sambe

This quote sets off alarm bells for sensationalism:

"People who do not perform very well on a treadmill test," Jaber said, "have almost double the risk of people with kidney failure on dialysis."

The quote doesn't appear to be part of the paper either. The first Google hit for all-cause kidney disease mortality says:

"The absolute risk for death increased exponentially with decreasing renal function in these studies. The magnitude of the unadjusted increase in risk ranged from approximately 38% to >1100%"

Those numbers are for non-dialysis patients. You'd expect the dialysis patients to be much worse due to the first sentence. The exercise paper says:

"The increase in all-cause mortality associated with reduced CRF (low vs elite: adjusted HR, 5.04; 95% CI, 4.10-6.20; P < .001; below average vs above average: adjusted HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.34-1.49; P < .001) was comparable to or greater than traditional clinical risk factors."

I don't think low vs elite is a fair interpretation of "not doing very well", so I'd take 41% as the increase in risk. That is very much not double 38-1100%. You'd assume it's certainly not double the exponentially worse-off dialysis patients. You wouldn't think 504% was either, even if you are charitable to the quote.

The findings seem interestingly strong. Overplaying them further should not be necessary.

People working on your project have the choice of using the requirements.txt or not. I would think core developers use the loose dependencies, with the aim of testing the latest and fixing the bugs. Someone has to move dependencies forward at some point, and doing this locally for knowledgeable people seems reasonable. CI should definitely - and part time contributors should probably - just use the pinned dependencies.

This is why I would not worry about pip freeze being non-reproducible. It is a manual step: upgrade our dependencies. Testing should happen all the time. If you are happy with the result of testing after upgrading dependencies, commit requirements.txt. I don't see new tools easing the burden of co-ordinating and testing dependency upgrades. Did I misunderstand them in this context?

I don't understand the concern for the library case. Pipenv doesn't address libraries. It seems to be an explicit goal of many people not to pin library dependencies. I'm asking what the new tools are solving - and again I can't see that they are solving this. Nothing is preventing you from pinning your library dependencies if you want (using old tools) but you'll probably get people complaining about being incompatible with other projects.

I assume that someone working on the project would do:

  pip install -e .

in a virtual environment. I thought this was quite well-established. Is there a problem with it that I'm not aware of?

  pip freeze > requirements.txt

for requirements.txt generation. For libraries just omit this? I'm not sure I understand the question. The article also mentions that several of the new tools aren't appropriate for libraries anyway.

Whenever talk in Python-world goes towards packaging, I feel like I have been transported to Javascript-world: it's never clear to me what concrete problems are being solved by the new tools/libraries.

This article seems well-written and well-intentioned. Despite reading it, I don't know why I would not have loose dependencies in setup.py and concrete, pinned dependencies in requirements.txt. It's never felt hard to manage or to sync up - the hard part is wading through all the different tools and recommendations.

Apple’s authentication of those factors, or a separate entry point. It is not certainly not unheard of to leave gaping security holes, sometimes ones which bypass multiple security measures (why the downvote?).

Unless there is a weakness in that authentication.

My comment contains references which refute that claim, which is why I made it.

I don't know anything about FFTW, but the question/answer seem misleading:

GitHub language details of the non-generated sources say 75% C: https://github.com/FFTW/fftw3

FFTW author comment linked from Quora answer contradicts said answer (~2/3 C): https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fa.caml/B5kFMTl67MU/9c8swiOE...

Am I missing something here? Double generation?

Higher rate of complications during birth, more interventions (instruments), which in turn are associated with tearing/episiotomy. The implication that this never happens without an epidural is wrong of course.

The rate has fallen a lot in some countries, so there are large differences (https://patient.info/doctor/episiotomy-and-tears).

The main reason it has fallen is that there’s little difference in short or long term consequences, and non-selective use of it is associated with higher incidence of severe trauma.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...

The second paper of the series does review and compare several aspects in comparison to natural birth:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Are you talking about the US? Many countries with state/cheap healthcare also have high rates (Europe).

In the UK, I’d say there’s a bias towards “the natural way” (not offered epidural, counselling for elective CS, NCT antenatal courses tend to focus on natural methods etc). Eg https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/analysis/mate...

Don’t be so sure. I can’t find good research comparing the two, but it seems generally held that CS recovery times are longer. I see NICE quoted as saying no risk difference between the two methods but longer recovery times for CS (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-poll...).

Several papers were released as part of a series, and are available currently in full text form:

https://www.thelancet.com/series/caesarean-section

The more sensational language being reported appears to come from the FIGO position paper rather than the research. I’m not sure about the relationship between the two but they look to have been published together.

