When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I sympathize. I, too, have trouble keeping in touch and submitting things on time.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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 it is one of the weirdest expressions of xenophobia I've seen so far in this country.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I must say, that seems a bit much. On the other hand, you are living in Sweden.
Congratulations America
Twitter Link
Why Breitbart, why are u so dumb
The Islamic Feminazi Republic of Swedistan you mean.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Huge if true
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You are though. It's just a matter of perspective innit.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Water is falling from the sky.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Cumbria. It's stopped now, but it was very weird.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Twitter Link
Australia being slightly more racist than usual.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This reads like a Daily Mash (Onion) article.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...m-13075153.amp
What the fuck John. What the actual fuck.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"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?
Hope is the denial of reality
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).
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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
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. 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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
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...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The bit about her struggle to conceive:
https://www.vogue.com/article/tammy-...er-2018-issue/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."