961 karma · joined March 8, 2016
Hey, why not throw in education or grades while you're at it, after all, "The validity of the variables used to generate exclusion restrictions needs to be investigated in future research", since that would be as valid an instrumental variable as any of the others...
(I also object to the media framing this as an argument for 3-day work weeks. If cognitive performance peaked at 3-days, employee performance could still be way worse due to the few hours split up, in addition to the economic overhead for businesses of having many part-timers.)
"increasingly concerned by new rather subtle diseases (SARS, HIV, BSE etc,) which are very difficult to understand, often difficult to diagnose or only become apparent long after the infection, and which often seem to originate through some change introduced by modern practices, such as use of antibiotics on farm animals or a change in the practices used in preparing meat."
Except new diseases have been constantly arising through human history and those examples arise from the usual ancient zoonotic transmission routes: eating wild meat and living in close proximity with animals. (With the exception of BSE, which inherently will never be anything but an extremely trivial disease.) The only thing 'modern' or 'complex' about them is the names, and that medicine has advanced past witchcraft and is able to notice them.
This is a pretty sensible anti-aging regimen. Vitamin D and baby aspirin reduce all-cause mortality in the elderly in the meta-analyses, statins are probably helpful, daily weighing will help avoid obesity and metabolic disorder leading to all sorts of bad things like diabetes, and likewise the cardio & weight training. Such a regimen is probably good for at least 2 additional years of life expectancy. If he was going to add anything more, it would have to be metformin or low-dose rapamycin, and those are speculative enough that one might want to wait for TAME/MILES results before deciding.
When I saw the headline, I literally went 'Oh come on!' out loud. Apparently there's a bloody Earth-like planet everywhere if even our neighboring star has one.
I tried to run the makefile, but apparently the version of Vowpal Rabbit that ships on my Ubuntu (7.3) is so outdated that it doesn't support the bootstrap option.
His VW script does do bootstrapping ('--bootstrap 16') but he doesn't report it anywhere I see. https://github.com/JohnLangford/vowpal_wabbit/wiki/using-vw-... seems to not report any sort of p-value or confidence interval which might be derived from the bootstrapping. (The 'relevance' is 'the relative distance of each variable from the best constant prediction', not sure what that means.)
So if you want to know, it looks like you'll have to run it yourself and visualize the output. I would guess that the uncertainties are huge and none of them reach even p<0.05 - it simply should not be possible to get mean loss of like 0.2 and reliable estimates of hundreds of variables like 'melon' out of less than 4 months of data when the random measurement error of the scale itself is on the order of half a pound (I have an Omron body fat scale, and even taking 2-3 measurements daily, there's a lot of error) unless his VW regression is grossly overfitting.
I don't think it should. A disengage is simply a precaution. Whether it would have been an accident if the self-driving car had continued on is a question of counterfactuals, and they examine it with the recorded data and simulations of the car software to see what would happen; and they report that of the 269 disengages, only 13 probably would've led to an accident with physical contact with something it shouldn't've, and at least 2 of those are trivial. You claim to have read the report in detail, so I'm not sure why I have to explain this.
269 disengages over their entire fleet per year and perhaps 13 hypothetical accidents of unknown magnitude (but some quite minor: "2 of these involved simulated contact with traffic cones") if they hadn't disengaged is 'staggering'?
So she was a Sovereign Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement)? http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/korryn-gaines-instagram-videos... quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook. Apparently there's even a black version of all this stuff: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/sovereign-citizens-express-f...
> Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment...Revolutionary Guard commanders boasted at the time that the Americans had succumbed to Iranian pressure. “Taking this much money back was in return for the release of the American spies,” said Gen. Mohammad Reza Naghdi, commander of the Guard’s Basij militia, on state media.
A candidate-gene study != GWAS. It's particularly bizarre to criticize GWASes for the sins of candidate-gene study when GWASes were literally partially designed to avoid those problems. Don't equivocate. If you have criticisms of actual GWASes as they are run and good reason to doubt that the hits are noise and will not replicate in well-powered followups (contrary to what we actually see, in this GWAS and others...), give them; don't swap in criticisms of candidate-gene studies and pretend they're the same thing, because they're not.
> Doesn't the significance level being "ludicrous" depend on things like the degree of multiple testing happening?
It does. And that's exactly why holding replications to 10-8 is ludicrous. The error rate when testing 5 or 15 SNPs at 10-8 is much much much smaller than when testing 500,000 SNPs. Why would you hold a multiple-test of 5 tests to the same standard as 500,000+ tests?
> I'm not saying anything controversial in the field.
If you're insinuating that GWASes are as bad as candidate-gene studies were, or that a p-value threshold of 10-8 should be used for everything, or that we cannot have high confidence in any given hit at 10-8 (especially when replicated at 10-5) you certainly are saying controversial things.
> I also gave this particular paper praise for holding to a higher standard than some other GWA studies.
Such as?