Replicating this study would be the first step in revisiting the things it contradicts, yes.
Duh
I'm not sure why you present that as being something different. That's how the scientific process works; any new work revisits the ideas implicated by the work.
If you try to cheat and rewrite, you'll keep dragging your false assumptions and solidified conclusions along with you.
Also, remember, much of this work is based on an absolutist assumption that mtDNA can only blahblahblah. The problem with those types of assumptions, they're completely 100% refuted by a single counter-example. If it is rarely wrong, that means that in total over time, the assumption is completely wrong.
Claims with more balanced assumptions are less prone to catastrophic failure.
Science is never "confirmed" in that sort of way where the status of confirmation becomes an attribute of the theory.
Each time an experiment is repeated, a particular past result is confirmed, or not, but no state information has been added or created.
Or for English majors; scientific consensus lives only in the present simple or past simple tenses; it does not, and can not, live in the perfect tense, or in any continuous tense. However, individual assessment of the current state of assessment is in the perfect tense, or some continuous tense.
No, "may" is correct. Never assume that a popular-science article about a single research paper is the end of the story.
Science isn't just about virtue signaling that you're pro-science. The details do matter.
If you know that it is now disputed, then you know that the related research will need to be revisited.
You certainly wouldn't want to be all like, "Oh, our shit might have been refuted, but maybe we won't revisit it to find out." No, you definitely have to revisit.
Revisiting your conclusions about your past results might even be a necessary predicate for it to be science; even when there wasn't additional research that contradicted the assumptions baked into your conclusions.
an SSD drive mostly only needs a fancy multiplexer. The computational part could be done on a SOT-26 package micro otherwise.
That's why the economics lean so heavily on them doing it themselves; what they need is about the cheapest possible embedded processor with that pin count. Not having to license a design means they push the costs down to the theoretical minimum.
No, they will not be available to other companies, or to the general public.
This article, about the Linux Foundation partnering with RISC-V to encourage creation of chips available to the general public. Western Digital was mentioned because they're an example of what is being done already.
If those things were the same, they would not have even mentioned them both.
It wasn't high income. They didn't even have fire breaks. Individual houses did not have fire plans with roof sprinklers, or any of the other stuff that rich people living in the woods have.
You can just look at the pictures of their burnt houses and see that the houses filled the whole lots; they were all tiny lots that could barely hold the houses. That is not what rich neighborhoods look like.
These were middle class people who bought as much house as they could and didn't have a budget left over to also protect it.
A bunch of hand-wavy stuff about something-something being the "same," followed by a bunch of unknowns that obviously would be known if the hand-wavy stuff was actually known.
Yes, it is true; if we had more data, we could have more studies about that data. But most of your blathering isn't about answerable questions, but about unanswerable questions. If we were in a dictatorship, perhaps a study could be arranged, and we could just force half the neighborhood to exercise more, and quantify exactly how much of that neighborhoods differences were due to exercise, and how much was due to pollution. But we can't.
Go and try to study any of that shit, and you'll either come up with a bunch of steaming bullshit, or else you'll realize that apples-to-apples data is elusive, even in an overall data glut.
It is already well measured and understood that life expectancy is about lifestyle not genetics.
For example, Japan has the longest life expectancy. Japanese-Americans who eat a traditional Japanese diet have life expediencies similar to people in Japan. And Japanese-Americans who eat a typical American diet have a typical American life expectancy. This was already well-established decades ago.
All the "this group doesn't get this illness" stuff is about reporting, not about the health differences; the actual known health differences relate to rare conditions in the margins. For example, I've heard bozos my whole life saying that various people's indigenous to Alaska don't get heart disease, even though they eat lots of mammal blubber. It turns out, they just don't consider heart disease to be a disease; they consider that if you're 55 and your heart stops, it was age-related. They don't consider it a problem, won't accept treatment, and their doctors often don't write down heart disease as the cause of death. There are various ethnic groups that share this same pattern; early death, high animal fat consumption, cultural acceptance of those deaths, and widespread rumors that they have magical DNA that protects them from heart disease.
