You can't 100,000,000 users on 4 mainframes if you completely disregard how Java works. You can't make the database performant if you don't understand basic concepts like primary and foreign keys, and more than likely knowing why knowing where you database is stored may be important.
They could teach mainframe, or database optimization, or very advanced ancient Java. But the common lesson that needs to be taught is that there is a very low level that you have to keep in mind. CPU and memory usage are in your control, if you need it. And being aware that this is even possible is a very generic lesson.
Do we need to teach everyone Java 1.3? Or can we standardize on one low-level concept from which people can generalize? Can we illustrate that things can be done faster, better, more efficiently? And that at some point a trade-off needs to be made between memory and speed?
The best lesson I learned was that interpreted languages can be faster than assembly.
I'll say that again, interpreted languages can be faster than straight up assembly. Already know how?
If the program opcodes are so small that the opcodes and interpreter for the whole program exist entirely on the L1 cache (which was the only on-die cache at the time), and the equivalent program has to hit off-cache, your interpreted code will be faster.
It has no bearing on reality, because I will never have to produce something that runs that much faster than assembly. But at the same time, I'm very sensitive to what my magically powerful language does behind the scenes to accomplish what I ask of it.
So which examples do you propose to allow a generic education that teaches that you have options, and can perform faster? Be warned: your response cannot allow students to think "that particular query is slow", or "Java just does that slowly".
1) These are not simple hashes, for more read the article. They seem to be able to distinguish images in the same way Shazam can recognise music while ignoring bar or vehicle background noise.
2) Once flagged, the image would be reviewed before further action is taken. A false positive would not make the news.
Now it's your turn. How will a hash collision lead to the jackboots ruining someone's life?
The word 'debatable' does not mean what you think it means.
From other comments, they threatened and backed down. But that's not the point either. Just having it in your policy is bad enough, that's not on any side of the word "debatable". Actually withholding money is likewise not "debatable", even if they cave.
You typed a lot of words for as little as you want to seem to care.
Were you trying to convince people to see it your way? Clearly not the way it was written.
You say you don't get it. What if I explained it to you? I'm sure I could find a way to make this relate to you, so that you could at least understand why other people care. Would that help? Was that what you were asking for, in your own strange way?
Dharma & Greg: "The show starred Jenna Elfman and Thomas Gibson as the title characters, whose characters were complete opposites: Dharma's world view being more spiritual, 'free spirit' type instilled by "hippie" parents, contrasted with Greg's world view of structure, social status requirements, and "white collar duty" instilled by his generations of affluent parents/ancestors." (from wikipedia)
Two and a Half Men - same basic "mismatched cohabitants" schtik.
BBT - Mismatched cohabitants combined with a mismatched love interest.
It's the guy who reinvented "The Odd Couple" for a new generation. The geek stuff is used as a punchline, not for any geek value. They may as well have written an actual "Odd Couple" script and inserted the word "tech" at random points when something wasn't as funny as they would like, and have a consultant fill in the gaps with things like "Write a GUI in visual basic to backtrace the IP address" only without the obvious mistakes.
The only reason it's not nerd blackface is the cast seems to be actual nerds, at least in spirit. It is just as insulting to nerds as blackface was/is to actual black people. It is just as based in stereotype and conventional wisdom, and ultimately ignorance.
There is nothing for any true nerd or geek to like, other than having someone finally represent your demographic, even taking it as the backhanded compliment that it is. Occasionally, as with Two and a Half Men, there is a really good joke that I did not expect to hear on network TV, and for that reason alone I'll watch if there's nothing more interesting available.
Because full disk encryption is a get out of jail free card?
I don't see any Supreme Court rulings that support you. Depending on which circuit court you fall under, it may be an automatic jail sentence if you don't reveal the password.
Assuming that, since you mentioned the FBI, you fall under US law, of course, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise at this point.
It's a crap shoot basically, and if you go all the way to the Supremes, do you trust the current court to be on the side of privacy?
They only need the MAC address to confirm it was your computer in the event you use something like TAILS and profess to not have done anything wrong.
Meanwhile, they have an IP address, a subscriber to John Doe, a correlated subscriber provided by the ISP, a commercial location to surveil, a video showing your vehicle, a warrant, and a full car/house search. And if they don't find anything, they start taking apart furniture and walls looking for the stuff they are convinced you have.
