Ybrain plans to test the device on thousands of depression patients in 70 hospitals in Korea, according to the article, then "use data from all those patients to build a case for approval in Europe...and then in the U.S.
For a technique that has yet to have any established evidence to show it is useful for depression, this might be seen as optimistic.
The point of the article was to highlight the workforce of the respective industries;?
Also, note that they use different criteria for what counts as a solar job vs other energy job. Its complete and utter marketing bullshit, don't know why even the most avid solar advocate isn't laughing at the headline.
In other words, solar requires far more workers per MWH for some reason.
No it does not. Why should it?
The work force growth is about workers installing new power plants.
What matters is that the number of jobs is a complete bullshit marketing number. They count a truck driver who delivers some solar panels, but also other products, as a 'solar supported' job, but they don't use this same method for determining which jobs apply to other sources.
We do know that solar only delivers about 1% of our power in the US. How many full time workers who are employed directly by solar is completely unknown.
The point of the article was to highlight the workforce of the respective industries; wherein solar is now the leading employer in the industry. Taking your point that solar energy is still just a small fraction of energy production in our country, would you agree that continuing to ramp up solar production and investment while divesting from coal and oil is something economically benefitial? Shouldn't it be a priority for a jobs creating president?
I think the key question is, why does it take so many worked to produce only about 1% of our electrical energy?
Unfortunately, the large majority of these jobs are very low paying, and the number does not distinguish part time vs full time workers. And since the source is an industry advocacy group, I'd question what they count as a job. It appears any truck driver who might deliver a solar panel is considered as a solar job, even if that person doesn't primarily deliver solar panels.
Thanks. Did a search, here is more info (sounds like a big rate hike for only 90MW)
The Times also noted that the project is expected to cost $740 million, down from an earlier projection of $1 billion, which Deepwater Wind will finance with loans and equity investments. The Long Island Power Authority said it would purchase all of South Fork Wind’s output for 20 years—the renewable electricity is expected to cost rate payers an extra $1.19 a month on average.
None of these articles tell us the cost or the power purchase agreement price . There are many quotes saying how wonderful it is going to be, but not a single reference to financials.
Then tell me the difference between the accident rate before there was publicity about crashes, and afterword but before the new upgrade. If you can't distinguish that impact on accident rates, you should not argue with my point, because there is no attempt to normalize for that factor.
We all have less information. You assume they are telling us something that they didn't say.
I don't see any comprehension of data normalization for purposes of drawing conclusions on your behalf. The NHTSA didn't draw any conclusions, they presented a specific piece of information and others drew conclusions, including yourself. You did it without the data required.
I have drawn no conclusions, as the information presented is not enough to do so. Which is what I was pointing out.
NHTSA did not claim the drop is due to Autopilot installation. That is where you are confused. They said that there are less crashes in the time period measured after when the upgrades were installed vs. before. Others take that a run with it. But 'before" is not broken down into the earlier time period where more people were abusing the system vs the later period where customers were better informed.
I bet if you would see a significant drop in rates if you started measuring from a time after all the publicity on crashes and abuse and up will the installation of the upgraded system. Unfortunately, we are not given that important data to be able to truly tell the impact of the upgrade.
The 40% reduction is of all Teslas that have Autopilot enabled. Right from the first day. And it covers all miles, whether autopilot was enabled or not. (Several of the safety features of autopilot are always on.)
So to answer your question, change of driver behaviour having heard of autopilot crashes could not possibly have affected the statistic, no.
Yes, it absolutely could have. Driver's are now more aware of the limits of autopilot and are using it more responsibly. The sample set 'before' installation includes all driving before the rash of media attention. We may have seen a similar drop in the rate with no installation. The only way to truly compare would be large numbers of each for the same timeframe.
And we don't have the raw numbers so we don't even know if they are statistically significant.
The data does not tell us the new software is safer. It tells us the accident rate has dropped. That may have happened even without the software update simply from all of the publicity and attention on how previous crashes were tied to negligent use. There has been a ton of reinforcing communication to Tesla drivers regarding the limits and we no longer see videos of people showing how cool their hands free driving experience is.
