nonbel

99 ms·

871.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"It makes telcos money." How?
872.
by nonbel 8y ago
This argument makes no sense since by abstaining from consuming resources you are saving them for the future.
873.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"The problem with your assessment is that you’re assuming that Bitcoin is replacing banks and MSBs." I never assumed that, nor that it won't (like you just did). I just said "supposed to replace". Here is an exa
874.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"I'm all for "wait and see", but have we ever done that with a technology that is literally using more electricity than a medium sized nation? " I keep seeing these types of posts every few months and they alway
875.
by nonbel 8y ago
After a quick search it looks like the mainstream explanation is that people were just getting sick for "unknown reasons" before being able to test cheaply enough for e coli: >"The sudden debut of E. coli O157:H7 in the 19
876.
by nonbel 8y ago
Thanks, that is another possibility to consider.
877.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"up to 5000 per opossum in a season" It looks like a single tick may produce 500 - 15,000 ticks per "ovipostion" (egg-laying session). LABORATORY STUDIES ON THE OVIPOSITION, EGG-SIZES AND SHAPES AND EMBRYONIC DEVELOP
878.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"I find most people are naive of the problem especially in the west coast states, unless they spend a lot of time outdoors either recreationally, or landscaping, gardening, ranching, farming, hunting, etc." Right but those dif
879.
by nonbel 8y ago
I see. Do you (anecdotaly, in your opinion) rule out that people are more concerned about ticks these days, so they are checking more carefully and/or often?
880.
by nonbel 8y ago
That sucks it is a climate change linked issue... I already know I will find that more sensitive tests for tick borne diseases have been developed so essentially the definition of these diseases has changed, funding for surveillance has inc
881.
by nonbel 8y ago
Something is wrong here. How did humanity survive living most of their lives outdoors for so long in the presence of these ticks? Did lyme disease really not exist until 1975? I see there is some kind of "blame everything on lyme disea
882.
by nonbel 8y ago
Wow, I just read about the latest gravitational wave and I see that once again they detected it by deviating from the procedure used to generate the background model: >"Although such times are in general not included in searches,
883.
by nonbel 8y ago
That's an interesting case because they "solved" the problem by basically increasing the estimated uncertainty. See the dual sets of error bars in Fig 3: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507
884.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "A galaxy with 99 percent dark matter and one almost without any. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-victory-for-dark-matter-in-... . https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/25/12647540/dr
885.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"In the new problem, she says, you have to find in the 100,000 points something like 10,000 arcs of ellipse." Does anyone know how long this currently takes?
886.
by nonbel 9y ago
There's a lot being claimed here that seems to go directly against my experience, I'll focus on what is easily verifiable: >"(even Easterbrook's big '91 paper on publication bias found that it was for observation
887.
by nonbel 9y ago
I don't. I even say this in the post you are replying to.
888.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"It's literally his job to talk to investors. He explicitly invited those questions, too." I totally agree, still in my experience they are quite boring. I'm not even advocating for any kind of change or anything, th
889.
by nonbel 9y ago
>'the CEO said an analyst was asking “boring bonehead questions” that were “not cool.”' The thing is that he isn't wrong. I listened to one of these earnings calls the other day and literally fell asleep.
890.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"we pay attention to how we construct patient recruitment, sample demographics, ... etc" I was told the opposite the other day: "the fact that clinical trials seek people maximally healthy but for the target conditions r
891.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"The results presented in table 5 of the paper are very unlikely... to be solely due to randomly trying different ML techniques" This is a strawman, noone argues that their methods picked up on some correlations.
892.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"at least on first pass they seem to have a reasonable cross-validation/testing procedure (which is usually one of my major complaints with comp-neurosci papers)." It looks like the usual overfitting the cv to me... They
893.
by nonbel 9y ago
To put $12 million in perspective, its estimated that much is wasted on crappy medical research every 35-40 minutes: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-c...
894.
by nonbel 9y ago
Here is an example of a model. The other day I got a robocall from one of those spoofers that uses the same area code + three digits as the number being called. This call happened to be a number I did know. Did they just happen to hit upon
895.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"our upper bound on p(null | T, normal, iid) small for significant p-values (i.e. p(T | null, normal, id))" This sounds like nonsense to me so I would like to see an example of what you mean.
896.
by nonbel 9y ago
Responding to this but getting rid of the intense nesting: “I'm not sure what you are arguing anymore.” It’s the claim I make in 3, and then the secondary claim that making our upper bound on p(null | T, normal, iid) small for
897.
by nonbel 9y ago
Looking closer at this you are describing one model but testing different values of one of the model parameters.
898.
by nonbel 9y ago
>"You can use Student’s t-distribution to compute an upper bound for the probability of T under the assumptions" I'm not sure what you are arguing anymore. I am saying you will never test a parameter value in isolation,
899.
by nonbel 9y ago
If you write out the actual calculation you will see normality (which was just one example of an assumption) is actually part of the null model being tested. It is not something different or outside of it.
900.
by nonbel 9y ago
Ok, you seem to accept that there is an assumption that the data is generated by a distribution with a mean, so start with that. This is not necessarily true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_distribution I use tha

More ›