nonbel

28 ms·

241.
by nonbel 8y ago
Yea, but I don't even understand how it became dogma to begin with. The evidence was never that good for it.
242.
by nonbel 8y ago
Yep, exactly. It seems like something needs to be wrong/corrupted within Alzheimer's research to explain the continued obsession with this approach. As I said elsewhere in this thread, their behavior is baffling to me. In my exper
243.
by nonbel 8y ago
No, just that it isn't going to be removing amyloid plaques. For the plaques to build up the neurons are clearly malfunctioning for some reason. Beyond that, who knows?
244.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Honestly, by pointing to your comments from previous discussions, you look like you have an ax to grind rather than being helpful." I have no axe to grind. Just presenting the facts. Why would I requote everything? Nothing
245.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "The patients demonstrated improved brain function" So what? If you run trials with large enough sample size or allow sufficient researcher degrees of freedom (multiple ways of measuring "brain function", reportin
246.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Assuming what you say is true" Don't take my word for it. Follow the links to what the primary literature says. > "being next to useless for meaningful physics or medical news" Well, to be fair the "
247.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"The patients demonstrated improved brain function and showed a reduction in the protein plaque gumming up their neurons, the company’s report says." Still chasing the amyloid hypothesis I see. This is a symptom, not a cause,
248.
by nonbel 8y ago
Humans do similar though. You know a chair when you see it, but you wouldm't easily come up with the perfect definition of a chair.
249.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Judea Pearl thinks that DL is nothing more than curve fitting. Is he a greivence scholar?" Deep learning? It is curve fitting (ie pattern recognition), is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
250.
by nonbel 8y ago
You sure about that? I am fairly certain I've read of cases where it made more sense to pay the uninsured rate (because uninsured rate is even less than the deductible). Eg, the chargemaster rate could be $10k and you have a $2k deduct
251.
by nonbel 8y ago
You've got it wrong. The uninsured don't pay these prices, the insurance companies don't pay them either. The people getting screwed are those who pay a deductible/co-pay based on the inflated prices, ie the people who p
252.
by nonbel 8y ago
I had a health issue and told them "no insurance", the prices dropped to nearly a third of what they would have been. So, it worked for me...
253.
by nonbel 8y ago
Those are not the real prices. Those are "chargemaster" prices, they are pretty much entirely irrelevant. The true price is usually going to be somewhere between 10-50% of the chargemaster: https://en.wikipedia.org&#x2F
254.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "It's interesting to see contrasting articles on taxes & growth. There's this article about how South Korea raised taxes in a bid to grow faster and failed, but there are also plenty of articles about how Kansas&#x27
255.
by nonbel 8y ago
Nah, I just have the proper skepticism. You know, the idea behind science: Nullius in verba
256.
by nonbel 8y ago
Just because someone tries as hard as they can and does the best they can doesn't mean they are right. The available info may simply be flawed (GIGO).
257.
by nonbel 8y ago
I don't understand the high regard historians are being held given here. It is like just because they have extremely messy/biased data to deal with their conclusions are held in an even higher regard than that of science.
258.
by nonbel 8y ago
Different civilizations had different calendars at different times, the calendar would often restart with each new king, some kings would be erased from history because they lost a war, etc. I doubt it is as easy as you say.
259.
by nonbel 8y ago
Right, but since when are ancient texts reliable sources for historical dates?
260.
by nonbel 8y ago
It sounds like they calibrated the magnetic field data to written history (ie, the bible and other religious texts). Carbon dating doesn't work for these years because there is a plateau in the reference curve. [1] The earth must have
261.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Pottery jugs from between the eighth and second centuries B.C. bear administrative stam ... the stamps provide precise information about when the pots were fired" How do they know the dates are correct? Carbon dating doesn&
262.
by nonbel 8y ago
Obviously pre-registration is required if both groups will follow the same plan. If not enough is known to do that, then there needs to be a pilot study done to figure it out. Basically what is being published now is a bunch of pilot studie
263.
by nonbel 8y ago
Both projects are funded simultaneously as part of the same grant. If it is worth doing once, it is worth replicating. Vice versa: If it isn't worth funding the replication then the project isn't worth doing.
264.
by nonbel 8y ago
Well, the way research is usually run they look for "statistical significance" and try to have "power" of ~80% to find it.[1] The power is controlled by the sample size, which is a big determinant of how much is spent on
265.
by nonbel 8y ago
I've been skeptical of the news for far longer than this recent "fake news" fad. So to me it is great that people are finally getting skeptical. Just read the news on any political topic to see they have been getting away wit
266.
by nonbel 8y ago
They weren't that careful. It needs to be standard to require "independent" (as far as that is possible) replication of all studies at least once before they are taken seriously. If that means publishing half the current numb
267.
by nonbel 8y ago
Fair enough, still it is too funny to not call it "fake news". I think fighting that is a losing battle.
268.
by nonbel 8y ago
It's just a guesstimate. From TFA: > "If we take a look at our average system idle power in our own reviews which is around 55W, this would make the Intel CPU around 125W, whereas the AMD CPU would be around 75W" I have n
269.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"I don't think anyone serious about epidemiology says stuffs like that." Pick a paper, I bet they do.
270.
by nonbel 8y ago
You are comparing power for the entire system. I think they subtracted 55W of idle power consumption from both to get only the cpu, then compare: 75/125 = 0.6.

More ›