If you saved anything, MAC is irrelevant and you're just as screwed. If you saved nothing, but they found your TAILS disc, a jury is going to convict you without a VERY good lawyer.
Police are not there to find truth - they are there to find someone to arrest. The judge is not there to find truth - they are there to decide if applicable law finds you guilty.
Your clever horseshit thought experiment is not going to save you when it matters. You have to avoid the same things that would get you into trouble if you ignored your MAC completely. And be assured that the judge and jury will not understand why everything but the MAC says you are guilty but you plead innocent. They will not go easy on you once the prosecution expert witness describes that MAC spoofing is "trivial".
Were you expecting them to turn on the computer, see the MAC, decide that's clearly not the one they were looking for, then power it off without at least seeing what's in the CD tray?
Fuck you, idiot. I write pseudocode, and the code is at least 10x longer with things like error checking, validation, and especially error messages that clearly tell the user what was already in the documentation.
First let's see a good, intuitive UI. Then a lot of the documentation goes away. An appendix and list of tables *should* be good enough. If the application is understandable enough, of course.
The documentation should never be as complicated as the code. No excuse. If there is any software ever where the documentation needs to be bigger than the code, there should be no documentation. It was written by someone who understands it, when no one else probably will, and no one else should.
Yes, but it's more likely that numerous years of experience have soured the person on developers.
In the past, Anonymous Coward has been on both sides of these types of issues. But in this case, I think maybe AC has a point.
Developers do have a certain perspective. If you can't figure out how to use something, you really shouldn't be writing documentation. Documentation should be written by someone who can put information together in a sensible, readable way. And if you can't, then you shouldn't.
As a developer, I can list a hundred questions I've asked of applications. Is this supposed to work? Is this supposed to do anything? The label says this but it does this?
Fuck you, read the code. Fuck me, read the code. Fuck us all.
I guess it's time for an undercover sting to see if volunteer documentors are treated like hell.
Once every 20 years my ass. Average numbers don't convey a lot of information.
Averages about 1 outbreak per year if you want to define "outbreak" as "outbreak", unless you want to define it some other way. The current lab-confirmed numbers for this one are 953, with a death rate about 60%. 953 out of your "less than 4000 so far" number seems to be a hefty chunk of corpses.
People study this in federal labs, with little chance of financial gain, in order to prevent it from spreading further. Not as drug researchers for a big pharma company hoping for a giant bonus. And they die sometimes, as that link shows.
The incentive is not dying of Ebola. It seems coincidental that a drug is ready now. There have been drugs in the past, but didn't seem to do so well. I suppose it was a coincidence they happened to be ready at that time, other than they didn't do so well. So now we have something that responded to exactly 1 patient.
Clapper was asked to testify on classified material in a non-classified forum.
He did the best he could, and then called the committee head and said he hadn't been telling the truth. Not someone else coming forward, but Clapper himself.
Sure, he could have said "no comment", but that is basically a comment to the people that he is not supposed to tell.
I can't get outraged over Clapper. and leaning on that for your case makes it look weak. The hard drive problem is easily explained by anyone who has ever filled their inbox, leaving the question of why backups were not being done properly. It's hard to pin on Lerner, and you just sound silly.
You have legitimate complaints here - focus on those.
I put something on my CV, and got a relatively simple question that confirmed I knew more about it than the interviewer. It was tangentially related, but established me as legit.
I asked the same question two years later with essentially the same details on the CV. Not even an attempt at the answer.
That interview got ratcheted up in terms of expectation. Everything was questioned. Because that's all we really have to go on when trying to decide what to ask. If our ad said Oracle, and you list Oracle, we are going to ask. If you didn't list Oracle, we are going to try to fit you in somewhere by asking things other than Oracle.
Everything on the CV is fair game. If we ask your address and it doesn't match, you should have a really good explanation for sending an out of date CV. Because I care whether I hire someone who doesn't at least say, "I can tell you what's on there, and that it's out of date."
Because when someone asks a question, they rarely want to know what they asked. And if you can parse my question and figure out why I'm asking, I might hire you just based on ability to think. If you back up and say let's go back to this question, that shows me you can admit being wrong and background process. If you call me a day later, that shows you think about things overnight, but aren't content to just let it go.
