Well, technically you'd have to say he observes, then opines (literally "to state as one's own opinion"). If all he ever did was observe then we'd never know, would we?
Actually that's a good, but different point. I actually started to make the point that large samples increase the effect of sampling defects but I thought it would be too confusing.
You're a complete fraud if you think 80 models millions in a psychological human-reaction experimentation.
Minimum sample size doesn't increase linearly with population size; it asymptotically approaches a fixed value. So what you do is assume the population is arbitrarily large and size your sample accordingly. Yes, for very small populations, say hundreds, you could get away with smaller samples. But the sample size you need for a population of a million and a hundred billion aren't different at all.
The minimum sample size is *extremely* sensitive to effect size. So what you do is look up the minimum size in a table indexed by the smallest effect size you want to detect. Even if the population of the Earth has doubled since the time the table was published, the numbers are still good.
Well, I did pretty well when I took the course as an MIT student, thirty-five years ago. The practice of statistics has changed because of SPSS and R, but the principles are the same -- in fact the same principles that allowed the US to beat the Axis Powers in WW2 in production by using statistical sampling. You obviously can't test *every* bomb in a manufacturing lot.
That is what statistics is for. Mathematics can tell you whether 80 is a sufficient sample size better than intuition.
Imagine instead of 80 subjects, you had a million. And suppose you managed to falsify the null hypothesis, and showed that death metal fans *do* have higher rates of desensitization than non-fans. One of two cases holds; either (a) the rate difference is too tiny to care about or (b) you could achieve a statistically significant positive result with a smaller sample size.
For this reason most well-designed social science experiments have moderate sample sizes. Experiments with a moderate number of subjects are affordable, practical, and are biased to false negatives; that means you are less likely to get statistically significant but practically insignificant results. Typical sample sizes (when they can be gotten) are in the 20-50 range. 80 is on the high end, but a *negative* result from a largish sample size is actually pretty robust. Either the differences between fans is non-existent, or it's very small, which is practically speaking the same thing.
Not really. Hiring someone from Harvard is hiring someone gifted OR connected OR rich or some combination. It's not bad to walk into any interview having the interviewer believe at least one of those is true.
Well, not exactly. These people were actually committing fraud by cheating on tests and bribing officials.
Take Jared Kushner; he was admitted to Harvard after his father pledged 2.5 million dollars in donations. But that's not so bad. Sure, it means he probably displaced a more academically qualified candidate. But *the practice* of preferential treatment of big donors has allowed Harvard to amass wealth the enables it to offer poorer but gifted students a leg up they wouldn't have been able to afford. Harvard waves tuition for students whose families make less than $65K, and allows families making between 65k and 150k to pay on a sliding scale from 0 to 10% of their income.
The people who were named for cheating displaced more qualified students too, but they contributed *nothing* to the system in return.
In 1969, 48% of K-8 students walked or biked to school. By 2016 that percentage dropped to less than 10%. In my part of the country, the norm of shoveling sidewalks is no longer enforced meaning that walking often requires detours into the street.
Since this makes winter walking to school impractical, it's a moot issue. Personally, I think kids should walk to school, and the sidewalks should be cleared at least four feet wide. Schools could simply move their start later in the day.
The Russian and American people as potential friends -- sure. The respective *governments*? Not so much. Russia especially is a kleptocracy with no tradition of constitutional restraint of power.
It's not a *conservative* trait. Philosophical conservatism -- that is to say skepticism of Utopian schemes -- has a long and honorable history. Projection is a *radical* trait, which is why radical groups tend to splinter and break down when they're under pressure -- e.g. when they gain power and have to get things done. As their underlying differences are unmasked, they turn on each other ruthlessly.
Conservative *branding* isn't the same thing as conservatism.
It's OK. The plot is poorly organized and in places confusing, the dialog is weak and exposition-y, the fights have unclear rules (exactly what are her powers and when can she use them?) and there are no really strong antagonists for the hyper-powered protagonist, and there's not much effective characterization.
But it's quite beautiful to look at, it moves along at a reasonable pace, and its full of charismatic actors trying their best, and supplied with the very best of everything that money can buy -- except for a decent script.
I saw the movie. Judged in isolation from the social media furor, which I've been ignoring, it's not a divisive movie unless you're primed to see it that way.