Also, we were not supplied with the raw data so we don't even know if the result is statistically significant.
Just to be accurate. they are excluding commercial solar and wind. But via the Net Metering item they are specifically including residential/consumer solar, and residential/consumer wind.
I'm not defending the law, it makes no sense to me, but just pointing out this detail that appears to be overlooked.
Folks, we need to find a spot that most closely simulates the brutal conditions on Mars. Or we could go to Hawaii. Let's see a show of hands in favor of Hawaii.
If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:
1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches.
2. Actually support the OS.
Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.
3. Open the platform for third party ROMs / OS developers.
You can't sell someone a physical copy they can watch whenever they want while simultaneously getting them to pay you for it continuously. You can get one or the other. The studios wanted this "pay to play" system because all they saw was "Oh, wow, people will pay us for indefinite rentals! Infinite money! And we can do this for all the movies we don't sell too!" only to learn that the rate at which they will do so is far less than what they get on impulse and short-term need purchases. People will buy a physical copy because they get excited about a title momentarily; they don't watch it more than a few times and ultimately regret or just realize the purchase wasn't really necessary. Now that rush of excitement is spent by the first or second Netflix watch and they don't see the need to purchase the thing.
Then there are used DVD sales, where the studio gets none of the revenue after the first sale.
^I'm sure they are not all medical patients as well, but if you are going to distribute under the guise of medical practice, then you need to follow applicable rules, so my question still stands. It appears I've gotten a good answer from another poster.
Would the editor care to add a term like new or additional to clear things up, or am I going to have to reach my hands through the monitor and strangle the idiot?
Accurate is boring. The first rule of clickbait parrot club is never try to be accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked it was less than 1%, that was last year. Its possible its a bit higher now.
You seem read things into my statement that I didn't say. You also seem to accept these numbers at face value.
Ybrain plans to test the device on thousands of depression patients in 70 hospitals in Korea, according to the article, then "use data from all those patients to build a case for approval in Europe...and then in the U.S.
For a technique that has yet to have any established evidence to show it is useful for depression, this might be seen as optimistic.
The point of the article was to highlight the workforce of the respective industries;?
Also, note that they use different criteria for what counts as a solar job vs other energy job. Its complete and utter marketing bullshit, don't know why even the most avid solar advocate isn't laughing at the headline.
In other words, solar requires far more workers per MWH for some reason. No it does not. Why should it?
The work force growth is about workers installing new power plants.
What matters is that the number of jobs is a complete bullshit marketing number. They count a truck driver who delivers some solar panels, but also other products, as a 'solar supported' job, but they don't use this same method for determining which jobs apply to other sources.
We do know that solar only delivers about 1% of our power in the US. How many full time workers who are employed directly by solar is completely unknown.
The point of the article was to highlight the workforce of the respective industries; wherein solar is now the leading employer in the industry. Taking your point that solar energy is still just a small fraction of energy production in our country, would you agree that continuing to ramp up solar production and investment while divesting from coal and oil is something economically benefitial? Shouldn't it be a priority for a jobs creating president?
I think the key question is, why does it take so many worked to produce only about 1% of our electrical energy?
Unfortunately, the large majority of these jobs are very low paying, and the number does not distinguish part time vs full time workers. And since the source is an industry advocacy group, I'd question what they count as a job. It appears any truck driver who might deliver a solar panel is considered as a solar job, even if that person doesn't primarily deliver solar panels.
Thanks. Did a search, here is more info (sounds like a big rate hike for only 90MW)
The Times also noted that the project is expected to cost $740 million, down from an earlier projection of $1 billion, which Deepwater Wind will finance with loans and equity investments. The Long Island Power Authority said it would purchase all of South Fork Wind’s output for 20 years—the renewable electricity is expected to cost rate payers an extra $1.19 a month on average.
None of these articles tell us the cost or the power purchase agreement price . There are many quotes saying how wonderful it is going to be, but not a single reference to financials.
This. Fundamental research is never fruitless. Who knows what may come out of this?
We've learned that forming metallic Hydrogen takes conditions that make it likely impractical for any beneficial use. A tasty fruit indeed.