If you pretend any of this, I'm no psychologist, but it's going to feel really odd, and I'm going to have a hard time working with you.
I prepare based on the CV. I interview based on the CV. I am not going to assume that the liars out there are telling the truth.
You are a stupid person. If you are simply ignorant and chose not to read a little more, you are stupid for making that choice.
We have to have a representative sample in order to test both safety and efficacy. We have to include the successful, unsuccessful, and mediocre, in order to have a result.
The second part is really easy to dismiss on its surface. if you assume that every revoked doctor is completely sober for every drug trial. A bad reaction in one patient that leads to severe health issues is not acceptable, if it could have been prevented by insisting on licensed doctors only.
And then there's this quote: "Karns canâ(TM)t remember the companies he worked for". If I ran a one-month study, I'd be able to tell you who I worked for. If I consulted for one month, I'd be able to tell you who paid my check. Perhaps I misread your statement as sarcasm, but it is at least in some cases fact.
One of the studies mentioned is taking stem cells and transplanting them. Anyone who lost their license, I would not allow them to do this to me. Feel free to volunteer as a mentally ill person, which you clearly are based on this single comment, to have non-doctors implant things that may or may not be stem cells into places that you may or may not want things transplanted.
... And don't have other options. Many drugs currently developed help a very specific part of the population. A lot of drugs now have something like this in their "approved uses" list: "... and who do not respond to current treatments..."
By studying the chemical bases for drug efficacy, we are developing highly personalized drugs that work in well under 50% of the target audience. No one really knows why something *doesn't* work for a good part of the population - it could be other drug interactions, or diet, or microbiota, or epigenomic changes. But in many cases they do have a good model of why it *does* work when it does, because that's where they got the idea to use this formula or this drug.
I have X disease, I take all the treatments, nothing works. So I sign up for a trial and hope that a) I am in the control group and provide meaningful data to establish both efficacy and safety or b) that it works for me when nothing else will.
I can already see the replies. Please note that most of these types of issues will happen after procreation, meaning the treatment will improve quality of life for a parent and probably a child, but will not do much to change inheritance of whatever defect is present. So we aren't helping people who should otherwise die, unless after procreation people are considered disposable. In which case I'm glad to make a list of disposable people.
Be glad that you are, for the moment, healthy enough to maintain that attitude. When you develop something that your lifestyle says you should never get, I hope the rest of us have figured out the problem for you already.
And when we let you die anyway because in 2014 you called our concern "Wackadoodle", well you can be sure I voted "abstain" so you have other people to blame.
To be more specific, homeless, destitute, and mentally ill people are not necessarily genotypically representative, and dangerous reactions may not be found when they should have been. Doctors with their licenses revoked isn't on the surface as big of a deal, other than the inability to be certain the study studied what it intended to, let alone having any confidence in the results.
But I'm sure you have 100% confidence in your genetics and lifestyle, and have no reason to expect to be taking anything that had to pass human trials. I suppose you could get hit by a meteor and bypass the whole aging thing completely.
I suppose I could go on preemptively admonishing your short-sightedness, but I suppose you could claim you don't need glasses.
This is an artful example of writing for your audience. You are not their audience, and people who know about such things are not their audience.
They are writing directly to the Hachette fans, and indirectly to the Hachette authors. People who prefer to write for a living, or even read for a living in many cases. Not for the quants in the bookkeeping department of Hachette.
So no, it would not be more useful to have a distribution. It would confuse the audience. More meaningful certainly, I only take issue with the word "useful", since from several perspectives it would be harmful to do so.
Can you support the assertion that the president can just make a call and it stops?
If the NSA disagreed, or the DNI, or Presidential advisors, would they have to suck it up and stop?
What happens 8 years later when he's no longer the president? We have had 8 years of a Democrat. It's almost guaranteed to be a Republican unless they put up yet another idiotically lame candidate. They are usually for this sort of thing, so in two years it magically comes back and then what happens to your argument?
Fuck me, I made the point using the wrong experiment. Otherwise, the argument still stands. People trust that the number is as correct as the website can be. Given that it doesn't know whether you like Teletubbies putting cough syrup in your ass.
Still, not A/B testing in any but the most ignorant sense of words.