It's just not a very good movie. It's not "Batman and Robin" bad -- five minutes into that one and I wondered if the editors had actually ever *seen* a movie. It's more like "Tommorowland", in which no money or talent was spared, and yet the result came out... OK.
The thing about "Wonder Woman" is that was a passion project for everyone involved -- like Lord of the Rings. Those movies were done with love and care. Nobody was clamoring to make a "Captain Marvel" movie, it doesn't exist for its own sake. It exists to perform a function, to lubricate the great pivot of the massive, 22 film Marvel Cinematic Universe from phase III to phase IV.
This is a film which is so busy doing what it has to do, that it doesn't have time to get its storytelling in order. Key plot elements are delivered in randomly scattered flashbacks (always a bad sign), characters engaged in barely disguised exposition, and confusing battles take place in which the rules aren't clear and the (overpowered) hero isn't genuinely threatened.
The thing is, Wonder Woman hit feminist story beats too. You just didn't notice it because the script was better. The movie *sold* them to you. That made it a great movie. Captain Marvel is merely an OK movie trying to convince you it's a great one.
I agree, they can't *narrowly target* sanctions. But if that's a problem, they can put in blanket provisions that will sufficiently limit cryptocurrency's usefulness across the board.
If you think governments can't crack down on cryptocurrencies if they want to, you're dreaming.
If cryptocurrency were a serious threat to traditional currency, the government could simply make transactions involving title transfers and contracts unenforceable.
Actually, if you are a Masshole, the Commonwealth's Attorney General's office has a consumer affairs that is supposed to handle this kind of "We're too big to care what you think" vendor. When I was in high school I had a friend who had an internship there sending out ominous letters to vendors like that. Usually that resolved things, because the Attorney General's letterhead gets the letter forwarded to corporate legal, who are well-acquainted with the Mass AG office's scalp-hunting ways.
The government stance in Massachusetts favors regulating businesses and protecting consumers over promoting business. You might as well take advantage of that, since your tax dollars are paying for it.
The problem isn't that the doctor used a video link to tell this guy he was going to die. The problem is the guy didn't have access to health care that would have told him he was seriously ill sooner than 24 hours before he was going to die.
I don't think this argument stands up. It's not like Facebook is claiming some kind of novel power over content linked in their site or developing some new technological capability. They already track you to as fare-thee-well. If Facebook wanted to censor mainstream conservative political opinions, they could do it *right now*. They don't need to establish a precedent; as a private corporation they can take any kind of editorial policy they want.
The reason they don't crack down on political opinions they don't like si that they don't care. They make money by keeping user engagement high; rant fests are good for their bottom line. That's why they haven't cracked down on anti-vaxx BS. The reason they're *saying* they're going to do it *now* is that their role in propagating BS that actually harms innocent people is getting public scrutiny.
Facebook is the amoral, conscience-less corporation par excellence. They've been working to accommodate their users to surveillance for years. If in the future posturing about cracking down on some unpopular political opinion is good for the line, expect a lot of hot air and maybe a little action. But don't worry, you're safe for now spreading conspiracy theories on Facebook.
L. A typical beginner bike in the 1980s came with a "27 x 1 1/4" tire, which had a wheel circumference of 2179 cm
Not diameter. Comes from copying numbers off the table.
27 x 1.25 tires have a diameter of 693mm; 700x38 have a diameter of 698. With the lower tire pressure they're essentially the same.
I have bikes with wheel diameters (counting tires) running from 482mm to 803mm. None of the wheel sizes are "crap", they're just different. The small folding bike rides harsh, but it is fun because it's nimble. The giant-wheeled fat bike floats over obstacles and has massive traction.
Last I checked, scooters are popular in wealthy enclaves of the US, so it's not lack of consumer money that's driving escooter sharing services. The US has expensive public transit too. Scooter sharing solves a "last mile" problem for well-heeled users who don't want to be bothered with the hassles of parking and traffic and can afford to piece together an alternative solution.
Wheel performance is not a *pure* function of diameter; road surface and speed factor in. The original razor scooters had tiny wheels but because they were pretty much meant to allow you to travel at jogging speeds with walking effort over sidewalks. At 5-6 mph they were fine on tiny but soft wheels, but you could feel every crack in the sidewalk.