They have a long work day, and a long nominal work week, but so many national holidays that their total hours of work per year is less than comparable American workers on a nominal 5 day work week.
When your teacher told you that Japanese students have to spend way more time studying, because they have a 6 day school week? They weren't lying, they were merely ignorant.
People who are not only literate in the sense that they learned to read, but people who are literate in the sense that they actually do read already have the ability to look at the labels and find the many items without any *-syrup or modified * starch.
In my area, just in the last year the number of non-syrup foods has gone up drastically; for example, ketchup went from one medium-priced national brand (in only one of their multiple bottle styles) to almost 50% of the brands.
Also a good idea to avoid polysorbates. If you eat pickles, that means buying the expensive gourmet ones. When a family member who used to eat a lot of digestive health products stopped eating polysorbate, the problems went away entirely. Many slashdotters would benefit from learning about these issues.
You can't read labels, I know. Most of the country is aliterate; they know how to read, but they won't do it other than for social purposes. But still, they'll accidentally eat less corn syrup thanks to the minority who do read the labels, and make purchasing decisions accordingly.
If sugar is expensive it implies you're in Europe. Don't whine about the expensive sugar, it is supposed to be good for farmers in the south of France. In the rest of the world sugar is cheap because it is normally subsidized to benefit the farmers, instead of being taxed. That's why they made it expensive in Europe, because the market price is too low to make the farm owners rich.
Sugar is so cheap now that cane sugar only gets a small premium over beet sugar. There are "Other Reasons" why food companies like to use processed syrups instead.
ICOs are lucky to be low-risk enough to be categorized as "speculative." Be careful using words like "high risk," that is an actual risk category and you might end up with the SEC sniffing around.;)
Blockchain adds immutability of a distributed data store. If you're talking about digital currency, that is not nothing. But obviously, it also isn't everything. People who want to do without the source of trust in the center don't really understand why fiat currency has value in the first place. When a digital currency comes along worth trusting, it will be one who has a trusted party at its center. And it will not, therefore, be a cryptocurrency.
Blockchain does a great job at managing the data store, it just doesn't do anything to manage exchange rates. And crypto adds that, but the management it gives is totally broken and goes in the wrong direction over time. So it is the crypto part that is out of place, not the blockchain part. (Obviously the blockchain itself includes encryption, I'm only talking about the "mining" and "proof of work" parts.)
About 50% of the people you would have to include to get numbers that high are not here illegally.
It is illegal to enter without permission, but visa overstays are not breaking any law. The law says that if their status runs out, the government may send them a letter at any time ordering them to leave. If that never happens, they are "without status" but their presence is not illegal at all.
If Conservitards could learn about American civics, they could probably make a lot of progress on issues they purport to care about by merely knowing enough about the American Way to participate in reform conversations. Instead, they just shout a lot, and don't make any progress on anything they say they care about. LOL
These are people so poor, if you offered them welfare they wouldn't trust you enough to fill out the paperwork.
The only danger is that they might get arthritis from picking a lot of strawberries because they don't see themselves as important enough to compete for jobs picking beans.
There are well over 50,000 illegal crossings per month normally. The only reason anybody can even notice this group is that they're too poor to pay smugglers, and too bedraggled to run around looking for spots to sneak through. And many are running from gangs, so they're scared to even attempt to access the information networks that would tell them where to go.
When people attempt to rush an international border in a group, most countries are going to shoot them. A Buddhist country would shoot them for sure. OTOH, this particular group of people is neither large, nor threatening; OTOH, they're behaving in a maladaptive way currently. But if they were able to figure out their situation, they would already not be in as bad a situation. There will always be the most ignorant, the most bedraggled, the least deserving.
A lot of Americans are Christian, but most of them forgot how they're supposed to treat the least deserving. In fact, many of them "forgot" if that was even mentioned in their Bible!
He's a rich guy. People assume he paid a financial adviser whose clients are normally rich guys. That would be somebody good, right?
Why would some middle-class nincompoop presume that he could go hire a budget financial adviser and get better advice than he'd get if he could listen in on the advice a rich guy got?
