learnstats2

> If you can take these tools and show that any of the truths presented in this article are false

This is not the opposite of taking those as axiomatic truths.

You're also calling them truths and saying it's on me (as a novice) to show them false? This only proves my point that they are not properly examined.

Like I said, it bothers me.

> Something like $0.10 / second

This is a low enough cost that I bet people would use and hold their horn for longer, to show their annoyance in $.

When I lived on a similar main road, I ended up with some form of noise turned up as loud as possible (to attempt to mute sirens), and I wore ear plugs to minimise that, and I still occasionally got woken up by the vibration of a large or loud vehicle passing by.

> Do you know how it is taught in graduate programs?

If a professor presents these assumptions as "truths" (as they have done, quite literally, via this article), graduate students are strongly disincentivized from thinking about challenging or contradicting them - if they want to pass their course, if they ever might want to get a job in that department, etc.

It appears to me that Cowen has set out (his own right-wing understanding of) assumptions underlying macroeconomics, in line with the editorial position of Bloomberg.

The assumptions are set in stone before you can begin to do macroeconomics, given to you when you take Macro 101, to lay the foundation of your future work, rather than examined and challenged.

I don't think this is exactly malicious, but it bothers me that the field largely operates on, and draws research conclusions from, unchallenged assumptions.

> In short, it doesn’t do anything. > “positioned to deliver a potentially impactful payload at a moment’s notice.”

In my view, these are contradictory statements.

It hasn't done anything (according to evidence at the time of writing) is not the same as it doesn't do anything.

Interesting to note that population of central boroughs of London (which is used as a canonical example of population growth and overcrowding in Europe) is roughly half what they were 100 years ago. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Islington#De...

And likely decreasing now again, as people find less cultural benefit of living in an expensive city during an ongoing pandemic.

I don't think population size or density is really the problem - the problem is poor planning to account for probable changes in population size or density. Consistent 2% growth should be relatively easy for politicians to anticipate and manage.

> Have you ever met an Uber driver who didn't give the impression that this was what he did all the time?

My impression is that every Uber driver I have met, in the UK, was also working for a more traditional driver agency.

I believe it's contractual that Uber drivers are not allowed to give this impression?

It's very possible that you would have been declared employed if you took it to a tribunal or if it was otherwise challenged. This happens plenty often.

It's hard to tell from the information you have given us, but it sounds like it could be an employer-employee type relationship.

You can take an online test here: https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-employment-status-for-t...

I believe the UK already has one of the highest rates of animal experimentation in the world (if not the actual highest?), i.e. it's known to be relatively easy to get through ethics committees.

This is being reported as if the challenge trial is giving people already-approved vaccines (also note the first stage of the trial is not even doing that step).

As such, the benefit of deliberately infecting people over waiting for natural exposure appears to me to be zero.

I don't need a control case to observe that the whale's movement pattern at least identifies the drawn wakes.

The result here is that the whale's motion looks frantic, whether it is or not. We can't even tell whether the whale is really interacting with the ships, or interacting with their wake, whether it is really avoiding, or giving chase.

A better solution would be to fast forward (faster) through the uninteresting parts and play the interesting parts close to real-time.

> $1 donated got multiplied millions of times in dev time saved.

Love that trickle-down economics,

Step 1: less time spent on dev tasks

Step 2: ??????

Step 3: end war, end hunger

I would agree, and this matches it to gold, also from Ray Dalio's perspective.

Ray Dalio invested heavily into gold, and has since repeatedly press released that he had done so. It's the same characteristics as an MLM scheme.

Here Ray Dalio says he views Bitcoin as a gold-like asset.

This is the first time I have felt that Bitcoin has some value: as a commodity that wealthy people put their wealth into when they have nothing better to do with it. People are not buying gold because they ever plan to use the gold.

It can be powerful just to say something like: "I don't agree with that"

Direct refutation of what they have said suggests that you are open to discussion in light of further evidence, and invites people to find new arguments; whereas, saying that you fundamentally disagree makes your position much clearer.

The article also quotes the researcher explicitly denying the BBC’s headline suggesting causation.

I downvoted all the popular comments here which were ready to agree with the causation despite the research making no comment on that at all: the complete lack of critical thinking is why this gets to be the chosen headline. Pure clickbait.

I guess that you haven't fully understood the complete problem space of everything that a teacher has to master in order to be effective, and everything that a school has to provide resources for (including other areas of training).

Classroom teaching is not highly dependent on technology and low-tech solutions are often better.

Your suggested solution asks teachers to give up a day of their time (unpaid?) for what you think is important, without listening to what teachers actually find difficult about their jobs.

Even if what you are saying is right and genuinely helpful, it won't immediately look like a good solution to the teachers or to the administration.

I personally know someone who turned down a payrise for this reason.

> Even tiny sensitivity would be better than nothing

Not if you imagine that one case on a plane = potential super-spreading event, the plane touches down and then newly infected people go in every direction.

Your hypothetical test with tiny sensitivity is pointless, in this regard: it has a (less than) tiny chance of preventing each risky passenger. In my view, any kind of low-sensitivity testing before departure is theatre: it won't make any difference in preventing new infection from breaking out.

The government of the country that I am in agrees, and requires a negative PCR test.

The rapid antigen tests have a significant problem with false-negatives: the BMJ reported that Innova tests have 49% sensitivity.

That makes it pointless to use as a border control - for every two cases, at least one gets through. (Or, potentially much worse, under this system: I throw away my positive tests and show whatever false negative one I have).

You ideally want to be conservative and permit some false positives at an effective border control, because you don't want to risk infectious cases getting through and causing an untraceable national breakout.

> Maintenance is relatively cheap and 2020 waiting lists were sometimes months long given the spike in riders forcing many to DIY.

As another commenter has said - why don't shops charge according to the increased demand? This situation benefits them.

Do bike dealers not also make money from increased demand for services?

That's what the headline is trying to imply; yet, the article makes it clear that other EU countries have equally granted emergency authorisations, within EU provisions for doing so.

Precisely because we expect that Wikipedia has sourced this information, such as climate data, from a reliable location - i.e. not made it up for itself.

>Stealing is also an economic crime then... no one should go to jail

I completely agree?

> One hell of a deterrent too.

Psychology says no.

I find this principle useful - that a fine is just permission slip for people who can afford it.

But, in terms of environmental crimes as discussed in these comments, the reason corporation dump toxic waste in the river is to avoid the clean-up cost - it's an economic crime.

So in that case, it's an appropriate solution to fine a large multiple of the total clean-up cost plus damages. The point is to not make it an affordable option, no matter how rich you are.

Separately, fines which rise in proportional to wealth can work in a progressive way, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446545.stm

> Is it possible to get my sequence from one of the commercial groups doing this, and then "look it up" in a genome reference to verify my brown eyes, for example?

Yes and no.

Brown eyes aren't controlled by a single gene, so it's not straightforward to look this up from your genome profile.

What genome profiling companies will do is assay a finite number of specific locations on your DNA (SNPs), to get good comparison points with other people, and then predict what colour your eyes are based on which SNPs are significant for eye colour.

It's not guaranteed to be right, then - nor is it guaranteed that the significant SNPs are linked to relevant genes.