I don’t think c-section after successful induction is common. There are some number of failed inductions (i.e. nothing happens) which result in c-section. Bear in mind that this is generally done - like the original induction - because “giving enough time” after 42 weeks costs lives.

This review finds the rate is actually lower after induction, contrary to popular claims:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049989/

I don't think that's what is being suggested. They aren't asking to be in charge, they are asking to experience the (potentially automatable) problems first. The leaders do not tend to be associated with the front lines.

I think Rust also does not have tail call optimisation. Nim and Crystal I'd heard why relying on underlying compilers, and could sometimes fail to get it (perhaps more than you'd expect using a compiler more "directly"?).

Does this page explain the parent's question? It specifically mentions keeping the minor version more than once.

I feel more and more done with paid streaming services. Even Netflix seems to make their interface progressively more intrusive and less useful. Their content seems to vanish and get replaced with "original content" - conspiratorial documentaries, mostly.

For sure there is still some value there, but it's more and more distributed across platforms, with worse and worse usability. Often I find I'm paying for multiple expensive services and can't find a way to stream what I'm looking for. Or (Amazon Prime!) I can rent it from a service I already pay monthly for.

TV had lower expectations. On-demand but sort-of-not-really-and-you-have-to-pay-again-and-watch-more-ads is frustrating.

The article:

"The researchers also found some differences between family groups, suggesting that some of the decline might be due to environmental factors. But they also suggest that lifestyle changes could account for some of the decline, as well, such as changes in the education system and children reading less and playing video games more. Sadly, other researchers have found similar results."

The paper:

"we show that the observed Flynn effect, its turning point, and subsequent decline can all be fully recovered from within-family variation. The analysis controls for all factors shared by siblings and finds no evidence for prominent causal hypotheses of the decline implicating genes and environmental factors that vary between, but not within, families."

Is this bad reporting or am I mis-understanding the conclusion of the authors?

EDIT: I think I was misunderstanding the conclusion of the authors. They believe they have shown that environmental factors are the main cause (from skimming the full paper's discussion).

Let's stop peddling the misconception that the EU operates significantly differently than any other Western democracy. The civil servants answer ultimately to the MEPs, who are elected. Most people either do not vote or do not engage, as is the case to a lesser extent in their national elections. You can still lobby your MEP when an issue was not part of their platform.

Seems like a good case for a Wikipedia reader/plugin that indicates the level of controversy/abuse going on in an article. As a bystander, I get the impression the management/senior editors are not at all interested in such a feature.

I'm reading this message with little context but it doesn't strike me as having reasons not to be worried. The two suggestions are: a) not to use HTML emails, which seems unlikely in practice; b) to use an obscure-sounding mode which has been implemented in such a way as to depend on the MUA doing multiple things correctly after the GPG code runs.

What am I missing here? Is the latter mode on by default and MUA are widely known to correctly deal with the error code in a secure way?

The hormone speculation seems to come from the article itself, rather than the authors of the paper. In fact, you could be forgiven for reading the article and not finding anything of interest - no causal link, no mention of controlling for weight (already known to have an effect and very likely correlated with fast food consumption).

However, the paper says:

"All models are adjusted for maternal BMI, maternal age, socioeconomic index, recruitment site, ethnicity, polycystic ovary syndrome, previous miscarriage, smoking status, alcohol intake, multivitamin use prior to conception, frequency of sexual intercourse, paternal BMI, paternal age."

Having controlled for BMI & alcohol at least makes it somewhat interesting, despite the need for patient recall.

Almost everyone I know who flies recreationally would pay to reduce 12 to 8, and I have done so myself. Maybe those routes/budgets are not a big enough proportion of the overall flight volume?

Yes, per https://mobile.twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975044091393187... this (headline) seems like quite a sensationalisation. Nonetheless good to repeatedly raise people’s awareness of what they agreed/are agreeing to.

There's a discrete outcome that gets you into that status. The actions and the way they are judged seem just as fluid and subjective to me.

Yes. Most reports placed time-to-available-hardware in the low years (a whole dev cycle). Perhaps those were early sensationalist reports (this article would suggest they were!), but it is a surprise if you only read them.

If you can't make basic calculations with ratio and percentages, it seems unlikely that you can compare different costs per unit weight/volume or do the maths to figure out how much food you need without waste.

Yes, you can look at a chicken and say "that's enough for 3 people". Yes - in the UK - it's quite likely (legally required?) that all products are labelled per 100g or per kg (although I'd contest people failing these tests are likely not to be understand or care for that labelling). It's a tough argument to make that these skills have no impact on on budgeting at all.

They don't require you to discover - they all have a clear and easy option to go and find updates automatically. Most of the system-level ones also have various schedulers & notifiers (both CLI and GUI) which are normally on by default for common distributions.