Escooters have larger wheels, but that is negated by the fact that they allow an unskilled rider to hit 15 mph. Because of the speed you're traveling on road surfaces, which are more variable, and because people are using them for last mile commuting they don't have the choice to avoid bad road surfaces. It seems like a potentially dangerous situation to me.
As for bike wheels, while it's true that mountain bike wheels have become larger, road wheels are actually about the same. A typical beginner bike in the 1980s came with a "27 x 1 1/4" tire, which had a wheel diameter of 2179 cm. That same consumer now would be buying a bike with "700c x 38mm" tires with a wheel diameter of 2192 cm. Yes, that's half an inch larger, but if you account for the fact that that tire is inflated to 70-80 psi instead of the old school 95-105 psi, the effective diameter difference is negligible.
The big change in bike wheel thinking is in tire pressures. Back in the day low volume/high pressure tires were normal because studies showed that produced lower rolling resistance *on the track*. However *later* studies conducted on real-world surfaces showed that a lower pressure tire with a more supple casing produced better results. Modern thinking also takes rider weight into account to produce a consistent contact patch.
The difference is that you don't buy an office heater, fan, or desk lamp *with a server*. The scale of an operation to capture significant valuable information via desk lamps would have to be orders of magnitude larger.
Hitler, as is commonly known, was a vegetarian. What is somewhat less known is that despite that he regularly ate meat. While he was big on rules, he wasn't big on following them himself. Note he was also the head of a "socialist" party that privatized state industries and courted the support of powerful capitalists at the expense of small businesses.
Don't try to make sense of what these people *say*, because it makes no sense. What they *do*, however, is worth paying attention to. A tiny fringe group needs allies. I don't doubt Christian (-ist) white supremacist will make alliances with neo-pagans, but they won't be the type of neopagans that pay much attention to the qualifying clause in the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm no one..."). Likewise if Christian political fanatics could well make common cause with atheists, but those atheists won't be Richard Dawkins.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, technically you'd have to say he observes, then opines (literally "to state as one's own opinion"). If all he ever did was observe then we'd never know, would we?
Actually that's a good, but different point. I actually started to make the point that large samples increase the effect of sampling defects but I thought it would be too confusing.
You're a complete fraud if you think 80 models millions in a psychological human-reaction experimentation.
Minimum sample size doesn't increase linearly with population size; it asymptotically approaches a fixed value. So what you do is assume the population is arbitrarily large and size your sample accordingly. Yes, for very small populations, say hundreds, you could get away with smaller samples. But the sample size you need for a population of a million and a hundred billion aren't different at all.
The minimum sample size is *extremely* sensitive to effect size. So what you do is look up the minimum size in a table indexed by the smallest effect size you want to detect. Even if the population of the Earth has doubled since the time the table was published, the numbers are still good.
Well, I did pretty well when I took the course as an MIT student, thirty-five years ago. The practice of statistics has changed because of SPSS and R, but the principles are the same -- in fact the same principles that allowed the US to beat the Axis Powers in WW2 in production by using statistical sampling. You obviously can't test *every* bomb in a manufacturing lot.
That is what statistics is for. Mathematics can tell you whether 80 is a sufficient sample size better than intuition.
Imagine instead of 80 subjects, you had a million. And suppose you managed to falsify the null hypothesis, and showed that death metal fans *do* have higher rates of desensitization than non-fans. One of two cases holds; either (a) the rate difference is too tiny to care about or (b) you could achieve a statistically significant positive result with a smaller sample size.
For this reason most well-designed social science experiments have moderate sample sizes. Experiments with a moderate number of subjects are affordable, practical, and are biased to false negatives; that means you are less likely to get statistically significant but practically insignificant results. Typical sample sizes (when they can be gotten) are in the 20-50 range. 80 is on the high end, but a *negative* result from a largish sample size is actually pretty robust. Either the differences between fans is non-existent, or it's very small, which is practically speaking the same thing.
I don't think it makes that much of a difference to the destiny of generations who gets into Harvard, or indeed all Ivy League schools.
Not really. Hiring someone from Harvard is hiring someone gifted OR connected OR rich or some combination. It's not bad to walk into any interview having the interviewer believe at least one of those is true.