There is not actually any good reason other than fraud not to put Mayweather's advice above the other low-quality investment advice people can get without taking the time to actually understand the economics themselves. So that's the whole problem; not that Mayweather was the source of the advice, but that it was false that he was giving real advice; he was actually just lying about having some legit financial advice to pass on. That's the point of regulating the industry! To keep people who are actually working as a paid actor from giving you financial advice.
I don't know what is wrong with America that allows this kind of advertising strategy to work, but it might very well be the central problem in America at the moment.
It's a terrible education system that doesn't teach critical thinking, because its primary purpose is to produce low-information voters.
If you thought that was a primary purpose you really underestimated the need for child care in this country. Or the need for factory workers to (finally, please) learn how to read weights and measures.
Hey there Dilly Bar! Did it cross your little mind that they might be trying to regulate the use of cryptocoins as securities and that that industry is larger than $100K? Or did you fail to notice that the SEC is also going after the coin itself as being fraudulent?
You're one of these dummies who wants people to think you actually believe that the SEC was going after Floyd Mayweather for being a celebrity? As if they were investigating him personally. When obviously, they were investigating a fraudulent ICO that actually happened and actually ripped people off and in the course of that investigation, they found that some famous people were using that fame to illegally promote these offerings, even though they're not registered with the SEC at all, and should not be selling securities.
Next I'm sure you'll be defending quack doctors who harmed people, and fake lawyers who got people sent to prison.
Except that, you're both the elitist telling people how it works, and the dunce that isn't qualified to give the advice.
Mayweather isn't qualified because he didn't file paperwork to become registered. Nobody cares if you get punched in the head, for a living or as a hobby. Lots of MMA fighters have day jobs in an office, presumably boxers too.
Slashdot Mirror
It could even explain the Evil Spiderman Suit.
Replicating this study would be the first step in revisiting the things it contradicts, yes.
Duh
I'm not sure why you present that as being something different. That's how the scientific process works; any new work revisits the ideas implicated by the work.
Right. You don't move immediately to rewriting.
You simply throw it away, and start fresh.
If you try to cheat and rewrite, you'll keep dragging your false assumptions and solidified conclusions along with you.
Also, remember, much of this work is based on an absolutist assumption that mtDNA can only blahblahblah. The problem with those types of assumptions, they're completely 100% refuted by a single counter-example. If it is rarely wrong, that means that in total over time, the assumption is completely wrong.
Claims with more balanced assumptions are less prone to catastrophic failure.
Sorry, that should have been "individual assessment of the current state of consensus" at the end.
Science is never "confirmed" in that sort of way where the status of confirmation becomes an attribute of the theory.
Each time an experiment is repeated, a particular past result is confirmed, or not, but no state information has been added or created.
Or for English majors; scientific consensus lives only in the present simple or past simple tenses; it does not, and can not, live in the perfect tense, or in any continuous tense. However, individual assessment of the current state of assessment is in the perfect tense, or some continuous tense.
No, "may" is correct. Never assume that a popular-science article about a single research paper is the end of the story.
Science isn't just about virtue signaling that you're pro-science. The details do matter.
If you know that it is now disputed, then you know that the related research will need to be revisited.
You certainly wouldn't want to be all like, "Oh, our shit might have been refuted, but maybe we won't revisit it to find out." No, you definitely have to revisit.
Revisiting your conclusions about your past results might even be a necessary predicate for it to be science; even when there wasn't additional research that contradicted the assumptions baked into your conclusions.
an SSD drive mostly only needs a fancy multiplexer. The computational part could be done on a SOT-26 package micro otherwise.
That's why the economics lean so heavily on them doing it themselves; what they need is about the cheapest possible embedded processor with that pin count. Not having to license a design means they push the costs down to the theoretical minimum.
Yes, it is very clear.
No, they will not be available to other companies, or to the general public.
This article, about the Linux Foundation partnering with RISC-V to encourage creation of chips available to the general public. Western Digital was mentioned because they're an example of what is being done already.
If those things were the same, they would not have even mentioned them both.
It wasn't high income. They didn't even have fire breaks. Individual houses did not have fire plans with roof sprinklers, or any of the other stuff that rich people living in the woods have.
