"medical researchers assume things are so rather than actually demonstrate that is the case."
I disagree. The authors of this study went out of their way to get a null result. You don't do that in real life, because you won't get published. You might be tempted to go out of your way to get a *positive* result. The main point of the article is that medical *practitioners* (also journalists, the public, administrators) read a summary, skip the details, and make undue assumptions.
The conclusion of the paper has a bit of an odd line:
"When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice."
In my experience, it's usually the opposite. Large RCTs are usually sponsored by pharma companies, and they craft inclusion criteria to give the greatest chance of finding an effect. The results are valid, in the population studied, but it's very easy for end users of the research to generalize that to "X is effective for treating Y."
Clearly your definition of professional is what the rest of the world uses. Pro athletes, for example, are the ones who *don't* take performance enhancing drugs.
People have. The average white-collar worker does about two to three hours of productive work per day. The rest is playing on the Internet, chatting, wandering the halls, daydreaming, etc.
Many jobs are superfluous. Apparently, some people in these superfluous jobs experience significant amounts of stress due to having to convince themselves that their job is actually useful.
It's one of the major differences between European and American spending though. Every western country has most of the big ticket items: social security and health care, infrastructure, etc. The US has less of some of those, and a *lot* more military spending.
I had the same thought. My car has lane keeping and radar cruise control. That's pretty much all you'd need to make a nice all-highway continental crossing where you take control for "scheduled stops."
Maybe. But now you're not talking about setting up an e-mail address. Setting up your own YouTube competitor is slightly more difficult. Maybe Wordpress will make a plugin.
Virgin Galactic was considering charging a few hundred thousand for a suborbital flight, weren't they? If you get that packaged with your flight somewhere interesting there will be a market.
If SpaceX can build a fully reusable suborbital ship with minimal maintenance requirements the economics for near-economy class tickets actually look realistic.
If a new, smaller supersonic could reduce the price per seat over the Concorde, it could get knock on benefits. Making it across the Atlantic in three hours isn't as impressive if there's only one flight per day. Making it cheaper and easier to use makes it less exclusive, not more.
Radiocarbon dating, and C14 production in particular, is usually calibrated with some other source. Counting tree rings is the most popular. C14 production is certainly not regarded as constant.
Since you can clearly use Wikipedia, perhaps you should have read the radiocarbon dating entry?
Research has been ongoing since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of 14 C in the atmosphere has been over the past fifty thousand years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's calendar age. Other corrections must be made to account for the proportion of 14 C in different types of organisms (fractionation), and the varying levels of 14 C throughout the biosphere (reservoir effects). Additional complications come from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and from the above-ground nuclear tests done in the 1950s and 1960s.
First four words of my post. Yes, if any currency gets broken, whether through magic quantum computers or good old counterfeiters, all bets are off.
Your second paragraph doesn't really make sense. One of the distinguishing factors of most cryptocurrencies is that the supply of new tokens is designed to be limited, and to approach that limit asymptotically (logarithmically usually). You can't hold up regular currencies, where the rate of printing new currency is purposely set to encourage a small amount of inflation, and claim that means crypto currencies that are specifically designed to avoid this possibility are going to do the same.
Yes, most economists regard a small amount of reliable inflation to be a good thing, for a variety of reasons. Yes, this is a criticism of cryptocurrencies that are designed to have net deflation in operation.
Most cryptocurrencies are designed to inflate logarithmically (inflation decreases the more you've mined). Our economic theory assumes unending exponential growth, so at some point the inflation rate of the cryptocurrency has to be surpassed by the growth rate of the economy, producing overall deflation.
I'm not sure what they call Computer Science these days, but my bachelors had a required digital design component. We started by wiring together transistors to build a gate. When you'd demonstrated that you could use 74HC00s, and you had to build an adder. When your adder worked, you were allowed to use an ALU chip. You had to set the thing up with supporting logic and DIP switches and invent a machine code to demonstrate instruction processing and register transfers.
In the compiler class we started out by writing a simulator for that hardware, then an assembler, then a compiler.
A slight incline is enough to shed rain water. Most flat roofed buildings aren't actually completely flat. Snow doesn't care about your 1 percent angle though.
Slashdot Mirror
"medical researchers assume things are so rather than actually demonstrate that is the case."
I disagree. The authors of this study went out of their way to get a null result. You don't do that in real life, because you won't get published. You might be tempted to go out of your way to get a *positive* result. The main point of the article is that medical *practitioners* (also journalists, the public, administrators) read a summary, skip the details, and make undue assumptions.
The conclusion of the paper has a bit of an odd line:
"When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice."
In my experience, it's usually the opposite. Large RCTs are usually sponsored by pharma companies, and they craft inclusion criteria to give the greatest chance of finding an effect. The results are valid, in the population studied, but it's very easy for end users of the research to generalize that to "X is effective for treating Y."
