Heavier penalties, or more frequent controls. Both methods work to reduce the expected value of fare dodging, and the latter has a better educational value: if controls are rare, when one gets caught they think "Wow, how unlucky", not "I shouldn't do that anymore".
What WoOS writes seems ok to me. He's not rearranging the components, he's pointing out that the correct formula is a different one. There's a constant involved in the most common definition of the big-O notation --- look at line 3 of the wikipedia page that you linked to.
So, I've followed the notes on MIT's courseware up to this (first formula on page 3), and it seems that my "intuitive" test formula is correct apart of the fact that I am summing SDs instead of variances, which will account for a factor \sqrt{2} at most if I am not mistaken. Is that it? Or the fact that statistical significance \neq practical significance (which I was never claiming in the first place)?
That is my intuition anyway: if the SD of a single IQ measurement is 15, then the SD of the measurement on the population that possess the gene is 15/sqrt(718*1/5)=1.25. The SD of the measurement on the population without the gene is 15/sqrt(718*4/5)=0.63. The SD of the difference should be 1.25+0.62=1.88. So yes, 6 points is over 3-sigma. IANAS and I could be saying complete nonsense.
The standard deviation is 15. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... As for the statistical significance, not sure. IANAS, so I am not sure which formulas to best use to model it. According to TFA, their sample size is 718, of which 1/5 possess the gene, so intuitively I'd say that 6 points do seem significant.
If the comment systems on the internet have taught me anything, it is "if you are insulting someone in your post, make sure that your spelling and grammar are flawless".
To be fair, non-STEM-majors are taught a lot of irrelevant and useless science courses, too. It's more of a general problem with "introductory" courses for people that won't pursue that subject anymore.
You are correct in that, once housing is for free, people will find other artificial status symbols and currency dumps. But overall people will be better off, like everyone is (on average) more comfortable now than in the middle age, thanks to sanitation, heating medicine, less manual labor, and many other scientific and technical improvements.
Impopular opinion maybe, but I think the world would be a better place with more people thinking like your friend and less like you.
As a mathematician, the best part of it is probably asking your department to put the rifle on your research funds. I'm sorry, professor Dumoulin, you need *what*?
The website hyperionmovie.com seems to have last been updated in October 2010, and what they had there was not super substantial in the first place. My guess? Deader than the City of Poets. More dead than God's Grove or Hebron. Makes the flippin' interiors of Labyrinth worlds after the Opus Dei look positively lively.
The twitter account @hyperionmovie (probably managed by a marketing person) has seen the last activity on October last year, so let's still hope! Maybe it's only dead as a dead pope.
That's not double-blind. I haven't watched TFV in its entirety, but for instance @19:00 there is a violinist playing with goggles and a researcher handing her the instruments that can see clearly what is what.
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf!/ducks
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the informative answer. I am looking forward to reading the new data privacy policy, to back up your claims.
Wait, how will they make money then?
Oh, right. The usual answer. Selling our data.
What is so illegal about changing 0 to 1 and 1 to 0?
Heavier penalties, or more frequent controls. Both methods work to reduce the expected value of fare dodging, and the latter has a better educational value: if controls are rare, when one gets caught they think "Wow, how unlucky", not "I shouldn't do that anymore".
What WoOS writes seems ok to me. He's not rearranging the components, he's pointing out that the correct formula is a different one. There's a constant involved in the most common definition of the big-O notation --- look at line 3 of the wikipedia page that you linked to.
"blame" - like it wasn't in their interest to be the ones who take the real decisions...
So, I've followed the notes on MIT's courseware up to this (first formula on page 3), and it seems that my "intuitive" test formula is correct apart of the fact that I am summing SDs instead of variances, which will account for a factor \sqrt{2} at most if I am not mistaken. Is that it? Or the fact that statistical significance \neq practical significance (which I was never claiming in the first place)?
Yeah please enlighten me. I'd be happy to learn more on the right way to set up the calculation, this was just to have a magnitude estimate.
Yes, but this shouldn't be an issue in this research, since they are comparing apples with apples, at least from my understanding.
That is my intuition anyway: if the SD of a single IQ measurement is 15, then the SD of the measurement on the population that possess the gene is 15/sqrt(718*1/5)=1.25. The SD of the measurement on the population without the gene is 15/sqrt(718*4/5)=0.63. The SD of the difference should be 1.25+0.62=1.88. So yes, 6 points is over 3-sigma. IANAS and I could be saying complete nonsense.
The standard deviation is 15. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... As for the statistical significance, not sure. IANAS, so I am not sure which formulas to best use to model it. According to TFA, their sample size is 718, of which 1/5 possess the gene, so intuitively I'd say that 6 points do seem significant.
If the comment systems on the internet have taught me anything, it is "if you are insulting someone in your post, make sure that your spelling and grammar are flawless".
To be fair, non-STEM-majors are taught a lot of irrelevant and useless science courses, too. It's more of a general problem with "introductory" courses for people that won't pursue that subject anymore.
You are correct in that, once housing is for free, people will find other artificial status symbols and currency dumps. But overall people will be better off, like everyone is (on average) more comfortable now than in the middle age, thanks to sanitation, heating medicine, less manual labor, and many other scientific and technical improvements.
Impopular opinion maybe, but I think the world would be a better place with more people thinking like your friend and less like you.
. The Google blog post does not mention other types of scanning (neither to confirm or deny their existence, nor to announce that they will cease).
Indeed, I find the mere association offensive. Drug addicts and dealers are respectable people.
Is it from Sony perchance?
Is that you, beloved wife and heir of the late prince of Nigeria?
As a mathematician, the best part of it is probably asking your department to put the rifle on your research funds. I'm sorry, professor Dumoulin, you need *what*?
The twitter account @hyperionmovie (probably managed by a marketing person) has seen the last activity on October last year, so let's still hope! Maybe it's only dead as a dead pope.
What happened to the Hyperion movie, by the way?
Incidentally, sorry but I cannot resist: double-blind? Maybe we should say... double deaf! /ducks
So you mean they will soon get as clunky and unreliable as 2D printers?
You mean that it will take a couple weeks to decrypt a file using Javascript in IE8?
Is that you, Silvio Berlusconi?