You can just look at the pictures of their burnt houses and see that the houses filled the whole lots; they were all tiny lots that could barely hold the houses. That is not what rich neighborhoods look like.
These were middle class people who bought as much house as they could and didn't have a budget left over to also protect it.
A bunch of hand-wavy stuff about something-something being the "same," followed by a bunch of unknowns that obviously would be known if the hand-wavy stuff was actually known.
Yes, it is true; if we had more data, we could have more studies about that data. But most of your blathering isn't about answerable questions, but about unanswerable questions. If we were in a dictatorship, perhaps a study could be arranged, and we could just force half the neighborhood to exercise more, and quantify exactly how much of that neighborhoods differences were due to exercise, and how much was due to pollution. But we can't.
Go and try to study any of that shit, and you'll either come up with a bunch of steaming bullshit, or else you'll realize that apples-to-apples data is elusive, even in an overall data glut.
Careful, now, Darth Cheney might not find your lack of Faith amusing.
You blamed immigrants bringing "untreatable contagious conditions". What disease exactly?
He's blowing a dog whistle about AIDS and Africa. Just so you know.
It is already well measured and understood that life expectancy is about lifestyle not genetics.
For example, Japan has the longest life expectancy. Japanese-Americans who eat a traditional Japanese diet have life expediencies similar to people in Japan. And Japanese-Americans who eat a typical American diet have a typical American life expectancy. This was already well-established decades ago.
All the "this group doesn't get this illness" stuff is about reporting, not about the health differences; the actual known health differences relate to rare conditions in the margins. For example, I've heard bozos my whole life saying that various people's indigenous to Alaska don't get heart disease, even though they eat lots of mammal blubber. It turns out, they just don't consider heart disease to be a disease; they consider that if you're 55 and your heart stops, it was age-related. They don't consider it a problem, won't accept treatment, and their doctors often don't write down heart disease as the cause of death. There are various ethnic groups that share this same pattern; early death, high animal fat consumption, cultural acceptance of those deaths, and widespread rumors that they have magical DNA that protects them from heart disease.
Don't derp all over yourself. Maybe there is some other solution between your binary choice of "do nothing" and "ban it!"
I know, I know, thinking is hard. Keep trying. You can do it!
Japan works less hours, not more.
They have a long work day, and a long nominal work week, but so many national holidays that their total hours of work per year is less than comparable American workers on a nominal 5 day work week.
When your teacher told you that Japanese students have to spend way more time studying, because they have a 6 day school week? They weren't lying, they were merely ignorant.
People who are not only literate in the sense that they learned to read, but people who are literate in the sense that they actually do read already have the ability to look at the labels and find the many items without any *-syrup or modified * starch.
In my area, just in the last year the number of non-syrup foods has gone up drastically; for example, ketchup went from one medium-priced national brand (in only one of their multiple bottle styles) to almost 50% of the brands.
Also a good idea to avoid polysorbates. If you eat pickles, that means buying the expensive gourmet ones. When a family member who used to eat a lot of digestive health products stopped eating polysorbate, the problems went away entirely. Many slashdotters would benefit from learning about these issues.
You can't read labels, I know. Most of the country is aliterate; they know how to read, but they won't do it other than for social purposes. But still, they'll accidentally eat less corn syrup thanks to the minority who do read the labels, and make purchasing decisions accordingly.
If sugar is expensive it implies you're in Europe. Don't whine about the expensive sugar, it is supposed to be good for farmers in the south of France. In the rest of the world sugar is cheap because it is normally subsidized to benefit the farmers, instead of being taxed. That's why they made it expensive in Europe, because the market price is too low to make the farm owners rich.
Sugar is so cheap now that cane sugar only gets a small premium over beet sugar. There are "Other Reasons" why food companies like to use processed syrups instead.
ICOs are lucky to be low-risk enough to be categorized as "speculative." Be careful using words like "high risk," that is an actual risk category and you might end up with the SEC sniffing around. ;)
Blockchain adds immutability of a distributed data store. If you're talking about digital currency, that is not nothing. But obviously, it also isn't everything. People who want to do without the source of trust in the center don't really understand why fiat currency has value in the first place. When a digital currency comes along worth trusting, it will be one who has a trusted party at its center. And it will not, therefore, be a cryptocurrency.
