Actually, they say that they corrected for age and BMI, though they don't specify how.
Exactly. They don't say how. This is the single most important part of the analysis -- the results mean nothing whatsoever without this "correction"-- and they dismiss it in one sentence.
The graph they show-- survival versus years since start of the study-- is entirely useless. The dark grey curve needs to be shifted 13 years to the right to make these two curves consistent with each other. Since the graph only covers 10 years, this means that the curve needs to be shifted off the chart.
What worries me the most (from a scientific point of view) is that they say that they only found a statistically significant effect between the 0-10 and the 21-30 pushups groups.
This is correct. Once you look at the adjusted results (adjusted how?), you see that the confidence intervals no longer are distinct.
I assume that means they used pairwise tests.
That phrase you use-- "I assume"-- should never be used when interpreting a scientific paper.
Far too often, the phrase hides "we didn't take the trouble to do it right, so we're shuffling the details where nobody will notice.
Cardiovascular events are highly nonlinear with age. In fact, the expected number of cardiovascular events for the lower age groups is pretty close to zero. Any correction is going to amplify noise.
They report the 95% confidence intervals, which then means that they didn't correct for multiple comparisons. This is an instance of p-hacking, if I ever saw one.
is it though? all it shows us is that upper body strength and potentially having less fat around upper body strength is a better indicator of health then lower body/leg strength.
No, all it shows is that older people have more cardiovascular events than younger ones.
The ones who could do fewer push-ups were older. By 13 years.
Yes, the firefighters who could do the fewest push-ups were older (average age 48.4, compared to 35.1 for the ones who could do 41+ pushups) and were more likely to be smokers.
At the end of the 10 year study period, the firefighters who could to 41 or more pushups were still younger than the ones who could do less than 10 had been at the start of the study.
Generally insurance is risk management with the statistical expectation of breaking even. Gambling is taking risk where the statistical expectation is a loss.
Exactly. Both gambling and insurance consist of making bets on risk.
The problem is that you just swap one problem - different time zones for another one - not knowing the hours of operation of the place you're calling.
I already have that problem. Some of the places I work with follow the canonical "9 to 5" schedule, but by no means all. Other places start the day at 8:00. Some places even start at 7:00. And a lot of places have flex time; some people I know even get in to work at 6am.
Many offices have "flex Friday," where some Fridays (but not all) you can't call them at any time of day, but other days they work an extra hour every day.
Knowing how to read the clock does not substitute for knowing the business hours.
"The school day starts at more or less the same time everywhere in India but children go to bed later and have reduced sleep in areas where the sun sets later."
Yes, this is an artificial problem. One time zone doesn't mean every single school has to start at exactly the same time.
Start the school at the time that makes sense. Problem solved.
It's not the same. With gambling, you are hoping for a profit. With insurance, you are mitigating a loss (exchanging the risk of a large, unexpected loss for a known, regular, smaller cost).
But what you "hope for" is entirely irrelevant. If you don't care whether you win or lose, it's still gambling. If you buy a lottery ticket and give it to your mother-in-law, who you dislike, so you hope it doesn't win, it's still gambling. Doesn't matter what you hope, it's still gambling. You place your money down, and get a payout, or not, depending on the outcome. That's gambling.
Pretty much every form of insurance is not gambling.
No. Insurance is gambling, pretty much by definition.
You pay money to enter. There is an event with some unknown probability. If the event happens, you get a payout; if it doesn't, you lose your money.
That's the definition of gambling.
The idea with gambling is that if things go the way you planned, you come out a winner. But generally with insurance, you don't come away feeling like a winner.
Whether you "feel" like a winner or not is not part of the definition of gambling. You're placing money down, and get a payout or not depending on outcome.
I think that the problem is that you are assuming some moral connotations to "gambling", and you think "but insurance is good, so therefore it can't be gambling." Delete the moral connotations, and you see it is, indeed, a form of gambling.
(you can, if you like, think of it as a reverse form of gambling, if you want to think of life itself as the gamble.)
Now, since it is a Republican wanting this, the media, lib sites will condone it as "government spying". Had Obama requested this, it would be the best thing since sliced bread.
To the contrary, when the Obama administration did announce an AI research policy... nobody paid the least bit of attention.
EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law.
No.