Then tell me the difference between the accident rate before there was publicity about crashes, and afterword but before the new upgrade. If you can't distinguish that impact on accident rates, you should not argue with my point, because there is no attempt to normalize for that factor.
We all have less information. You assume they are telling us something that they didn't say.
I don't see any comprehension of data normalization for purposes of drawing conclusions on your behalf. The NHTSA didn't draw any conclusions, they presented a specific piece of information and others drew conclusions, including yourself. You did it without the data required.
I have drawn no conclusions, as the information presented is not enough to do so. Which is what I was pointing out.
NHTSA did not claim the drop is due to Autopilot installation. That is where you are confused. They said that there are less crashes in the time period measured after when the upgrades were installed vs. before. Others take that a run with it. But 'before" is not broken down into the earlier time period where more people were abusing the system vs the later period where customers were better informed.
I bet if you would see a significant drop in rates if you started measuring from a time after all the publicity on crashes and abuse and up will the installation of the upgraded system. Unfortunately, we are not given that important data to be able to truly tell the impact of the upgrade.
The 40% reduction is of all Teslas that have Autopilot enabled. Right from the first day. And it covers all miles, whether autopilot was enabled or not. (Several of the safety features of autopilot are always on.)
So to answer your question, change of driver behaviour having heard of autopilot crashes could not possibly have affected the statistic, no.
Yes, it absolutely could have. Driver's are now more aware of the limits of autopilot and are using it more responsibly. The sample set 'before' installation includes all driving before the rash of media attention. We may have seen a similar drop in the rate with no installation. The only way to truly compare would be large numbers of each for the same timeframe.
And we don't have the raw numbers so we don't even know if they are statistically significant.
The data does not tell us the new software is safer. It tells us the accident rate has dropped. That may have happened even without the software update simply from all of the publicity and attention on how previous crashes were tied to negligent use. There has been a ton of reinforcing communication to Tesla drivers regarding the limits and we no longer see videos of people showing how cool their hands free driving experience is.
Also, we were not supplied with the raw data so we don't even know if the result is statistically significant.
Just to be accurate. they are excluding commercial solar and wind. But via the Net Metering item they are specifically including residential/consumer solar, and residential/consumer wind.
I'm not defending the law, it makes no sense to me, but just pointing out this detail that appears to be overlooked.
Folks, we need to find a spot that most closely simulates the brutal conditions on Mars. Or we could go to Hawaii. Let's see a show of hands in favor of Hawaii.
I would think a neural "cross bleed" between any two senses is possible.
If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:
1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches. 2. Actually support the OS.
Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.
3. Open the platform for third party ROMs / OS developers.
There are two kinds of people in this world I hate.
Those that are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
How about people who don't know what "phishing" means?
Yeah, like a robot thats really a robot and not just a drone called a robot.
Snowden should also be pardoned. .
Can't pardon a white male. He should have changed his sex like Manning, the he (or she) might have had a shot.
You can't sell someone a physical copy they can watch whenever they want while simultaneously getting them to pay you for it continuously. You can get one or the other. The studios wanted this "pay to play" system because all they saw was "Oh, wow, people will pay us for indefinite rentals! Infinite money! And we can do this for all the movies we don't sell too!" only to learn that the rate at which they will do so is far less than what they get on impulse and short-term need purchases. People will buy a physical copy because they get excited about a title momentarily; they don't watch it more than a few times and ultimately regret or just realize the purchase wasn't really necessary. Now that rush of excitement is spent by the first or second Netflix watch and they don't see the need to purchase the thing.
Then there are used DVD sales, where the studio gets none of the revenue after the first sale.
^I'm sure they are not all medical patients as well, but if you are going to distribute under the guise of medical practice, then you need to follow applicable rules, so my question still stands. It appears I've gotten a good answer from another poster.
Exactly. The title is intentionally misleading.
THOUSANDS OF CUBANS already had Internet access.
Would the editor care to add a term like new or additional to clear things up, or am I going to have to reach my hands through the monitor and strangle the idiot?
Accurate is boring. The first rule of clickbait parrot club is never try to be accurate.
I assume HIPAA rules apply since this is medical usage. Were they adhered to?