Science!
-
-
But Brain, where are you going to find a microwave oven big enough?
-
I'm annoyed NASA goes out of its way to avoid carrying any microorganisms there. It would be cool if something adapted
-
-
-
And they say steroids are bad for you!
-
Pernicious nonsense.
-
Terryology goes back to Howard's college days. The future actor was studying chemical engineering at Pratt — but dropped out when he realized that he fundamentally disagreed with his professors about the basics of math. The argument focused on the simple equation of one times one.
"How can it equal one?" Howard asked Rolling Stone, and the universe. "If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."
Reminds me of the nullity guy, except I suspect that someday someone will find a use for nullity.
-
Reminds me of the nullity guy, except I suspect that someday someone will find a use for nullity.
There is already a use for [url="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Nullity.html"]nullity[/url] in mathematics. That's not his nullity, though.As the article you linked points out, his nullity is in almost all ways the same as a NaN, so it's not likely that there'll ever be a use for it that's worth the cost of setting up a different arithmetic system compared to just using NaNs.
-
1 * X = 2
Solve for X.
Dumbfuck.
-
-
-
I've always seen that written as 1.9̅ or 1.9̲
Yeah, well that's hard to do in .
See the Notation section.
-
Why not just use dots?
-
How many? 2? 2½?
-
-
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2016/03/a-picture-might-transmit-sorcery.html
Saudi cleric Sheikh Sa’d Al-Ateeq, who stars in a fatwa show on the Ahwaz TV channel, explains that people may catch cancer when they post pictures of themselves and their children on social media platforms. "By Allah, I saw this with my own eyes." Others may print these pictures and apply sorcery to them.
-
Well, "social media platforms" tend to be pretty cancerous.
-
people may catch cancer when they post pictures of themselves and their children on social media platforms.
Those who post, no. Those who view them...
-
Original article: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00627-3/abstract
Conclusions
Results strengthen the evidence from prior studies of alcohol taxes influencing gonorrhea rates and extend health prevention effects from alcohol excise to sales taxes. Alcohol tax increases may be an efficient strategy for reducing sexually transmitted infections.
-
What's an acceptable news source for future reference?
You'd have better luck squaring the circle in a finite number of steps than you would finding a reliable and unbiased news source. The subjective nature of what is and isn't useful information, the varying perceptions of the events, and the problems inherent in reporting events at all, basically make it a meaningless question in any absolute sense, and in a relative sense the only one who can answer it is you.
-
-
-
Wow, this looks like some serious abuse of statistics in service of keeping a career alive:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069619301901
Bah! Neither one of those links shows the nonpaywalled information that /. has:
They find that a 10% increase in same-day exposure to PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) is associated with a 0.14% increase in violent crimes, such as assault. An equivalent increase in exposure to ozone, an air pollutant, is associated with a 0.3% jump in such crimes. Pollution levels can easily rise by much more than that. Last November, owing to wildfires, PM2.5 levels in San Francisco rose seven times higher than average. Correlation is not causation of course (there may, for example, be a third variable affecting both pollution and crime) and the authors are cautious not to speculate about the precise mechanism by which contaminated air might lead to more rapes or robberies. This is not the first time researchers have identified a relationship between pollution and crime. In the 1970s America banned lead-based paint and began phasing out leaded petrol; two decades later, crime fell. Many researchers now argue that the two developments were linked. In a paper published in 2007, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an economist at Amherst College, estimated that the drop in lead exposure experienced by American children in the 1970s and 1980s may explain over half of the decline in violent crime in the 1990s.
I guess they at least give lipservice to "correlation is not causation," but 0.14% and 0.3% increases? WHO THE FUCK CARES?
-
@boomzilla said in Science!:
0.14% and 0.3% increases?
Wow, that's weak. I can find higher correlations with pirates than that.
@error_bot !xkcd significant
-
-
1x1 must be 3.
Not quite.
1x1 = 1v1
1v1 = 1\/1
1\/1 = 1111
1111 = 15Therefore, 1x1 = 15.
-
@boomzilla said in Science!:
Wow, this looks like some serious abuse of statistics in service of keeping a career alive:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069619301901
Bah! Neither one of those links shows the nonpaywalled information that /. has:
They find that a 10% increase in same-day exposure to PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) is associated with a 0.14% increase in violent crimes, such as assault. An equivalent increase in exposure to ozone, an air pollutant, is associated with a 0.3% jump in such crimes. Pollution levels can easily rise by much more than that. Last November, owing to wildfires, PM2.5 levels in San Francisco rose seven times higher than average. Correlation is not causation of course (there may, for example, be a third variable affecting both pollution and crime) and the authors are cautious not to speculate about the precise mechanism by which contaminated air might lead to more rapes or robberies. This is not the first time researchers have identified a relationship between pollution and crime. In the 1970s America banned lead-based paint and began phasing out leaded petrol; two decades later, crime fell. Many researchers now argue that the two developments were linked. In a paper published in 2007, Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an economist at Amherst College, estimated that the drop in lead exposure experienced by American children in the 1970s and 1980s may explain over half of the decline in violent crime in the 1990s.
