2,153 karma · joined December 16, 2014
The default talking point and narrative is that even if masks were only 0.1% effective that tiny effect exponentially compounds and over time and leads to <insert massive number here> lives saved.
Then you have Pakistan where no measures are taken yet the there is no exponential spiraling out of control
so the whole touching your face is a red herring
I am sure you and I and everyone else, has lots of things on their faces at all times
I doubt it.
When you chat you are focused on the interaction. Ads are a major disturbance in the flow.
When you browse facebook you are actively looking for stuff to read - ads fit in much better.
by now everybody should know that p-values are questionable at best
Alas everyone knows that the p-values reported in accepted (!) papers are questionable at best - any analysis that uses them is on shaky foundation.
The misuse of p-values in science is well known and an endemic problem - so what do we learn from a re-analysis of made up numbers?
Reviewing is hard work with very few rewards - and you have to decide at the start whether it is worth your time to embark on it. Ideally we would like to learn something from the paper.
I and most people here would most likely strongly prefer to review a paper written by someone good at what they do.
In reality most papers are pretty bad - thus when we prefer reviewing papers written by Nobel prize winners we are not "biased" and "humbly bowing" before their greatness - we are just trying to make it worth our while.
- Not a problem. It is a write-off for them.
- How is it a write-off?
- All these big companies do it - they just write it off!
- Write what off? You don't even know what a write-off is!
- Maybe I don't but they do. And they are the ones writing it off!
Has the rate of reproducibility change at all over the decades?
Are we just simply more aware of the problems today than in the past?
When you had 10 papers published out of which 7 were BS, you could weed those out by reading each.
When you have 1K papers and 700 are BS ... you are not going to be able to do so.
any research that finds that X is worse at Y must be wrong somehow because we know it cannot possibly be like that - so we are not publishing it at all - no discourse is allowed on the matter
one censor decides what is "stigmatizing"
If tomorrow you were to find in a reproducible experiment that people with samoans origins are not good at abstract math you would be "stigmatizing" the population and your research would be banned.
The problem with the word "stigmatize" is that it is a code word that draws a line of what may be studied and published.
It is basically a warning to steer clear of anything "controversial" because at any time it could be declared at "stigmatizing" and there would be no recourse.
Start doing it predictably and large scale and it might end up worse than what governments do.
It exceedingly well argued and articulated point of view - and that goes to pnf's all other replies.
I salute the author pnf for being able to put into words what I would not be able to.
How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd.
In contrast scientists are in the drivers position if the cause was all natural. Then they can propose to be the "defendenders" of the humanity against the next danger.
No wonder that there is strong headwind against any other narrative. Remember all it takes a single dissenter to bury a paper.
It is the in the vital (short term) interest of every scientist to say that the origin is all natural!
If you read the papers that claim natural origin, these turn out to be extremely weakly argued. A heat-map plot here and there, some evasive language when it comes to evidence. But the quotable conclusion is always formulated much more strongly.
Are you saying that it is impossible to get valuables out of a boat that sunk?
"Treasure trove of gold and jewels recovered from a 366-year-old shipwreck in the Bahamas"
it is about correcting an error (an obvious and clear cut one at that). Getting a wire by error from another bank would fall under the exact same guidance.
had the error gone the other way around, instead of 100 she would have gotten only 1 dollar back as refund because someone mistyped a number, she and everyone else would have argued that the error should be rectified promptly, no?
In cases like this it is exceedingly important to note whether the error was obvious or not at the recipient's side. It determines whether the receiving party is acting with malice or not.
By spending money knowingly that is not yours you are commiting a crime.
https://deephaven.io/blog/page/2/
etc
These are the examples of when I think society, overall, makes no sense.
How come this is how it works and that there are barbers at all?
can't blame a company for giving people a choice
It is not very typical, I want to make that point. The front is not supposed to fall off.
Elon Musk the Termite master ... I LOLd
While Coinbase's value is not dependent on a given price of a given crypto currency they are quite dependent on people using and trading some crypto currency.
Sounds like people are not doing that.
Being wrongly infatuated with a concept as Meta seems with metaverse is not a gamble IMHO.
It seem more like a stupid decision done by someone that became successful by being in the right place at the right time. And now they want to prove that it wasn't an accident and that they have it takes to repeat hence become infatuated with an absurd idea that we want to be inside the FB world.
Not so sure that they do.
If they knew so much about me why is it that I dislike most that they show me?
Perhaps - and that is now the most worrisome thought - that crap is the "best" they can show and everything else is much worse.
Now that does not bode well for FB's future. Or Meta's, whatever, even their brand feels a lot dumber now.
But it doesn't have the most people. I have long lost that sense that FB is where everyone is. That feels so 2016
> Apple realized this with iMessage
In general iMessage is not a good example because it a product that leverages the unique position of Apple owning the hardware. No other company can play the same game. Apple don't want you to use iMessage on other systems, they deliberately make the experience worse for Android. But who else can afford that?
You definitely can seamlessly use Whatsapp, Viber, FB Messenger, Telegram and Signal all at the same time on all your devices.
For example one could easily have two-three chat apps and use each with different people. I still use Craigslist, I think it works better and has better organization of categories.
The main Facebook app, now that is a unique product - yet frankly, from my perspective it feels completely marginalized, the content there is in worse shape than ever. I find the news feed absurdly bad, GAG videos and ads.
Read the paper. There were more cases per student when masks were required.
Look at the paper and their plot when they talk about cases overall.
We do not understand what masks do and what people do when masked with these silly measures. Putting on and off a mask cannot be good for you.
The mask proponents "think" simplistically and that it "ought" to work. "Logically it MUST work.
There is no such thing "I know it works", so no need to do it. Anything we "know" is because we ran solid tests and collected clear cut evidences many many times. None of which are true for masks.
There is your answer.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4118566
> We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables.
If you look at the plot - there were more cases when masks were required!