I'm not saying normalization is a bad strategy, just that it, like any other processing technique comes with limitations and requires extra attention to avoid incorrect conclusions when interpreting the results.
Because relative to the population density, there were 100 times as many sightings. Or what am I missing.
If you were to attempt to trap and tag bigfoots in both areas, would you end up with 100 times as many angry people in a gorilla suit in the small town? No. You would end up with 1 in both areas. So while the tiny town does technically have 100x the density per capita, each region has only one observable suit wearer.
Assuming the distribution of gorilla suit wearers is uniform, you would expect approximately 99 tiny towns with no big foot sightings for every 1 town with a sighting. So if you were to sample random small towns, because the map says big foots live near small towns, you would actually see fewer hairy beasts than your peer who decided to sample areas with higher population density.
If we could have fractional observations, then all this would be a lot more straightforward, but the discrete nature of the subject matter makes the data imherently noisy. Interpreting data involving discrete events is a whole art and usually involves a lot of filtering.
Simple normalization does amplify signals in low density areas. If a person in a tiny town of 100 reports a bigfoot sighting and another person in an area with 10,000 population also reports a sighting, then with simple normalization the map would show the area with 100 people having 100 times as many big foot sightings per capita as the area with the population of 10k. Someone casually reading the map would erroneously conclude that the tiny town is a bigfoot hotspot and would in general conclude bigfoot clearly prefers rural areas where they can hide in seclusion. When the reality is that the intense signals are artifacts of the sampling/processing methods and both areas have the same number of fursuit wearers.
I've seen at least a couple different users with that, but I wouldn't be able to recall their usernames offhand.
The notice really reminds me of the Facebook chain posts where people would post a declaration saying that facebook couldn't use your data/likeness if you share the post text.
If ai companies are unabashed about scraping and training on copywrited material from litigious companies like the nyt, I really don't get how anyone convinces themselves that anything they append to their comments would stop a scraper.
Since the metal wall is conductive, the standing wave pattern inside a typical microwave oven has a magnitude that goes to zero at the conductor surface. The heating power also goes to zero at the wall serface. Additionally, anything in thermal contact with the metal wall will remain close to the temperature of the wall even if there is a heat flux. Bacteria may well be cooked on the carousel plate, but there will be regions within the cooking cavity where bacteria will not experience high enough temperatures for sanitization.
Just go hang out in the student union or in the mall of your nearest state university. You'll find plenty of people eager to talk about all sorts of topics.
I see cashiers at aldi open and close lanes after just a little bit all the time. Aldi workers don't just work the register, they manage stock and cleaning as well. So at my aldi there's usually one person on a register but they frequently radio for someone else to come when the line starts to back up. The second person was presumably in the middle of another task, and they don't stick around at all when the backup is cleared. That sometimes means throwing the closed sign on the belt even if someone is approaching the lane.
I personally wouldn't ascribe motive to the cashiers actions, but I wasn't there and don't really have any context.
It makes me wish that brands weren't so separated from manufacturing. I hate finally finding something that works for me, ordering what should be the same thing only for something obviously from a different factory with major differences to arrive. It feels like just about everything is white-label these days. White-labeling undermines consumers' ability to make informed purchases.
I don't think limiting density would control bird flu specifically considering that wild bird populations are high enough density to spread this disease.
I do generally support lower density farming though. Anecdotally, the white blood cell count of dairy cows on pasture is way lower than when they are in barns during the winter. And even the winter white blood cell counts on the small organic dairy farm I worked on was an order of magnitude lower than what is considered normal for conventional dairy.
White blood cell counts in milk are used as a proxy to monitor for infections. It's impractical to test for every pathogen, but looking for the immune response of the cow works reasonably well.
My wife worked for a company that was heavily reliant on generating leads from ads. They had lots of real time monitoring of conversion rates to make sure they were actually making more money than they were spending on the ads. They would have to turn ad channels off all the time because the return on ad spend went negative.
So my conclusion is that ads can be somewhat effective for companies, but if they don't actively monitor and control the performance of their ads, they're probably just burning money. A lot of companies seem to advertise because they think that's the only way to grow.
Relevant Tom Scott video