Well, not exactly. These people were actually committing fraud by cheating on tests and bribing officials.
Take Jared Kushner; he was admitted to Harvard after his father pledged 2.5 million dollars in donations. But that's not so bad. Sure, it means he probably displaced a more academically qualified candidate. But *the practice* of preferential treatment of big donors has allowed Harvard to amass wealth the enables it to offer poorer but gifted students a leg up they wouldn't have been able to afford. Harvard waves tuition for students whose families make less than $65K, and allows families making between 65k and 150k to pay on a sliding scale from 0 to 10% of their income.
The people who were named for cheating displaced more qualified students too, but they contributed *nothing* to the system in return.
In 1969, 48% of K-8 students walked or biked to school. By 2016 that percentage dropped to less than 10%. In my part of the country, the norm of shoveling sidewalks is no longer enforced meaning that walking often requires detours into the street.
Since this makes winter walking to school impractical, it's a moot issue. Personally, I think kids should walk to school, and the sidewalks should be cleared at least four feet wide. Schools could simply move their start later in the day.
Yes.
The Russian and American people as potential friends -- sure. The respective *governments*? Not so much. Russia especially is a kleptocracy with no tradition of constitutional restraint of power.
It's not a *conservative* trait. Philosophical conservatism -- that is to say skepticism of Utopian schemes -- has a long and honorable history. Projection is a *radical* trait, which is why radical groups tend to splinter and break down when they're under pressure -- e.g. when they gain power and have to get things done. As their underlying differences are unmasked, they turn on each other ruthlessly.
Conservative *branding* isn't the same thing as conservatism.
It's OK. The plot is poorly organized and in places confusing, the dialog is weak and exposition-y, the fights have unclear rules (exactly what are her powers and when can she use them?) and there are no really strong antagonists for the hyper-powered protagonist, and there's not much effective characterization.
But it's quite beautiful to look at, it moves along at a reasonable pace, and its full of charismatic actors trying their best, and supplied with the very best of everything that money can buy -- except for a decent script.
I saw the movie. Judged in isolation from the social media furor, which I've been ignoring, it's not a divisive movie unless you're primed to see it that way.
It's just not a very good movie. It's not "Batman and Robin" bad -- five minutes into that one and I wondered if the editors had actually ever *seen* a movie. It's more like "Tommorowland", in which no money or talent was spared, and yet the result came out... OK.
The thing about "Wonder Woman" is that was a passion project for everyone involved -- like Lord of the Rings. Those movies were done with love and care. Nobody was clamoring to make a "Captain Marvel" movie, it doesn't exist for its own sake. It exists to perform a function, to lubricate the great pivot of the massive, 22 film Marvel Cinematic Universe from phase III to phase IV.
This is a film which is so busy doing what it has to do, that it doesn't have time to get its storytelling in order. Key plot elements are delivered in randomly scattered flashbacks (always a bad sign), characters engaged in barely disguised exposition, and confusing battles take place in which the rules aren't clear and the (overpowered) hero isn't genuinely threatened.
The thing is, Wonder Woman hit feminist story beats too. You just didn't notice it because the script was better. The movie *sold* them to you. That made it a great movie. Captain Marvel is merely an OK movie trying to convince you it's a great one.
I agree, they can't *narrowly target* sanctions. But if that's a problem, they can put in blanket provisions that will sufficiently limit cryptocurrency's usefulness across the board.
I'm just saying that the Wikileaks thing doesn't prove anything about cryptocurrency. Apparently you agree.
If you think governments can't crack down on cryptocurrencies if they want to, you're dreaming.
If cryptocurrency were a serious threat to traditional currency, the government could simply make transactions involving title transfers and contracts unenforceable.
Actually, if you are a Masshole, the Commonwealth's Attorney General's office has a consumer affairs that is supposed to handle this kind of "We're too big to care what you think" vendor. When I was in high school I had a friend who had an internship there sending out ominous letters to vendors like that. Usually that resolved things, because the Attorney General's letterhead gets the letter forwarded to corporate legal, who are well-acquainted with the Mass AG office's scalp-hunting ways.
The government stance in Massachusetts favors regulating businesses and protecting consumers over promoting business. You might as well take advantage of that, since your tax dollars are paying for it.