Tesla's concept was that the radiation is confined in the waveguide defined by the space between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface. So, it would drop off as 1/r (at least, up to the point where it's gone halfway around the Earth, at which point it increases).
Best moving the goal posts slashpost post yet today. The data doesn't mean what we want, so we deny it. You are as bad as the deniers who think global warming is a hoax. You accept all the data, you don't remove outliers without a damn good reason (ideology is not a reason)
Um, no. The article and this discussion has been about SURFACE temperature. The post by WhiplashII linked to (one researcher's reconstructions of) temperature at 5 KM ALTITUDE. Saying "that's not surface temperature" is not "moving the goal posts"-- it's pointing out that the post was not relevant to the discussion.
Um, that is not temperature, that is see ice. Google "global average temperature", and use the NASA data (I believe).
No, it's a graph of temperature. Read the axis label.
I happened to pick a temperature graph that shows two different methods of reconstructing past temperature, depending on whether the reconstruction puts sea ice in the "land" category or the "ocean" category, and showing that the TEMPERATURE result is the same. I picked that temperature graph, out of several choices, because it was the one that happened to a horizontal axis that covered the years in question.
BTW, according to NOAA satellites, 2019 was the 14th hottest year and 2018 was the 23rd hottest year.
1. This is not surface temperature. They call it "lower atmosphere," but from a satellite perspective, "lower" means temperature about 5 km above the surface. The discussion you're replying to here is about surface temperature.
2. The satellites (despite what Spencer implies) don't measure temperature. They measure intensity of oxygen microwave emission on the integrated optical path between the satellite and the ground. They use a algorithm to "correct" this data to subtract out noise and turn the line-averaged intensities into altitude-dependent temperatures (by basically subtracting out the upper atmosphere from the data using upper-atmosphere data from a different wavelength), but there is some amount of disagreement over how to accurately correct the data, and different groups come up with different answers. There's a Wikipedia article on it here: that gives a good introduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Summary, this is measuring a different thing, and the meaning of the data is somewhat less clear.
Good. A law saying it's illegal to collect such information without consent would be completely worthless you were not allowed to sue the company for violating it.
Uh, the first vertical landing rocket was demonstrated in 1961.
Not one that had boosted a payload into orbit, no.
But, the space shuttle was flying 20 years ago, which boosted payloads into orbit and then flew again. It's only the "vertical landing" part that's new, not the reusable part. And, mostly people weren't envisioning "vertical landings" because it had never seemed like a particularly important thing whether a landing was vertical or not.
...and as for "never dreamed or thought possible"-- no, science fiction landed rockets vertically all the time. It was certainly "dreamed" and even "though possible."
The Soviets landed a Rover on Mars in 1971.
Which never deployed.
The original comment you're replying to was "rovers going for years on end", which didn't happen until 2006 (two years after the Opportunity rover landed, assuming "years" means "at least two years".)
But "never dreamed or thought possible"-- no, nobody ever thought that it wasn't possible.
By "symbiotic parasites," I think you mean mutualist symbionts. Commensal and mutualist symbionts are not parasites. The definition of a parasite is that it provides no benefit to the host.
You're working hard to redefine words so that they don't mean anything in order to make a point that is banal. In this case, you're working hard to redefine the word "free" so that it has no meaning at all.
Yes, you're correct, if something is free, that means somebody else paid, so if you want to be "pedantic" you can say that the word free is meaningless, if you just redefine the word with the purpose of saying nothing is free.
But that redefinition is useless, and more to the point, it's not what the word means.
If you actually want to be pedantic, you may say that the word "free" always requires a prepositions: when you say something is free, that means it is free to a particular person.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they say that they corrected for age and BMI, though they don't specify how.
Exactly. They don't say how. This is the single most important part of the analysis -- the results mean nothing whatsoever without this "correction"-- and they dismiss it in one sentence.
The graph they show-- survival versus years since start of the study-- is entirely useless. The dark grey curve needs to be shifted 13 years to the right to make these two curves consistent with each other. Since the graph only covers 10 years, this means that the curve needs to be shifted off the chart.
What worries me the most (from a scientific point of view) is that they say that they only found a statistically significant effect between the 0-10 and the 21-30 pushups groups.
This is correct. Once you look at the adjusted results (adjusted how?), you see that the confidence intervals no longer are distinct.
I assume that means they used pairwise tests.
That phrase you use-- "I assume"-- should never be used when interpreting a scientific paper.