They did not control for people thinking they were similar, and looking deeper than they would have otherwise. They made hypotheses and passed them off as conclusions.
Your conclusion is therefore based only on confirmation bias, not on fact.
People being manipulated, even if the manipulation is only demonstrated by the experiment, without knowing they are being A/B tested, is not what A/B testing is about.
Knowingly participating in an A/B test is kinda part of A/B testing. Is this lens better, or worse? Which of these televisions side by side looks better to you?
You are looking for love, your soulmate, or someone who will put up with your desire to have cough medicine inserted into your rectum by someone dressed as a Teletubby.
You don't find it because you are accustomed to the way people on dating sites work, and these people are not behaving your way. Cough syrup inserting Teletubbies usually post pictures, and no one fitting the description has. Or vice versa, I don't know.
Or, I have been treating this person who did not post a picture differently, even though they did.
This is much more about how people interact with people who post pictures, and misrepresenting people as picture posters or non picture posters. The misrepresentation is NOT part of A/B testing. Knowing that you don't know is part of an A/B test. Not knowing that you don't know is not.
My only issue is that we haven't heard of this, though it has been happening for months.
The damage is done, it's too late to do much other than complain.
And, this was 2004. This is an eternity in business years. I can't even complain to SBC because they don't exist as of 2005 legally, I think.
What is the action here? Should I hate Comcast because they did something a decade ago? Do I oppose something that Time Warner wants because their partner to be blames a nonexistent company? Do I complain about something that is pretty much legal?
If I am to be outraged, I need an action. Otherwise, I can't just sit here and be angry. I could spend a few hours yelling at idiots who post stupid things, but that really needs to be directed towards education (indirectly if need be), rather than an anger outlet.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we make this a little bit more generic?
You can't 100,000,000 users on 4 mainframes if you completely disregard how Java works. You can't make the database performant if you don't understand basic concepts like primary and foreign keys, and more than likely knowing why knowing where you database is stored may be important.
They could teach mainframe, or database optimization, or very advanced ancient Java. But the common lesson that needs to be taught is that there is a very low level that you have to keep in mind. CPU and memory usage are in your control, if you need it. And being aware that this is even possible is a very generic lesson.
Do we need to teach everyone Java 1.3? Or can we standardize on one low-level concept from which people can generalize? Can we illustrate that things can be done faster, better, more efficiently? And that at some point a trade-off needs to be made between memory and speed?
The best lesson I learned was that interpreted languages can be faster than assembly.
I'll say that again, interpreted languages can be faster than straight up assembly. Already know how?
If the program opcodes are so small that the opcodes and interpreter for the whole program exist entirely on the L1 cache (which was the only on-die cache at the time), and the equivalent program has to hit off-cache, your interpreted code will be faster.
It has no bearing on reality, because I will never have to produce something that runs that much faster than assembly. But at the same time, I'm very sensitive to what my magically powerful language does behind the scenes to accomplish what I ask of it.
So which examples do you propose to allow a generic education that teaches that you have options, and can perform faster? Be warned: your response cannot allow students to think "that particular query is slow", or "Java just does that slowly".
No. Because
1) These are not simple hashes, for more read the article. They seem to be able to distinguish images in the same way Shazam can recognise music while ignoring bar or vehicle background noise.
2) Once flagged, the image would be reviewed before further action is taken. A false positive would not make the news.
Now it's your turn. How will a hash collision lead to the jackboots ruining someone's life?
The word 'debatable' does not mean what you think it means.
From other comments, they threatened and backed down. But that's not the point either. Just having it in your policy is bad enough, that's not on any side of the word "debatable". Actually withholding money is likewise not "debatable", even if they cave.
We could debate, but it would serve no purpose.
You typed a lot of words for as little as you want to seem to care.
Were you trying to convince people to see it your way? Clearly not the way it was written.
You say you don't get it. What if I explained it to you? I'm sure I could find a way to make this relate to you, so that you could at least understand why other people care. Would that help? Was that what you were asking for, in your own strange way?
Dharma & Greg: "The show starred Jenna Elfman and Thomas Gibson as the title characters, whose characters were complete opposites: Dharma's world view being more spiritual, 'free spirit' type instilled by "hippie" parents, contrasted with Greg's world view of structure, social status requirements, and "white collar duty" instilled by his generations of affluent parents/ancestors." (from wikipedia)
Two and a Half Men - same basic "mismatched cohabitants" schtik.