The problem isn't that the doctor used a video link to tell this guy he was going to die. The problem is the guy didn't have access to health care that would have told him he was seriously ill sooner than 24 hours before he was going to die.
I don't think this argument stands up. It's not like Facebook is claiming some kind of novel power over content linked in their site or developing some new technological capability. They already track you to as fare-thee-well. If Facebook wanted to censor mainstream conservative political opinions, they could do it *right now*. They don't need to establish a precedent; as a private corporation they can take any kind of editorial policy they want.
The reason they don't crack down on political opinions they don't like si that they don't care. They make money by keeping user engagement high; rant fests are good for their bottom line. That's why they haven't cracked down on anti-vaxx BS. The reason they're *saying* they're going to do it *now* is that their role in propagating BS that actually harms innocent people is getting public scrutiny.
Facebook is the amoral, conscience-less corporation par excellence. They've been working to accommodate their users to surveillance for years. If in the future posturing about cracking down on some unpopular political opinion is good for the line, expect a lot of hot air and maybe a little action. But don't worry, you're safe for now spreading conspiracy theories on Facebook.
L. A typical beginner bike in the 1980s came with a "27 x 1 1/4" tire, which had a wheel circumference of 2179 cm
Not diameter. Comes from copying numbers off the table.
27 x 1.25 tires have a diameter of 693mm; 700x38 have a diameter of 698. With the lower tire pressure they're essentially the same.
I have bikes with wheel diameters (counting tires) running from 482mm to 803mm. None of the wheel sizes are "crap", they're just different. The small folding bike rides harsh, but it is fun because it's nimble. The giant-wheeled fat bike floats over obstacles and has massive traction.
Last I checked, scooters are popular in wealthy enclaves of the US, so it's not lack of consumer money that's driving escooter sharing services. The US has expensive public transit too. Scooter sharing solves a "last mile" problem for well-heeled users who don't want to be bothered with the hassles of parking and traffic and can afford to piece together an alternative solution.
Wheel performance is not a *pure* function of diameter; road surface and speed factor in. The original razor scooters had tiny wheels but because they were pretty much meant to allow you to travel at jogging speeds with walking effort over sidewalks. At 5-6 mph they were fine on tiny but soft wheels, but you could feel every crack in the sidewalk.
Escooters have larger wheels, but that is negated by the fact that they allow an unskilled rider to hit 15 mph. Because of the speed you're traveling on road surfaces, which are more variable, and because people are using them for last mile commuting they don't have the choice to avoid bad road surfaces. It seems like a potentially dangerous situation to me.
As for bike wheels, while it's true that mountain bike wheels have become larger, road wheels are actually about the same. A typical beginner bike in the 1980s came with a "27 x 1 1/4" tire, which had a wheel diameter of 2179 cm. That same consumer now would be buying a bike with "700c x 38mm" tires with a wheel diameter of 2192 cm. Yes, that's half an inch larger, but if you
account for the fact that that tire is inflated to 70-80 psi instead of the old school 95-105 psi, the effective diameter difference is negligible.
The big change in bike wheel thinking is in tire pressures. Back in the day low volume/high pressure tires were normal because studies showed that produced lower rolling resistance *on the track*. However *later* studies conducted on real-world surfaces showed that a lower pressure tire with a more supple casing produced better results. Modern thinking also takes rider weight into account to produce a consistent contact patch.
The difference is that you don't buy an office heater, fan, or desk lamp *with a server*. The scale of an operation to capture significant valuable information via desk lamps would have to be orders of magnitude larger.
Learn to read, sonny.
Hitler, as is commonly known, was a vegetarian. What is somewhat less known is that despite that he regularly ate meat. While he was big on rules, he wasn't big on following them himself. Note he was also the head of a "socialist" party that privatized state industries and courted the support of powerful capitalists at the expense of small businesses.
Don't try to make sense of what these people *say*, because it makes no sense. What they *do*, however, is worth paying attention to. A tiny fringe group needs allies. I don't doubt Christian (-ist) white supremacist will make alliances with neo-pagans, but they won't be the type of neopagans that pay much attention to the qualifying clause in the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm no one..."). Likewise if Christian political fanatics could well make common cause with atheists, but those atheists won't be Richard Dawkins.