Far too often, the phrase hides "we didn't take the trouble to do it right, so we're shuffling the details where nobody will notice.
Cardiovascular events are highly nonlinear with age. In fact, the expected number of cardiovascular events for the lower age groups is pretty close to zero. Any correction is going to amplify noise.
They report the 95% confidence intervals, which then means that they didn't correct for multiple comparisons. This is an instance of p-hacking, if I ever saw one.
Exactly.
is it though? all it shows us is that upper body strength and potentially having less fat around upper body strength is a better indicator of health then lower body/leg strength.
No, all it shows is that older people have more cardiovascular events than younger ones.
The ones who could do fewer push-ups were older. By 13 years.
(see the first row in table 1 of the article, here: https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/am... )
^^^^^
Somebody mod this up.
Yes, the firefighters who could do the fewest push-ups were older (average age 48.4, compared to 35.1 for the ones who could do 41+ pushups) and were more likely to be smokers.
At the end of the 10 year study period, the firefighters who could to 41 or more pushups were still younger than the ones who could do less than 10 had been at the start of the study.
Older people have more cardiovascular events.
That's the definition of gambling.
Generally insurance is risk management with the statistical expectation of breaking even. Gambling is taking risk where the statistical expectation is a loss.
Exactly. Both gambling and insurance consist of making bets on risk.
The only difference is which bet and what payout.
The problem is that you just swap one problem - different time zones for another one - not knowing the hours of operation of the place you're calling.
I already have that problem. Some of the places I work with follow the canonical "9 to 5" schedule, but by no means all. Other places start the day at 8:00. Some places even start at 7:00. And a lot of places have flex time; some people I know even get in to work at 6am.
Many offices have "flex Friday," where some Fridays (but not all) you can't call them at any time of day, but other days they work an extra hour every day.
Knowing how to read the clock does not substitute for knowing the business hours.
"The school day starts at more or less the same time everywhere in India but children go to bed later and have reduced sleep in areas where the sun sets later."
Yes, this is an artificial problem. One time zone doesn't mean every single school has to start at exactly the same time.
Start the school at the time that makes sense. Problem solved.
It's not the same. With gambling, you are hoping for a profit. With insurance, you are mitigating a loss (exchanging the risk of a large, unexpected loss for a known, regular, smaller cost).
But what you "hope for" is entirely irrelevant. If you don't care whether you win or lose, it's still gambling. If you buy a lottery ticket and give it to your mother-in-law, who you dislike, so you hope it doesn't win, it's still gambling. Doesn't matter what you hope, it's still gambling.
You place your money down, and get a payout, or not, depending on the outcome. That's gambling.
Pretty much every form of insurance is not gambling.
No. Insurance is gambling, pretty much by definition.
You pay money to enter. There is an event with some unknown probability. If the event happens, you get a payout; if it doesn't, you lose your money.
That's the definition of gambling.
The idea with gambling is that if things go the way you planned, you come out a winner. But generally with insurance, you don't come away feeling like a winner.
Whether you "feel" like a winner or not is not part of the definition of gambling. You're placing money down, and get a payout or not depending on outcome.
I think that the problem is that you are assuming some moral connotations to "gambling", and you think "but insurance is good, so therefore it can't be gambling." Delete the moral connotations, and you see it is, indeed, a form of gambling.
(you can, if you like, think of it as a reverse form of gambling, if you want to think of life itself as the gamble.)
classic whataboutism.
Now, since it is a Republican wanting this, the media, lib sites will condone it as "government spying".
Had Obama requested this, it would be the best thing since sliced bread.
To the contrary, when the Obama administration did announce an AI research policy... nobody paid the least bit of attention.
hbr.org/2016/12/the-obama-administrations-roadmap-for-ai-policy
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/10/12/administrations-report-future-artificial-intelligence
EM radiation from the wireless source drops off according to the inverse square law.
No.
Tesla's concept was that the radiation is confined in the waveguide defined by the space between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface. So, it would drop off as 1/r (at least, up to the point where it's gone halfway around the Earth, at which point it increases).
I'm not surprised that the Tesla model 3 is the best selling electric car; I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
Like many things, it does seem likely that a lower-cost mass produced competitor is likely, in the long run, to take the lead, though.