It seems highly unlikely that anything out there is tidally locked to New Horizons.
Being locked to the sun would suffice, but it's way too far away for that.
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked to each other, but of course they both rotate relative to New Horizons.
Clearly your definition of professional is what the rest of the world uses. Pro athletes, for example, are the ones who *don't* take performance enhancing drugs.
Yes. It was in the summary.
People have. The average white-collar worker does about two to three hours of productive work per day. The rest is playing on the Internet, chatting, wandering the halls, daydreaming, etc.
Many jobs are superfluous. Apparently, some people in these superfluous jobs experience significant amounts of stress due to having to convince themselves that their job is actually useful.
Three quarters of the way down the page, mostly through comments about ten hour days, before I hit your post.
People really do have very fixed ideas about work.
It's one of the major differences between European and American spending though. Every western country has most of the big ticket items: social security and health care, infrastructure, etc. The US has less of some of those, and a *lot* more military spending.
I had the same thought. My car has lane keeping and radar cruise control. That's pretty much all you'd need to make a nice all-highway continental crossing where you take control for "scheduled stops."
Maybe. But now you're not talking about setting up an e-mail address. Setting up your own YouTube competitor is slightly more difficult. Maybe Wordpress will make a plugin.
Nobody? That's kind of the idea behind the whole "Internet" thing.
Go ahead. Sounds like a great business idea. You'll be rich!
Except it's not. The vast majority of people don't care, and the tiny fraction who do are capable of setting up their own domain, no problem.
In Canada we seem to have somewhat saner laws.
I was a volunteer suicide counsellor. 911 would forward us calls all the time. Sans small army surrounding callers' house.
Um... a fusion reactor canâ(TM)t explode. If you lose containment of the plasma it dissipates and you need to restart your reactor.
Fusion is hard. Fission is trivially (and therefore dangerously) easy.
If that were true then everyone would be taking trains or busses. Instead, there are tens of thousands of short-haul flights.
Time and convenience matter. The economics of transportation, like pretty much everything else, is multifactorial.
Virgin Galactic was considering charging a few hundred thousand for a suborbital flight, weren't they? If you get that packaged with your flight somewhere interesting there will be a market.
If SpaceX can build a fully reusable suborbital ship with minimal maintenance requirements the economics for near-economy class tickets actually look realistic.
If a new, smaller supersonic could reduce the price per seat over the Concorde, it could get knock on benefits. Making it across the Atlantic in three hours isn't as impressive if there's only one flight per day. Making it cheaper and easier to use makes it less exclusive, not more.
Radiocarbon dating, and C14 production in particular, is usually calibrated with some other source. Counting tree rings is the most popular. C14 production is certainly not regarded as constant.
Since you can clearly use Wikipedia, perhaps you should have read the radiocarbon dating entry?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)
Oh children. Japan used to have their very own Slashdot.
There's a difference between giving an internet shyster your money and buying a solar farm instead of a conventional power plant.
Society also seems to be degenerating to a point where everything must be simplified into a good/bad dichotomy.
"Most cryptocurrencies are designed"
First four words of my post. Yes, if any currency gets broken, whether through magic quantum computers or good old counterfeiters, all bets are off.
Your second paragraph doesn't really make sense. One of the distinguishing factors of most cryptocurrencies is that the supply of new tokens is designed to be limited, and to approach that limit asymptotically (logarithmically usually). You can't hold up regular currencies, where the rate of printing new currency is purposely set to encourage a small amount of inflation, and claim that means crypto currencies that are specifically designed to avoid this possibility are going to do the same.
Yes, most economists regard a small amount of reliable inflation to be a good thing, for a variety of reasons. Yes, this is a criticism of cryptocurrencies that are designed to have net deflation in operation.
Our society seems to be overly afraid of new solutions. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM....
Investment (and public opinion) are probably overly risk averse at present.
Most cryptocurrencies are designed to inflate logarithmically (inflation decreases the more you've mined). Our economic theory assumes unending exponential growth, so at some point the inflation rate of the cryptocurrency has to be surpassed by the growth rate of the economy, producing overall deflation.
I'm not sure what they call Computer Science these days, but my bachelors had a required digital design component. We started by wiring together transistors to build a gate. When you'd demonstrated that you could use 74HC00s, and you had to build an adder. When your adder worked, you were allowed to use an ALU chip. You had to set the thing up with supporting logic and DIP switches and invent a machine code to demonstrate instruction processing and register transfers.
In the compiler class we started out by writing a simulator for that hardware, then an assembler, then a compiler.
And you can be the US state department would object.
A slight incline is enough to shed rain water. Most flat roofed buildings aren't actually completely flat. Snow doesn't care about your 1 percent angle though.