BBT - Mismatched cohabitants combined with a mismatched love interest.
It's the guy who reinvented "The Odd Couple" for a new generation. The geek stuff is used as a punchline, not for any geek value. They may as well have written an actual "Odd Couple" script and inserted the word "tech" at random points when something wasn't as funny as they would like, and have a consultant fill in the gaps with things like "Write a GUI in visual basic to backtrace the IP address" only without the obvious mistakes.
The only reason it's not nerd blackface is the cast seems to be actual nerds, at least in spirit. It is just as insulting to nerds as blackface was/is to actual black people. It is just as based in stereotype and conventional wisdom, and ultimately ignorance.
There is nothing for any true nerd or geek to like, other than having someone finally represent your demographic, even taking it as the backhanded compliment that it is. Occasionally, as with Two and a Half Men, there is a really good joke that I did not expect to hear on network TV, and for that reason alone I'll watch if there's nothing more interesting available.
How would you conduct such a survey?
And how can you gather statistics about usage when your source will never report anything about legit usage?
"Utah man found using Tor to do his banking, film at 11."
"Chinese dissident found using Tor, interview at.. oh wait he died mysteriously."
"EFF representative uses TOR so he knows what he is talking about, film never because that's pretty damned boring"
I suppose you could ask the NSA. Go ahead and file a FOIA request, we'll wait.
Because full disk encryption is a get out of jail free card?
I don't see any Supreme Court rulings that support you. Depending on which circuit court you fall under, it may be an automatic jail sentence if you don't reveal the password.
Assuming that, since you mentioned the FBI, you fall under US law, of course, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise at this point.
It's a crap shoot basically, and if you go all the way to the Supremes, do you trust the current court to be on the side of privacy?
They only need the MAC address to confirm it was your computer in the event you use something like TAILS and profess to not have done anything wrong.
Meanwhile, they have an IP address, a subscriber to John Doe, a correlated subscriber provided by the ISP, a commercial location to surveil, a video showing your vehicle, a warrant, and a full car/house search. And if they don't find anything, they start taking apart furniture and walls looking for the stuff they are convinced you have.
If you saved anything, MAC is irrelevant and you're just as screwed. If you saved nothing, but they found your TAILS disc, a jury is going to convict you without a VERY good lawyer.
Police are not there to find truth - they are there to find someone to arrest. The judge is not there to find truth - they are there to decide if applicable law finds you guilty.
Your clever horseshit thought experiment is not going to save you when it matters. You have to avoid the same things that would get you into trouble if you ignored your MAC completely. And be assured that the judge and jury will not understand why everything but the MAC says you are guilty but you plead innocent. They will not go easy on you once the prosecution expert witness describes that MAC spoofing is "trivial".
Were you expecting them to turn on the computer, see the MAC, decide that's clearly not the one they were looking for, then power it off without at least seeing what's in the CD tray?
Fuck you, idiot. I write pseudocode, and the code is at least 10x longer with things like error checking, validation, and especially error messages that clearly tell the user what was already in the documentation.
First let's see a good, intuitive UI. Then a lot of the documentation goes away. An appendix and list of tables *should* be good enough. If the application is understandable enough, of course.
The documentation should never be as complicated as the code. No excuse. If there is any software ever where the documentation needs to be bigger than the code, there should be no documentation. It was written by someone who understands it, when no one else probably will, and no one else should.
Yes, but it's more likely that numerous years of experience have soured the person on developers.
In the past, Anonymous Coward has been on both sides of these types of issues. But in this case, I think maybe AC has a point.
Developers do have a certain perspective. If you can't figure out how to use something, you really shouldn't be writing documentation. Documentation should be written by someone who can put information together in a sensible, readable way. And if you can't, then you shouldn't.
As a developer, I can list a hundred questions I've asked of applications. Is this supposed to work? Is this supposed to do anything? The label says this but it does this?
Fuck you, read the code. Fuck me, read the code. Fuck us all.
I guess it's time for an undercover sting to see if volunteer documentors are treated like hell.
Care to bet?
+5 for such a need to state the obvious? Pity the Dashslot of today.
We're just computer operators, darn it!
