2,883 karma · joined May 14, 2016
Most successful occupiers seem to intermarry into the society they are occupying. Without this, there is always a clear distinction between occupier and occupied, that even shared culture, language, and religion will not smooth over.
This is true when we are dealing with an uninformative prior, but published research is known to be biased toward positive results and uncorrected multiple comparisons. This situation leads to small sample studies with high random variance being paradoxically correlated with significant results. High random variance appears as a false large effect size in the published result, so if the power is low when calculated with a smaller (adjusted) effect, there is reason to believe that the p-value is inflated. See e.g. Andrew Gelman's work on small sample studies, garden of forking paths or [0].
> Not always. Lots of studies publish as "significant" as soon as they get a p-value just under .05. Inflated effect sizes are certainly a sign that something could be wrong, but it's just one indicator.
Exactly! The implication being the above.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...
> Citations matter as much as the print, put the hurdle there and all of a sudden things will change real quick.
The reproducibility crisis is just a symptom of the publish-or-perish culture that pushes academics to churning out bad research. Academia already over-emphasizes publishing positive results at the expense of studying important questions. Your solution would further incentivize low risk, low impact research that we have too much of.
Aside from that, there are a lot of edge cases that would make this difficult. If I do five studies that are modifications of each other, and all show the same basic effect, but I publish it as one paper, does that count as being reproduced? What if a result has only ever been reproduced within a single research group? Does the Higgs Boson need to be confirmed at at a collider outside the LHC?
This is not entirely true. A power analysis is how you determine reproducibility, and researchers should be doing it before they begin collecting data. Reviewers can do it post-hoc with assumptions about the expected effect size (which might come from similar studies). False positives produce inflated effect sizes, so if a result is marginally significant but shows a large effect, that is a good heuristic the result will not reproduce.
If it's a wealth tax, it is giving the best deal to the people with the most non-cash assets, i.e. the wealthy.
*It should be noted that this is true due to the tax code rather than some underlying economic principle. Dividends are taxable whereas reinvesting is a tax deduction.
The sensitivity of an instrument to detect harm has no relationship to whether there is some ground truth harm. In many cases, like smoking cigarettes or getting hit on the head repeatedly, harm is incremental and compounding---a single event may not be detectable, but it is almost certainly still harmful.
This is not correct. One could say that low levels of asbestos have not statistically been shown to cause harm, but that is quite different from statistically showing evidence of no harm. Harm may very well be occuring, but it is below the sensitivity threshold of our instruments to detect it.
But banning bad things would require a well-thought-out bill that could inadvertently protect Americans from domestic tech companies that are also harvesting and selling our personal data and manipulating our attention. And that would be a problem (for politicians).
Easier to just blame China and kick the can down the road to the next generation to deal with the real problems.
And if you don't like that, you can sue them in the special intelligence court where the evidence cannot be revealed, the proceedings are secret, and the judges are very unbiased.
Society is now starting to recognize the addictive and harmful potential of digital/smartphone overconsumption in children. To name a digital children's product "sugar" evokes (to me) digital addiction, the attention economy, and how children need to get off their phones.
I don't read too much into names, but the branding does feel a bit obtuse at this cultural moment.
I think many of us saw Julia as the successor to R. Unfortunately, the package ecosystem---one of R's strongest points---still has a long way to go.
Just a reminder that the US Constitution does not explicitly have a carve-out. This argument originated from a Supreme Court justice who wanted to establish a legal basis for censoring anti-war speech. The slippery slope does not even need to be speculated about; it was purposefully baked into the "harmful" speech classification from the beginning.
Yes. Compare this Harvard Calc I final [0] to that of UNC Charlotte [1]. The test format of the Harvard exam works in the student's favor, but the questions are more difficult, more conceptual, and encompass optional topics that are not in a typical Calc I course (PDFs, Midi function). The Harvard class also requires students to demonstrate competency in various proofs that would not be required in a purely computational Calc I class.
[0] https://people.math.harvard.edu/~knill/teaching/math1a2020/f...
[1] https://math.charlotte.edu/sites/math.charlotte.edu/files/me...
> especially for a teenager who may be smart but may not see the proper cost/benefit of skipping the SAT
The SAT is for students who want to attend college. If $60 and a two hour round trip is going to tilt the scale on whether you spend 4 years in college, then from the college's point of view, you may not be the type of applicant they are looking for.
Regulations are what prop up the high prices. Allow people to import drugs from overseas or Canada and you would see prices start plummeting overnight.
One reason we will see more deep learning in electrophysiology is simply because it allows one to abstract over a good deal of statistics and signal processing, which are hard. Deep learning is being used as a black box for those who can't or don't want to understand their data.
ACT scores have been falling since at least 2017 but possibly earlier [0]. GPAs in the US have gone up because of grade inflation (in large part due to NCLB and schools being rewarded for passing more students). In many schools 50% is now the lowest score you can receive (even for work not submitted).
> Ime, in 2010-2013, it wasn't that difficult to get admitted into UC Berkeley or UCLA or an Ivy League if you were in the top 25% of your class, but by 2015-2019 it shrank to the top 1-5%.
Nowhere but an elite prep school would the top 25% of the class be admitted to an Ivy. Even 5% would be a very good school, not typical.
[0] https://prepmaven.com/blog/test-prep/average-act-scores/
This would be an issue if Alzheimers is part of a phenotype that raises all-cause mortality in the young. I'm not aware of any research on this. Alzheimers is known to be correlated with certain lifestyle and immune factors, and these factors might be expressions of a common phenotype that also increases early mortality and is moderated by pre-industrial environments---e.g. increased risk-taking or decreased immunity.
A common phenotype hypothesis might explain some of the difference in Alzheimers incidence between Tsimane and Westerners, but it would be surprising if it were the main reason. Assuming the hypothesis only, an Alzheimers delta of 11x for those over 65 implies a mortality rate delta of 11x between the under-65 phenotype groups. That is a massive effect, and if it includes child mortality, we would expect to see genetic drift over time and a lower genetic predisposition to Alzheimers among Tsimane (has that been studied?).
For one, because treason refers to an enemy, not an adversary, and China is not legally an enemy of the US (at war). You can't just assert that China is an enemy in court without some legal basis.
Note that not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason for sharing US nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union. That's how high the bar for treason is.
TikTok follows US law. The companies you mentioned exited China because they didn't want to build out their own part of the Great Firewall. The irony in this criticism is that the US companies were mostly responding to domestic political pressure not to abet Chinese censorship. So it was more like export controls that caused the exodus of US companies rather than import controls.
> f. Interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service
This bill is already out of date. The new generation's social media are games like Roblox. And these are as addictive as the old social media.
Good luck with this whack-a-mole. A comprehensive bill would stop this at the source: kids owning smartphones. But addressing smarphones would upset too many parents and too much business, so it won't get done.
This largely makes sense to me. Stuff like jump discontinuities I've only seen as an exercise for calculus classes.
Sad to see Taylor series go but that is kind of a dangling topic in an intro class and could be picked up later when there is a need for it.