learnstats2

> What is a definition of “thing that needs attending to” that can sustain a 5-10 year delay?

Photos. People traditionally want to keep photos so that they can occasionally go back to them and reminisce about old times.

The photo albums that my grandparents lovingly kept weren't out every day, and not even every year.

Here's another funny example where a UK MP was not able to vote the way they intended: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-mp-locked...

Here, it's suggested that MPs sometimes vote both ways to cancel their own mistake out, although they normally claim that they are taking some nuanced view: https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php

Not to mention that UK MPs can't vote if they have to be absent for any reason - for example if they have child-care duties.

Your original point was that the UK Commons' system of slow voting is foolproof: it isn't.

Counter-example in the UK: where the method of voting is walking into a room with your chums, MPs sometimes have to say that they "accidentally" walked into the wrong room:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16746389

It's clear your example that they (Swedish MEPs) were all agreed to vote in this direction, since they each press their own button. It's most likely that they didn't understand the significance of the vote and thought better of it afterwards.

It's their one job, to vote.

The EU Parliament, which votes on proposals but does not write them, defended the right of encryption prior to the most recent election, and it was news that it hoped to enshrine end-to-end encryption as a Fundamental Right of the European Union.

e.g. https://www.cnet.com/news/encryption-and-fighting-terror-hav...

This might change, but there is hope that they will continue with this position.

Since you're likely to have multiple MEP representatives from different parliamentary groups (and different national parties), it's worth getting in touch with each of your representatives by party to make your point clear. Some groups and parties will be more sympathetic than others but all will benefit from hearing this - and phone is more compelling than e-mail.

(I'm still trying to find a previous similar vote that might be enlightening on what you can expect.)

These quarters were issued in association with the Royal Canadian Legion.

The Royal Canadian Legion trademarks the poppy symbol in Canada and uses it for its own fundraising.

You can't therefore buy remembrance poppies from anywhere - they pursue people who sell them and describe them as 'fraudulent', e.g. https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/remembrance-day-2020-fake-...

Is adding a second worker just equivalent to halving the amount of work?

I don't think this article answered that question.

Since the problem is really that the first worker is overburdened, by being asked to work at maximum capacity plus randomness.

Logo is still very commonly used in early educational settings - maybe not typically for engineering applications, but I'm confident it has far more people using it than the other languages you list.

I never thought 'Jurassic Park' would become a prescient warning.

This may need to be modified for the fact that Western 'fake fur' often tests out as real fur with an obscured supply chain.

This is a bit self-referential.

'Humans are the best therefore human measures are the best therefore humans are the best'

[Caged] minks probably don't think that humans > minks by any measure that they value.

>now more than ever it feels like we need separation of corporation and state

What a weird meme to appear twice on this page.

Corporations don't exist as an entity except via the authorisation from government.

Separating corporation and state really means giving corporations autonomous powers. That's not the conclusion that you are hoping for.

De-Googling has been an ongoing process for me, and sometimes takes a step backward. This type of discussion and article is a nudge for me to check whether I can make a better choice, rather than Google-by-default.

For example, I started using Google Docs again because I was required to for a job, and found some of its features useful enough that I didn't have an immediate replacement.

I reflexively use Google Translate (there are alternatives listed here that I didn't know about)

You said that it would be easier for a vendor if it could expect to monopolise its customers.

Whilst that is doubtless true, that does not make anything better for customers.

If I were to pick one option out of 50 competitive products completely at random, I'd generally expect that to be better than the counterfactual monopolist alternative.

If I take your argument at face value (that you want to maximise trust), publishing an article which is critical of someone is likely to reduce the audience's trust in you - I believe this holds true in personal interactions, whether or not they agree and whether or not you are being truthful.

So it doesn't seem to me that it's "trust" you are aiming for here.

>There's a tendency to label whoever you have beef with. Investors, bankers, the wealthy, political elites, the upper class...

Are these supposed to be different groups of people?

This is unrelated to my parent comment: perhaps I wasn't clear that being outside (in the sun) has a larger impact on your Vitamin D levels than supplementation.

Therefore the study's conclusion is invalid if the two groups studied were measured one before and one after lockdown kept them inside - since we would expect Vitamin D levels to drop, for this reason.

Given that the population-based controls were examined in January-March 2020 [(?) the year is slightly obfuscated but a generous reading allows 2020]

and the COVID-19 cases were from March 10-31, the difference could be explained by people being in lockdown and not going outside.

There isn't a binary outcome here.

Twitter can stop an account which causes harm without being immediately required to block all accounts which may cause harm.

The UK government has said it "could" ban petrol and diesel car sales from 2035... but such cars are already planned to be illegal to drive in other European countries by then, so there likely won't be a market for them anyway.

It's pointless posturing: following, not leading.

ISDS provisions which the US demands in trade deals are designed to allow you to sue foreign governments in court.

Some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...

Did you hear the [more] left-wing candidate for President of the USA just went on the record to deny that he would stop fracking?

Your suggested laws ain't coming.

> For the life of me, I cannot understand the disconnect in thinking for people who recognize the need for bold action on climate change and then in the next breath fret about money.

Whilst I agree with your broad point, climate change is a systems problem and requires systems thinking and systemic change.

If you make nuclear available, but it is not competitive with fossil fuel energy, then we will continue to use fossil fuel energy. A relatively small number of oil company executives with a profit motive are going to make this decision for everyone, directly and indirectly.

'Doing stuff', as you say, involves governments of the people heavily regulating the most powerful corporations on the planet to ensure they can't make this decision in the wrong direction.

Government action in this direction hasn't happened for the last 30 years, and doesn't look close to happening in the present.

As such, it's reasonable for climate change activists to make plans to meet the market where it's at and prioritise competitive renewable products above nuclear.

Given that an open heart surgery is a surgery, and not a published statistical hypothesis, I don't find it to be within the scope of this discussion.

But, if you developed a new surgical technique today, and other surgeons were unable to reproduce that technique afterward, that would surely NOT be considered an innovation in surgery.

I partially agree, but I don't think this is a problem of statistics.

If you were following statistics thoroughly, you would ideally set out your justified hypothesis before starting any research, and conclude whether your hypothesis was true or false.

The problem is that researchers generally refuse to do this - if they know to do this - because the hope is to be rewarded for finding some novel and unanticipated result that changes the field. This leads to p-hacking and other techniques which immediately invalidate any statistics that are used, anyway.

> What if this was in place when someone performed the first open heart surgeries?

I'm unclear if you're imagining here a scholarly article about a heart surgery, or a press release from the university hospital saying it was done.

Research happens all the time without formal publication - it makes sense that there are different standards. I am proposing that there it would be beneficial for science to have journals with a modestly higher standard.

When I was working in research, we had a journal group which each week critiqued the statistics done in scientific journals - most often contemporary articles from Science or Nature.

As I recall, every single one of the articles we looked at would have failed our "Red Team" standards.

I don't (only) mean that they failed by making trivial errors of statistics - I mean a small team of researchers could find fundamental errors that potentially or likely undermined or contradicted the whole article. It's not surprising that something like 50% of the conclusions are not reproducible.

I don't think this has to be adversary.

Journals choose to set a standard for publication, which is generally peer-review.

If journals instead set a standard which was that the work must be reproducible (in other words: there must be instruction enough for an independent team to reasonably be able to follow and repeat what you did), then that sets a higher standard for science.

Note that the peers in peer review are likely to mutually ignore that type of requirement - rather than face that requirement themselves.

It's not totally obvious to me that random hiring would be worse. Most people can do most jobs, given the right experience and opportunity.