you to assign rights to the promoter/host of the hackathon? It seems like anything of value you produced while there should by default remain yours.
Yeah... I had a flight some years ago where someone threw up just as the doors were being closed... the flight crew refused to re-open them due to some regulations or something... the flight had to continue on with the smell of vomit circulating the cabin for 5 hours. It is important to note that we were not all seated together, with 8-10 rows of separation on the flight. 24 hours after landing my entire family got full blown GI distress... and 24 hours after that, nearly every person we had interacted with between landing, and when we started to experience symptoms all started having symptoms. We tried to contain it by having all those people give warning to everyone else, but it was a lost cause. Worst vacation evar! I'm pretty certain that everyone on that flight got violently ill. It'd be nice if airlines could filter the recirculated air, but unlikely given the expense and maintenance requirements.
i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, given that I have not mentioned any specific implementation of it. (neither a specific religion, no a specific implementation of socialism)
Washington or British Columbia? (asking for a friend) ;)