They also mention “people under 75”, so I assume they’re just using quarter-century ranges: 0–24; 25–49; 50–74; and 75–99.
Actually, here’s a figure from the original study that uses 5-year bands, and you can see the anomaly covers those specific bands (with the under-25 bands looking more like random noise, which I assume is a statistical effect of the low number of total deaths in that range).
I’m about thirty years ahead of you there.
Liu emphasized that this was an open-loop experiment, meaning that the organoids only received initial inputs without getting new feedback about their performance on the tasks. For this reason, the study does not prove that the organoids actually learned Braille, or were altered in any permanent way, just that they could classify Braille letters after receiving the electrical inputs.
So all they established is that the organoids respond in distinct ways to distinct signals out of the box?
Yeah, I removed that point when I realized the forecast was already an aggregate.
I have issues with Silver too, but to be fair, an 80% likelihood should be wrong one time in five. If it always predicted the winner, the 80% figure would be inaccurate.
I think people confuse predicted chance of winning with predicted poll results, where 82% would indeed predict an unstoppable landslide.
If you set up one port forward to any SSH server on your local network (e.g., a spare Raspberry Pi), you can then use SSH tunneling to mirror any port on any machine in your local network to ports on your remote SSH client. And it leaves no trace on either side outside of the terminal session.
Because the motion of the things we can see leads us to suspect that something else is there, even if we can’t see it directly.
To use the blindness analogy, it’s like if you’re talking to someone and their voice suddenly becomes muffled, you might suspect that some kind of “silent matter” is affecting the sound.
Dark matter particles would still interact with gravity, but not the other forces. Gravity by itself is too weak to detect individual particles, but the effects of large numbers of them could still be seen.
There are some particles that don’t interact via the electromagnetic force. There are some particles that don’t interact via the strong force. And there are some particles that don’t interact via the weak force. All the particles we know, we’ve detected because they interact via at least one of those forces—but there’s no rule that says a particle must interact with any of them.
Why should we assume that every particle in existence must be conveniently detectable? It’s like a blind person assuming nothing can exist unless it makes a noise.
Putin will clarify that the diesel he was referring to is actually in Ukraine but rightfully belongs to him, and he needs US assistance to liberate it.
Most explorers named things that already had names, too.
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Donald®
Instead of “artificial intelligence” or “super intelligence", how about “Trump-like intelligence”?
Everyone can read into that whatever implications they want.
I think this is a fallacy: as emphatically as state voters may support anti-trans messaging on a symbolic/narrative level, that doesn’t necessarily translate to support for specific policies. What they care about more than policy is a narrative of strength, and Andrews’ mealy-mouthed denials convey weakness instead.
This is the most thorough analysis of the issue I’ve seen—though it’s embedded in a wider discussion of the political misrepresentation of science:
Andrews — a physician who has previously stated she does not support access to gender-affirming surgery for minors or the ability for transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports — is running for the U.S. Senate “because families are struggling in ways that we should never accept as normal.”
Other centrist Democrats who think they can sidestep controversy over trans rights by throwing them under the bus should take note—if you’re going to get attacked regardless, you might as well stand up for their rights from the outset.
Pam: “They’re the same job.”
If you can run multiple applications, you can run multiple servers—a server is just an application with a network interface.
The original paper gives the temperatures in Celsius:
For decades after their discovery, no eukaryote was shown to replicate above 60°C. We isolated a geothermal amoeba, Incendiamoeba cascadensis, that divides at 63°C and is motile up to 64°C. […] The minimum growth temperature is 42°C, with no growth at 40°C or lower; optimal growth is at 55°C–57°C (Figure 2A; Table S6), and maximum growth is at 63°C, with no growth at 64°C or higher.
00195-7/asset/332385bc-231b-4f49-99c7-048e6571bd5e/main.assets/gr2_lrg.jpg){kind=link}
It seems like a lot of likely causes would be outside the scope of a medical study (for example, the age range is specifically working-age people, so it could be due to changes in occupations).