https://www.romania-insider.com/roma...h-declaration/
Printable View
I sympathize. I, too, have trouble keeping in touch and submitting things on time.
Some lady on FB threatened to report me to the police--for saying cops in sthlm are jerks for harassing beggars w/out solid legal basis and compiling illegal databases of Roma and women who're victims of abuse--because my name doesn't sound Swedish :bulb: it is one of the weirdest expressions of xenophobia I've seen so far in this country.
I must say, that seems a bit much. On the other hand, you are living in Sweden.
What can you expect from Facebook? :(
Twitter Link
Why Breitbart, why are u so dumb
The Islamic Feminazi Republic of Swedistan you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Just another day where Trump really IS president; congress isn't fulfilling their constitutional mandate of oversight; and the "balance" between co-equal branches of government is more like a reality TV drama series or beauty pageant. Return to Trump, negative feedback loop, recurring nightmare, WTF
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DefV47kUwAAJIt4.jpg
Huge if true
Been called a "far left extremist" IRL tonight.
You are though. It's just a matter of perspective innit.
Well indeed, and I'm quite happy to be called far left compared to that nasty piece of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Spoiler:
Erm, haven't you argued several times here that religion != race?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Water is falling from the sky.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Where are you? I too seek this legendary skywater.
Cumbria. It's stopped now, but it was very weird.
Twitter Link
Australia being slightly more racist than usual.
This reads like a Daily Mash (Onion) article.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...m-13075153.amp
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dk2y3AlVsAAk4JJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dk2y1FFUcAAsBzc.jpg
What the fuck John. What the actual fuck.
1. Who's John?
2. Why does he capitalise negro?
"we continuously increased the number of animals until statistical significance was reached to support our conclusions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02765-w.pdf
Exact quote from an article published in Nature, arguably the top journal in the natural sciences. WTF? :bulb:
First off, it's from Nature Communications, a much lower tier part of the NPG family (impact factor 12.4 vs. 40+ for the real deal). Secondly, it really depends what you're trying to show to determine whether this is problematic. Generally for animal studies you do a pre hoc analysis to determine sample size. But the dirty secret is that everyone's power analysis is garbage - you generally don't know the expected variability in your data, you almost certainly don't know the expected differences you'll be observing, and choosing a power of 0.8 and alpha of 0.05 is more or less arbitrary (albeit standard).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Doing the kind of study reported here is valuable if you're really just trying to get information about the population(s) you're studying - essentially, the size of an effect and the variability in your data. Studies published in the likes of Nature Communications often provide this level of evidence. It's not great for hypothesis testing, but that doesn't mean it isn't okay science. Hell, pretty much all of particle physics is just smashing stuff together enough times that you get a signal that meets a given set of criteria.
The big issue here was whether they were running multiple statistical tests on the data without providing adjustments for p-values afterwards. This is a very common sin, and accounting for it is crucial to make sure you're not just reporting noise instead of real data. It might indeed be a big problem but without a clearer understanding of what they did it's hard to know.
Good catch on the journal name.
If the purpose of the study is to see whether X has a statistically significant effect on Y, you can't just up the sample until your p-value reaches an acceptable level. :bored: This is p-hacking taken to the extreme, and the authors nonchalantly admit to it.
If your data has substantial variability, then it should be hard to obtain statistical significance. That's the whole point. If you want to claim there's a large effect size, that's fine. If you want to claim hypothesis testing is unnecessary and that you're just providing summary statistics, that's more or less fine. But you can't have your cake and eat it too by doing hypothesis testing and then explicitly changing the parameters of the study until you get the desired result. Or at least you shouldn't admit to doing it.