Blockchain does a great job at managing the data store, it just doesn't do anything to manage exchange rates. And crypto adds that, but the management it gives is totally broken and goes in the wrong direction over time. So it is the crypto part that is out of place, not the blockchain part. (Obviously the blockchain itself includes encryption, I'm only talking about the "mining" and "proof of work" parts.)
About 50% of the people you would have to include to get numbers that high are not here illegally.
It is illegal to enter without permission, but visa overstays are not breaking any law. The law says that if their status runs out, the government may send them a letter at any time ordering them to leave. If that never happens, they are "without status" but their presence is not illegal at all.
If Conservitards could learn about American civics, they could probably make a lot of progress on issues they purport to care about by merely knowing enough about the American Way to participate in reform conversations. Instead, they just shout a lot, and don't make any progress on anything they say they care about. LOL
These are people so poor, if you offered them welfare they wouldn't trust you enough to fill out the paperwork.
The only danger is that they might get arthritis from picking a lot of strawberries because they don't see themselves as important enough to compete for jobs picking beans.
There are well over 50,000 illegal crossings per month normally. The only reason anybody can even notice this group is that they're too poor to pay smugglers, and too bedraggled to run around looking for spots to sneak through. And many are running from gangs, so they're scared to even attempt to access the information networks that would tell them where to go.
When people attempt to rush an international border in a group, most countries are going to shoot them. A Buddhist country would shoot them for sure. OTOH, this particular group of people is neither large, nor threatening; OTOH, they're behaving in a maladaptive way currently. But if they were able to figure out their situation, they would already not be in as bad a situation. There will always be the most ignorant, the most bedraggled, the least deserving.
A lot of Americans are Christian, but most of them forgot how they're supposed to treat the least deserving. In fact, many of them "forgot" if that was even mentioned in their Bible!
He's a rich guy. People assume he paid a financial adviser whose clients are normally rich guys. That would be somebody good, right?
Why would some middle-class nincompoop presume that he could go hire a budget financial adviser and get better advice than he'd get if he could listen in on the advice a rich guy got?
There is not actually any good reason other than fraud not to put Mayweather's advice above the other low-quality investment advice people can get without taking the time to actually understand the economics themselves. So that's the whole problem; not that Mayweather was the source of the advice, but that it was false that he was giving real advice; he was actually just lying about having some legit financial advice to pass on. That's the point of regulating the industry! To keep people who are actually working as a paid actor from giving you financial advice.
I don't know what is wrong with America that allows this kind of advertising strategy to work, but it might very well be the central problem in America at the moment.
It's a terrible education system that doesn't teach critical thinking, because its primary purpose is to produce low-information voters.
If you thought that was a primary purpose you really underestimated the need for child care in this country. Or the need for factory workers to (finally, please) learn how to read weights and measures.
Hey there Dilly Bar! Did it cross your little mind that they might be trying to regulate the use of cryptocoins as securities and that that industry is larger than $100K? Or did you fail to notice that the SEC is also going after the coin itself as being fraudulent?
You're one of these dummies who wants people to think you actually believe that the SEC was going after Floyd Mayweather for being a celebrity? As if they were investigating him personally. When obviously, they were investigating a fraudulent ICO that actually happened and actually ripped people off and in the course of that investigation, they found that some famous people were using that fame to illegally promote these offerings, even though they're not registered with the SEC at all, and should not be selling securities.
Next I'm sure you'll be defending quack doctors who harmed people, and fake lawyers who got people sent to prison.
Except that, you're both the elitist telling people how it works, and the dunce that isn't qualified to give the advice.
Mayweather isn't qualified because he didn't file paperwork to become registered. Nobody cares if you get punched in the head, for a living or as a hobby. Lots of MMA fighters have day jobs in an office, presumably boxers too.
Just keep waving your hands and insisting that you don't know that there are any rules. FREEZE PEACH!
We're about halfway through right now, but the worst will be over as soon as the new Congress is sworn in.