nonbel

8 ms·

31.
by nonbel 7y ago
Matter/anti-matter asymmetry is expected to be present. It is a basic feature of individual random walk instances using symmetrical laws that about half will be dominated by matter and the other half dominated by antimatter for long pe
32.
by nonbel 7y ago
I don't see how what you wrote could possibly address concerns with adding parameters to the model until it explains current data so perfectly that it cannot generalize to future or other data. This is not a "theory" problem,
33.
by nonbel 7y ago
If you can come up with 300 different explanations for a random blip, your theory is obviously very flexible. You are probably overfitting. If your solution to the problem of not being able to generalize your model to new/other data
34.
by nonbel 7y ago
How many free parameters do "the foundations of physics" allow? I was concerned a few years back when a "blip" at CERN resulted in theoretical physicists publishing 300+ different theories to explain it in a short period
35.
by nonbel 7y ago
Adding more terms sounds like more overfitting.
36.
by nonbel 7y ago
>"the problem has been that there was a theory that could explain almost perfectly everything within a certain region of physics, but can't easily be extended." Sounds a lot like overfitting.
37.
by nonbel 7y ago
Imagine if Einstein just predicted that the position of the stars would appear to be different during the eclipse, rather than displaced by an exact amount. The last 40 years has seen physics become more like the former (bad) than the latte
38.
by nonbel 7y ago
It stagnated when they started doing NHST, ie checking for a difference from "background" vs collecting and comparing data to the predictions of various theories to distinguish between them. Same thing that has destroyed every fie
39.
by nonbel 7y ago
I doubt it, it isn't like the average is going to correspond to the actual original sequence.
40.
by nonbel 7y ago
Most mutations are probably large scale chromosomal missegregation, etc where huge chunks get moved around or duplicated/deleted rather than just replacing/removing/adding a single nucleotide. From what I have read something
41.
by nonbel 7y ago
The "master copy" would be at conception. Even after a few divisions it is unlikely any of the cells carry the exact same DNA. And just because you made it from zygote to birth does not mean your master copy was "pristine&quo
42.
by nonbel 7y ago
This is a MUCH better explanation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25459141 Killing off the misbehaving cells is an obvious solution but this must also shorten the organisms lifespan via organ failure. You only get
43.
by nonbel 7y ago
I'd like to see a plot of "most cells in an organism" vs "average elevation/depth of habitat".
44.
Peter C Gøtzsche: Cochrane–no longer a Collaboration (2018)(blogs.bmj.com)
1 points by nonbel 7y ago|0 comments
45.
by nonbel 7y ago
"Randomness" doesn't explain anything. That is just the modern day version of "the gods willed it".
46.
by nonbel 7y ago
Well the general answer is that the HN algorithm didn't put it on the front page (or at least not for long enough). It is just that there is obviously interest on this site in this topic, yet it failed to gain any traction. So there is
47.
by nonbel 7y ago
I'm not complaining, but just wondering why there was zero interest in this when I submitted it yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20801761
48.
by nonbel 7y ago
More info: > "Note that GlobalFoundries said it wants to stop the import of processors made with the technologies it believes are covered by its patents. The company recognized that TSMC doesn't usually import those processors
49.
Global Foundries Files Patent Infringement Lawsuits Against TSMC in U.S./Germany(globalfoundries.com)
2 points by nonbel 7y ago|1 comments
50.
by nonbel 7y ago
Read here: https://selfpaypatient.com/2015/05/12/insured-but-not-lettin... How can it otherwise possibly make sense that they charge more for not having to deal with insurance company bureaucracy?
51.
by nonbel 7y ago
That sounds like it would be about 10x cheaper, but I am sure some regulation is preventing that.
52.
by nonbel 7y ago
There is a "cash price" in many contracts between the insurance company and provider. If you tell them you have insurance the provider must quote you this inflated price. You need to go to a place that does not know you have ins
53.
by nonbel 7y ago
> They may be more likely to not pay, or otherwise unpleasant to deal with. This sounds like the typical experience with insurance companies...
54.
by nonbel 7y ago
Thanks, what do you mean "otherwise wouldn't be able to use at all"? You mean the government gets it?
55.
by nonbel 7y ago
Then they are just quoting you the "insurance price". Think about it, how could it possibly be more expensive to cut out the middle man?
56.
by nonbel 7y ago
Wouldn't the "privileged" prefer to have actual money they could spend as they want instead of be forced to use it for a single purpose, including the extra cost of a middle man? It sounds like some sort of tax scam.
57.
by nonbel 7y ago
> Funny, my last several doctors visits the cash price has always been higher than the negotiated price. There is nothing funny about it. Once you tell the provider that you have insurance, the price they can quote you is in their contr
58.
by nonbel 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargemaster
59.
by nonbel 7y ago
Your taxes already pay for emergency care.
60.
by nonbel 7y ago
> things like birth control aren't insured Why would you use insurance for something you know you are going to need? I got new glasses and an eye exam and they were surprised I didn't pay via insurance? Why would I want to pay

More ›