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/r...
Once every 20 years my ass. Average numbers don't convey a lot of information.
Averages about 1 outbreak per year if you want to define "outbreak" as "outbreak", unless you want to define it some other way. The current lab-confirmed numbers for this one are 953, with a death rate about 60%. 953 out of your "less than 4000 so far" number seems to be a hefty chunk of corpses.
People study this in federal labs, with little chance of financial gain, in order to prevent it from spreading further. Not as drug researchers for a big pharma company hoping for a giant bonus. And they die sometimes, as that link shows.
The incentive is not dying of Ebola. It seems coincidental that a drug is ready now. There have been drugs in the past, but didn't seem to do so well. I suppose it was a coincidence they happened to be ready at that time, other than they didn't do so well. So now we have something that responded to exactly 1 patient.
Sure looks like a conspiracy to me.
Clapper was asked to testify on classified material in a non-classified forum.
He did the best he could, and then called the committee head and said he hadn't been telling the truth. Not someone else coming forward, but Clapper himself.
Sure, he could have said "no comment", but that is basically a comment to the people that he is not supposed to tell.
I can't get outraged over Clapper. and leaning on that for your case makes it look weak. The hard drive problem is easily explained by anyone who has ever filled their inbox, leaving the question of why backups were not being done properly. It's hard to pin on Lerner, and you just sound silly.
You have legitimate complaints here - focus on those.
No. Because that suggests we are in part for it and only negotiating conditions.
You know they would be against this, and we are not in a position to negotiate. So stop the bluster until you have something to contribute.
I put something on my CV, and got a relatively simple question that confirmed I knew more about it than the interviewer. It was tangentially related, but established me as legit.
I asked the same question two years later with essentially the same details on the CV. Not even an attempt at the answer.
That interview got ratcheted up in terms of expectation. Everything was questioned. Because that's all we really have to go on when trying to decide what to ask. If our ad said Oracle, and you list Oracle, we are going to ask. If you didn't list Oracle, we are going to try to fit you in somewhere by asking things other than Oracle.
Everything on the CV is fair game. If we ask your address and it doesn't match, you should have a really good explanation for sending an out of date CV. Because I care whether I hire someone who doesn't at least say, "I can tell you what's on there, and that it's out of date."
Because when someone asks a question, they rarely want to know what they asked. And if you can parse my question and figure out why I'm asking, I might hire you just based on ability to think. If you back up and say let's go back to this question, that shows me you can admit being wrong and background process. If you call me a day later, that shows you think about things overnight, but aren't content to just let it go.
If you pretend any of this, I'm no psychologist, but it's going to feel really odd, and I'm going to have a hard time working with you.
I prepare based on the CV. I interview based on the CV. I am not going to assume that the liars out there are telling the truth.
You are a stupid person. If you are simply ignorant and chose not to read a little more, you are stupid for making that choice.
We have to have a representative sample in order to test both safety and efficacy. We have to include the successful, unsuccessful, and mediocre, in order to have a result.
The second part is really easy to dismiss on its surface. if you assume that every revoked doctor is completely sober for every drug trial. A bad reaction in one patient that leads to severe health issues is not acceptable, if it could have been prevented by insisting on licensed doctors only.
And then there's this quote: "Karns canâ(TM)t remember the companies he worked for". If I ran a one-month study, I'd be able to tell you who I worked for. If I consulted for one month, I'd be able to tell you who paid my check. Perhaps I misread your statement as sarcasm, but it is at least in some cases fact.
One of the studies mentioned is taking stem cells and transplanting them. Anyone who lost their license, I would not allow them to do this to me. Feel free to volunteer as a mentally ill person, which you clearly are based on this single comment, to have non-doctors implant things that may or may not be stem cells into places that you may or may not want things transplanted.
That was sarcasm, btw, don't actually do that.
... And don't have other options. Many drugs currently developed help a very specific part of the population. A lot of drugs now have something like this in their "approved uses" list: "... and who do not respond to current treatments..."
By studying the chemical bases for drug efficacy, we are developing highly personalized drugs that work in well under 50% of the target audience. No one really knows why something *doesn't* work for a good part of the population - it could be other drug interactions, or diet, or microbiota, or epigenomic changes. But in many cases they do have a good model of why it *does* work when it does, because that's where they got the idea to use this formula or this drug.
