bigfudge

57 ms·

871.
by bigfudge 7y ago
Don’t be too hard on yourself. I get stung by the Guardian April fool story almost every year. It typically takes at least 2 paragraphs to spot what are obviously absurd stories. To me the April fool stories highlight the biggest issue with
872.
by bigfudge 7y ago
The evidence from simulators suggest people are impaired, but also more cuatious, so risk of incident stays flat.
873.
by bigfudge 7y ago
How do they calculate the LD50 given there are basically no THC caused deaths?
874.
by bigfudge 7y ago
It's worth noting that this is even more true of 'hard' drugs than cannabis. There are a surprising number of fine upstanding citizens with a heroin addiction...
875.
by bigfudge 7y ago
My experience is that many of the negative side effects of recreational drugs come from the culture in which they are taken, and the habits associated with them. Taking ecstacy, for example, often involves staying up all night and dancing.
876.
by bigfudge 7y ago
The UK govt has a strong track record of ignoring scientifically literate advice on drug risks
877.
by bigfudge 7y ago
> I don't think we have sufficient understanding This is correct. But we do have sufficient statistical evidence to rule out _large_ negative effects. We do know that cannabis is very unlikely to be as harmful to physcal and mental
878.
by bigfudge 7y ago
Reporting relative odds or risks without a baseline is very misleading. The absolute risk in either case is still very low. People aren't downplaying risks.. they are setting them in a proper context (where other legal recreational dru
879.
by bigfudge 7y ago
I agree thet debate is polarised. But I sympathise with the irritation caused by the focus on poor quality evidence linking cannabis to psychosis when the widespread harms of alcohol and tobacco are basically ignored.
880.
by bigfudge 7y ago
I think it's because for many years anecdotal reports from clinical psychologists and psychiatrists drove a narrative (convenient to pro-prohibition authorities) that cannabis caused psychosis. Large epidemiological studies now suggest
881.
by bigfudge 7y ago
It’s Anglo Saxon, which much older. With a bit of effort a modern speaker can read Chaucer which is about 1300
882.
by bigfudge 7y ago
Switching extra patients to a new drug would make the trial more conservative though... so perhaps don’t worry so much. In general it’s worth remembering that RCTs are estimating the effect of an intention to treat ( the randomisation) not
883.
by bigfudge 7y ago
There’s quite a large statistical literature on stopping rules for trials. Any trial that is stopped would have had to plan this in advance and an evaluation of his policy would be an important thing for the data monitoring and ethics commi
884.
by bigfudge 8y ago
I remember working for a heart/health charity at the same time as a large fast food company. That felt weird.
885.
by bigfudge 8y ago
What would that look like?
886.
by bigfudge 9y ago
No, it wouldn’t and hasn’t. The whole point is that this type of bias does lead to discrimination in the workplace. Our prior should be that discrimination is happening. This doesn’t mean we are horrible people ... more often that we simply
887.
by bigfudge 9y ago
I'm 202cm and they're fine for me. Was amazed the first time I tried
888.
by bigfudge 9y ago
The real issue here is the selection bias in the caseloads of good vs poor physicians. In psychological treatment teams it's common for the caseload to be (implicitly or explicitly) allocated based on the perceived skill of team member
889.
by bigfudge 9y ago
Given the most of the troops were conscripts, does this actually make much difference? When I read the WW1 war poets I find it hard to conclude that their deaths were any more justifiable than civilians who may have voted for or supported t
890.
by bigfudge 10y ago
If you want to actually think about what statistical models can tell us, as well as run them, Richard McElreath's book is amazing: http://xcelab.net/rm/statistical-rethinking/
891.
by bigfudge 11y ago
Science needn't mean experiments. Just ask astronomers.
892.
by bigfudge 11y ago
Which monarchies aren't rooted in violence?
893.
by bigfudge 11y ago
The biggest challenge is aerodynamics. If you're over 6'3" and want to be at all comfortable you're going to present a much larger frontal area than someone shorter.
894.
by bigfudge 11y ago
You're right but you won't have a choice. Many devices will require connection to the internet to be configured, and you won't always know ahead of time what they are because most people won't care enough to put it in a
895.
Nice crowd funded android phone – finally(theguardian.com)
2 points by bigfudge 11y ago|0 comments
896.
by bigfudge 11y ago
Rotational mass is important if you're doing lots of accelerations, but for almost all riders the real killer is rolling resistance. The difference between good tyres and bad is light and day. And note, narrower+harder != better... tes
897.
by bigfudge 11y ago
But being a good bayesian makes you do exactly this. The process of describing priors makes it obvious you need to do a sensitivity analysis to check how much the prior is influencing the conclusions...
898.
by bigfudge 11y ago
Agreed. However in the case of statins, the benefits for an individual are very slight, even if the population benefit is large. This means that this sort of uncertainty about side effects can make it rational for an individual to abstain
899.
by bigfudge 11y ago
it's the christmas BMJ, which is traditionally full of somewhat tongue in cheek articles. That said, how does your dominance hypothesis explain the consistent asymmetry?
900.
by bigfudge 11y ago
It's hard to take the evidence at face value though, given the historically malevolent influence of big pharma on accurate publishing of trial data (SSRIs, vioxx etc), the significant links between the key trialists and the drug develo

More ›