3,694 karma · joined August 1, 2012
Email: 01endive-thunder@icloud.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site
Also some antenna radiation patterns here, not sure how accurate: https://www.slideshare.net/nehakumar01/radiation-pattern-of-...
This was in the context of asking why service/signal was so bad on top of a hill. I was thinking it would have been better because of clear LoS but that only makes sense if you assume an onmidirectional pattern.
Obviously this would be a lot more work, so I don’t want to detract from the work that’s already been done.
(Not associated with Grafana, but have used this free tier for personal projects and to learn Grafana/ Loki)
What is that article missing if your assertion is true?
However OPs point about mostly lower socioeconomic groups funding the lottery is still relevant as it raises questions about whether this pseudo-regressive “tax” is a fair way to fund a public good like education.
From this comment, which summarized the statistics of the phase 3 trial: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25136588
- The percentage of people in control that had confirmed COVID-19 cases was ~0.79%
- The percentage of people in treatment that had confirmed COVID-19 cases was ~0.04%
- This represents a risk ratio of 0.04/0.79 = ~0.05.
A risk ratio of 1.0 means that there was no reduction in risk, i.e. the treatment had no effect. A risk ratio less than 1.0 means that the treatment reduced the risk (or was correlated with this), and above 1.0 means that the treatment increased the risk (or was correlated with this).
Since the risk ratio of treatment was 0.05, there was a 0.95 reduction in risk, which is where the 95% number comes from.
"Clicking on the "Hemingway" button in the lower right corner of the editor will disable your backspace and delete keys, creating a typewriter experience. This feature is especially useful if you want to avoid editing and force yourself to write." (From the second link you posted)
- The RCT was done only on individuals aged 70-77
- Furthermore the results were not statistically significant at p < 0.05. You can see this in the visual abstract where the 95% CI overlaps with risk ratio = 1.0, where 1.0 means "no difference" between the groups.
Note that the results being non-stat sig does not mean that there was no difference! It means that the difference, if present, was probably too small to detect given the power (number of participants) included in the study. This is important to understand!
Furthermore, in the "Strengths and limitations of this study" they clearly outline some reasons why the results may have been non stat-sig, including:
- "Firstly, participants in the control group had a high level of activity throughout the study, and many exercised using HIIT. This might have affected the study’s ability to detect statistically significant differences between groups."
- "selection bias might have influenced our results, as participants were more active and had better overall health than non-included participants"
Basically, even the "control" group looked like they had a good baseline level of activity, decreasing the activity level difference between that and the two treatment groups.
My takeaway from this study is that in isolation, it doesn't provide much evidence for or against the effect of exercise, but taken together with other studies can be used for evidential value.
The results can also be used to inform future studies. The authors clearly understood this when they stated in the main measure outcome: "An exploratory hypothesis was that HIIT lowers mortality more than MICT."
The negotiations here were similar to the ones CWT had, albeit a little less courteous: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-cwt-ransom/payment-...
Gamma is the rate of change of delta w.r.t the underlying price. For example OTM calls have a delta close to 0. As the underlying price increases the delta will increase. When the underlying price reaches the call strike price (ATM) the delta will typically be 0.5. As the underlying price continues to rise and the call becomes deep ITM the delta will approach 1.0.
The only way other way to get priority is by bettering your price. If minimum tick size is set to a very low threshold (or no threshold at all), "outbidding" someone for a better place by offering a economically insignificant price improvement (say $0.000000001 per share) would become the easiest way to get price-time priority on someone, and hence the value of placing a standing limit order would be reduced: Anyone can just outbid you for a fraction of a fraction of a penny at any time, so it becomes much more likely that if your limit order gets filled, the price will then move against you, and otherwise, your limit order will never get filled. This problem exists today but would probably be made worse by a smaller tick size - in fact I believe it's one reason why liquidity rebates are offered.
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-01-13/hide-n...
“Each of the 911's lighting units includes 84 individually controlled LEDs that allow the car to continuously morph the pattern of its beams. When a car approaches in the oncoming lane, the 911's headlights dim around it while leaving the rest of the pattern bright. The other driver doesn't get blinded, but you still have blazing lights on your side.”
“ Orbitz executives confirmed that the company is experimenting with showing different hotel offers to Mac and PC visitors, but said the company isn't showing the same room to different users at different prices. They also pointed out that users can opt to rank results by price.”