I have X disease, I take all the treatments, nothing works. So I sign up for a trial and hope that a) I am in the control group and provide meaningful data to establish both efficacy and safety or b) that it works for me when nothing else will.
I can already see the replies. Please note that most of these types of issues will happen after procreation, meaning the treatment will improve quality of life for a parent and probably a child, but will not do much to change inheritance of whatever defect is present. So we aren't helping people who should otherwise die, unless after procreation people are considered disposable. In which case I'm glad to make a list of disposable people.
Be glad that you are, for the moment, healthy enough to maintain that attitude. When you develop something that your lifestyle says you should never get, I hope the rest of us have figured out the problem for you already.
And when we let you die anyway because in 2014 you called our concern "Wackadoodle", well you can be sure I voted "abstain" so you have other people to blame.
To be more specific, homeless, destitute, and mentally ill people are not necessarily genotypically representative, and dangerous reactions may not be found when they should have been. Doctors with their licenses revoked isn't on the surface as big of a deal, other than the inability to be certain the study studied what it intended to, let alone having any confidence in the results.
But I'm sure you have 100% confidence in your genetics and lifestyle, and have no reason to expect to be taking anything that had to pass human trials. I suppose you could get hit by a meteor and bypass the whole aging thing completely.
I suppose I could go on preemptively admonishing your short-sightedness, but I suppose you could claim you don't need glasses.
This is an artful example of writing for your audience. You are not their audience, and people who know about such things are not their audience.
They are writing directly to the Hachette fans, and indirectly to the Hachette authors. People who prefer to write for a living, or even read for a living in many cases. Not for the quants in the bookkeeping department of Hachette.
So no, it would not be more useful to have a distribution. It would confuse the audience. More meaningful certainly, I only take issue with the word "useful", since from several perspectives it would be harmful to do so.
Can you support the assertion that the president can just make a call and it stops?
If the NSA disagreed, or the DNI, or Presidential advisors, would they have to suck it up and stop?
What happens 8 years later when he's no longer the president? We have had 8 years of a Democrat. It's almost guaranteed to be a Republican unless they put up yet another idiotically lame candidate. They are usually for this sort of thing, so in two years it magically comes back and then what happens to your argument?
Fuck me, I made the point using the wrong experiment. Otherwise, the argument still stands. People trust that the number is as correct as the website can be. Given that it doesn't know whether you like Teletubbies putting cough syrup in your ass.
Still, not A/B testing in any but the most ignorant sense of words.
They did not control for people thinking they were similar, and looking deeper than they would have otherwise. They made hypotheses and passed them off as conclusions.
Your conclusion is therefore based only on confirmation bias, not on fact.
People being manipulated, even if the manipulation is only demonstrated by the experiment, without knowing they are being A/B tested, is not what A/B testing is about.
Knowingly participating in an A/B test is kinda part of A/B testing. Is this lens better, or worse? Which of these televisions side by side looks better to you?
You are looking for love, your soulmate, or someone who will put up with your desire to have cough medicine inserted into your rectum by someone dressed as a Teletubby.
You don't find it because you are accustomed to the way people on dating sites work, and these people are not behaving your way. Cough syrup inserting Teletubbies usually post pictures, and no one fitting the description has. Or vice versa, I don't know.
Or, I have been treating this person who did not post a picture differently, even though they did.
This is much more about how people interact with people who post pictures, and misrepresenting people as picture posters or non picture posters. The misrepresentation is NOT part of A/B testing. Knowing that you don't know is part of an A/B test. Not knowing that you don't know is not.
So no, the answer to your question is no.
My only issue is that we haven't heard of this, though it has been happening for months.
The damage is done, it's too late to do much other than complain.
And, this was 2004. This is an eternity in business years. I can't even complain to SBC because they don't exist as of 2005 legally, I think.
What is the action here? Should I hate Comcast because they did something a decade ago? Do I oppose something that Time Warner wants because their partner to be blames a nonexistent company? Do I complain about something that is pretty much legal?
If I am to be outraged, I need an action. Otherwise, I can't just sit here and be angry. I could spend a few hours yelling at idiots who post stupid things, but that really needs to be directed towards education (indirectly if need be), rather than an anger outlet.