I guess they at least give lipservice to "correlation is not causation," but 0.14% and 0.3% increases? WHO THE FUCK CARES?
And of course if there is a causal link, well, I can think of a few possibilities that don't need any green-warrior eco-gwhjarblvblelzerlek nonsense. Examples:
- Sitting around (or, indeed, almost any other activity except being dead) breathing polluted air makes us grumpy and grumpy people are (marginally) more likely to commit violence.
- People who commit violent crime feel a need to get away, and they use polluting vehicles to do so, and that means there is more pollution.
Note the important point that in the second case, the causal link is reversed.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
People who commit violent crime feel a need to get away, and they use polluting vehicles to do so, and that means there is more pollution.
If 0.3% more criminals cause a 10% jump in pollution, they must drive really polluting cars.
Or maybe there are more criminals amongst drivers than in the overall population. Which would explain all the bad drivers on the road, so that seems a perfectly reasonable explanation.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
People who commit violent crime feel a need to get away, and they use polluting vehicles to do so, and that means there is more pollution.
Huh? I thought they felt a need to return to the site of the crime?
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
People who commit violent crime feel a need to get away, and they use polluting vehicles to do so, and that means there is more pollution.
Huh? I thought they felt a need to return to the site of the crime?
They probably just split the difference and do donuts in the nearest parking lot
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
People who commit violent crime feel a need to get away, and they use polluting vehicles to do so, and that means there is more pollution.
Huh? I thought they felt a need to return to the site of the crime?
They probably just split the difference and do donuts in the nearest parking lot
I'm sort of (but only sort of) grateful that I actually know what "do donuts" means, because it is in no way apparent from the words.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I think it's pretty apparent from the words in the context of driving, but that's coming from the perspective of already knowing what it means. But also, I think the term is familiar enough to most people.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
People who commit violent crime feel a need to get away, and they use polluting vehicles to do so, and that means there is more pollution.
If 0.3% more criminals cause a 10% jump in pollution, they must drive really polluting cars.
Or maybe there are more criminals amongst drivers than in the overall population. Which would explain all the bad drivers on the road, so that seems a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Crime in general, and violent crime specifically, are often cited as being concentrated among the (relatively) poorer parts of "society" and therefore the criminals cannot afford new and posh low-pollution vehicles, so they drive old polluting wrecks.
Alternatively, you might consider that I wasn't being entirely serious.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I think it's pretty apparent from the words in the context of driving, but that's coming from the perspective of already knowing what it means. But also, I think the term is familiar enough to most people.
Most people who've lived west of the Atlantic, anyway(1). As a term, it's pretty rare among Right-Pondians.
(1) As previously discussed, I have lived west of the Atlantic, although I now live south of the Sleeve.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I guess right-pondians would call it "doughnuts"
-
some fucking science idiots said in Science!:
there may, for example, be a third variable affecting both pollution and crime
It's .
This is the dumbest 'science' I've seen in months.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I think it's pretty apparent from the words in the context of driving, but that's coming from the perspective of already knowing what it means. But also, I think the term is familiar enough to most people.
My first reading was they were impersonating police officers.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
(1) As previously discussed, I have lived west of the Atlantic, although I now live south of the Sleeve.
All of the hits the goog gives me on "the Sleeve" are about gastric sleeve surgery. Which I guess relates to donuts indirectly.
Edit: OK, I see it refers to the Channel.
-
I'm annoyed NASA goes out of its way to avoid carrying any microorganisms there. It would be cool if something adapted
I feel this way about "invasive species" in general.
-
@jinpa You mean you're annoyed at humans?
Yeah, me too.
-
@jinpa You mean you're annoyed at humans?
Yeah, me too.
me three.
Humans are cute, sure, but they breed so quickly, and they destroy the natural environment everywhere they go.
And now i'm hearing reports that they've even messed up the artificial environment they replace the natural one with to the point that they can't fix it anymore and they're all fucked.... along with everyone else on the planet....
Course I'm also hearing that that story is just fear mongering and i shouldn't worry about it and instead buy a new car what I can't drive because foxes can't get drivers licenses.
so you know..... i'm not sure which side to believe.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Science!:
(1) As previously discussed, I have lived west of the Atlantic, although I now live south of the Sleeve.
All of the hits the goog gives me on "the Sleeve" are about gastric sleeve surgery. Which I guess relates to donuts indirectly.
Edit: OK, I see it refers to the Channel.
Was instantly clear for me as german since its called Ärmelkanal in germany which would be sleeve channel when translated literally which wasn't done.
-
-
https://www.science.org/content/article/should-webb-telescope-s-data-be-open-all
NO
it would spoil the surprise
-
@Gribnit I'd go with Eventually, Yes, But Not Necessarily Now. Getting things in a few years will work just fine. Most of the stars aren't going away.
-
Getting things in a few years will work just fine. Most of the stars aren't going away.
And this belief being rational per observations is why I have responded as I have, you see.