I suspect that your critique is fair but I think it's important to distinguish this from p-hacking. P-hacking is essentially going in with no hypothesis, getting a shitload of data, and then running every test you can imagine until something 'significant' appears. This is distinct; they had a hypothesis but didn't know either the effect size or the population variance, so they scaled sample size to find the effect. It's potentially got some of the same problems with p-hacking if they didn't account for multiple post-hoc tests when reporting p-values (I suspect this is the case) - but it's not as dishonest as p-hacking. They're essentially saying 'we're pretty sure there's a signal here, the size of the effect we saw was X' rather than 'we had a hypothesis that Y effect exists and is this size, and sure enough we were right'. It's a bit sloppy science, since ideally they would have run a pilot study to inform their power analysis, but the fact of the matter is that no one does that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
For subtle signals in in vivo data, I would indeed prefer to see at least one replication (or partial replication) before I'd submit this kind of data. And that would obviate the need to justify their sample size in this manner. But it's still informative IMO, even if it means your conclusions are far weaker than they might be otherwise.
I really thought Lindsey Lohan trying to kidnap a refugee child in Moscow like she's the Baba Yaga would be the craziest thing I'd read about this week, but...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoValBZXoAA63XK.jpg
The bit about her struggle to conceive:
https://www.vogue.com/article/tammy-...er-2018-issue/
So, this article turns up:
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-from-vehicles
The article references studies which suggest a link between pollution during gestation/early years and the referenced studies even offer suggestions on how this correlation they found might have an actual causal relation (i.e. possible mechanisms). Further study needed, though.
Which then promptly enrages several people who can't be arsed to actually read the damn thing with one idiot going:
"But your diet has a much larger effect on your BMI!"
Yes, you moron, and exactly fucking no one disputes that. But this effect (if it is true) does not make it easier. I guess the idea of "cumulative effects" is hard to grasp.
Another bloody idiot suggested that this was all "for the research grants!"
Jesus Christ, these people. If we had them around 40 to 60 years back, we'd still have chainsmoking everywhere and would drive cars with leaded gasoline.
Then again, them still using the latter one would explain a whole lot about those morons.
So this person who was in my group at a week-long and very formative course we had w/ students from another programme like eight years ago realizes we have a WoTBF acquaintance in common and suddenly I have a copy of the WoTBF forum on my hard drive. I'm almost afraid to look through it. Teeny, tiny world.
By 11:40am this morning my coworkers and I managed to order 7 slices of free cheesecake to celebrate the cheesecake factory's 40th birthday. Its 1:30pm and only 2 orders have been delivered. 7 orders all placed within 10 minutes, and they used 7 different door dash delivery drivers.
The gig economy has a long way to go still.
and of course, the police have been roped into it.
Just how toxic can american religion become?
https://www.lionsroar.com/conservati...ublic-schools/
Said one caller on Sekulow’s radio program, “This is toxic ideology. This goes beyond just bad education. This could be corrupting our children’s eternal souls. I have two small children, and I don’t want them sitting around just thinking about creation and goodness and peace. I mean, if my two angels, who are innocent, are gonna be learning about explorers, they should be learning about Jesus or Trump.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
:haha:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/b...the-dark-side/Quote:
“Hillary Clinton is in end stage Parkinson’s disease and she’s having these choking spells because that’s what happens when you get to the end stage of it,”
...
“She is the victim of an evil family that cursed her as a little girl and made her enveloped by a trans-dimensional demonic entity,” Deagle said. “Same way as many of these people who are at a high level in [Free] Masonry, they give their soul over to the dark side and then it’s too damn late, they don’t realize what they’ve done.”
Subthread: Things I don't understand.
Why would thousands of people want to be in NYC Times Square on New Year's Eve? Why would they plan time off work, make plane and hotel reservations months in advance, to stand in (usually) bad weather, with the heightened security measures that mean they can't even carry a flask of gin? I don't get it. :noob:
It's a Thing.
Ex-House Speaker Republican Conservative John Boehner is hawking Cannabis. lol
Started a new job recently and just had to complete "active shooter" training. In the UK. :confused:
I got one at my last job, not a happy training no. But 1/3 of active shooter situations are work related and 1/3 education, and I worked on a university campus where you have both. Glad to say I never needed that training (or the fire fighting and first aid for that matter).Quote:
Originally Posted by Unheard Of