Best moving the goal posts slashpost post yet today. The data doesn't mean what we want, so we deny it. You are as bad as the deniers who think global warming is a hoax. You accept all the data, you don't remove outliers without a damn good reason (ideology is not a reason)
Um, no. The article and this discussion has been about SURFACE temperature. The post by WhiplashII linked to (one researcher's reconstructions of) temperature at 5 KM ALTITUDE. Saying "that's not surface temperature" is not "moving the goal posts"-- it's pointing out that the post was not relevant to the discussion.
Um, that is not temperature, that is see ice. Google "global average temperature", and use the NASA data (I believe).
No, it's a graph of temperature. Read the axis label.
I happened to pick a temperature graph that shows two different methods of reconstructing past temperature, depending on whether the reconstruction puts sea ice in the "land" category or the "ocean" category, and showing that the TEMPERATURE result is the same. I picked that temperature graph, out of several choices, because it was the one that happened to a horizontal axis that covered the years in question.
I could have used a different one, this one for example: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co...
I'm pretty sure I gave a link to the source data in this thread somewhere.
That's an assertion that can be easily checked.
No, you did not.
BTW, according to NOAA satellites, 2019 was the 14th hottest year and 2018 was the 23rd hottest year.
1. This is not surface temperature. They call it "lower atmosphere," but from a satellite perspective, "lower" means temperature about 5 km above the surface. The discussion you're replying to here is about surface temperature.
2. The satellites (despite what Spencer implies) don't measure temperature. They measure intensity of oxygen microwave emission on the integrated optical path between the satellite and the ground. They use a algorithm to "correct" this data to subtract out noise and turn the line-averaged intensities into altitude-dependent temperatures (by basically subtracting out the upper atmosphere from the data using upper-atmosphere data from a different wavelength), but there is some amount of disagreement over how to accurately correct the data, and different groups come up with different answers. There's a Wikipedia article on it here: that gives a good introduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Summary, this is measuring a different thing, and the meaning of the data is somewhat less clear.
The global temperature appears to have had a positive slope for at least 200 years.
I notice you fail to give any source for your assertion.
Here is a graph of temperature data reconstructed back to 1850:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/land-and-ocean-sea-ice-comparison-large-1024x788.png
The slope has a marked increase after 1900.
Good.
A law saying it's illegal to collect such information without consent would be completely worthless you were not allowed to sue the company for violating it.
Huh.
Odd that so many free online dictionaries are so misleading, but you get what you pay for.
Uh, the first vertical landing rocket was demonstrated in 1961.
Not one that had boosted a payload into orbit, no.
But, the space shuttle was flying 20 years ago, which boosted payloads into orbit and then flew again. It's only the "vertical landing" part that's new, not the reusable part. And, mostly people weren't envisioning "vertical landings" because it had never seemed like a particularly important thing whether a landing was vertical or not.
...and as for "never dreamed or thought possible"-- no, science fiction landed rockets vertically all the time. It was certainly "dreamed" and even "though possible."
The Soviets landed a Rover on Mars in 1971.
Which never deployed.
The original comment you're replying to was "rovers going for years on end", which didn't happen until 2006 (two years after the Opportunity rover landed, assuming "years" means "at least two years".)
But "never dreamed or thought possible"-- no, nobody ever thought that it wasn't possible.
What is your definition of annoying?
Well, software that freezes for no apparent reason is annoying, to start.
/. is news for nerds! Hacking stuff that isn't designed to be hacked IS what nerds do.
You must be new here.
By "symbiotic parasites," I think you mean mutualist symbionts. Commensal and mutualist symbionts are not parasites. The definition of a parasite is that it provides no benefit to the host.
That's a pretty wide definition of "bug".
I'd think that maybe they could devote their debugging efforts to more annoying bugs...
Unfortunately paying for all those things, socially beneficial though they may be, means that they don't have spare cash to invest in start-ups.
You're working hard to redefine words so that they don't mean anything in order to make a point that is banal. In this case, you're working hard to redefine the word "free" so that it has no meaning at all.
Yes, you're correct, if something is free, that means somebody else paid, so if you want to be "pedantic" you can say that the word free is meaningless, if you just redefine the word with the purpose of saying nothing is free.
But that redefinition is useless, and more to the point, it's not what the word means.
If you actually want to be pedantic, you may say that the word "free" always requires a prepositions: when you say something is free, that means it is free to a particular person.