JoBo @ JoBo @feddit.uk

Posts

22

Comments

1,095

Joined

2 yr. ago

Who is "they"? Who is the second "they"? Who is the we in "our"? What is the question?

Austerity for who? It's been non-stop austerity for ordinary people since the 2008 crash, and the people who caused the crash have been making out like bandits.

It's the right time to tax the rich.

See a doctor.

But it might be worth buying a machine to check your blood pressure (they're not terribly expensive) because it's hard to capture it in the doctor's office. Take a measurement or three before you feel light-headed, keep the cuff on and take more measurements when you start to feel light-headed. Keep a record of the measurements (and how you were feeling at the time) to help your doctor rule blood pressure in or out as a cause.

Trains.

Cool stuff

PEVs

Yeah, sorry. I didn't intend it to sound like an accusation.

Poorly chosen headline, quickly corrected, I assume.

The actual headline is "Retailers who break new smoking laws ..."

There obviously is a source so could you link to it?

They did it with Trump in 2016. That and a few more examples here.

That's a fantastically efficient way to destroy their business. There's no way to get honest reviews of employers from employees who know their identities will be exposed whether they consent or not. Doesn't even matter if the review is after leaving that job, future employers can go nosing too.

Absolute techbro-brane gold.

Yeah, that's not happening more than in the past either

Young adults today are less likely to drink than young adults two decades ago – but older adults are more likely to do so, according to Gallup. The share of adults ages 18 to 34 who say they ever drink dropped from 72% in 2001-03 to 62% in 2021-23. (Gallup looked at the data in three-year time periods to allow for reliable age-group analysis.).

The one sense this generation of parents is more like high school kids is their earnings in relation to housing costs. Parents are working longer hours because they have no damn choice.

That is at least consistent with the known facts. But it's still a hell of a leap to divine all that from one high school fight which turned out uglier than usual.

There's no point repeating it. This kind of study is hopeless for answering this sort of question. People go on this kind of diet because they're concerned about their health, often their weight and general cardiovascular health. It's not surprising that they're more likely to die of things related to their reason for going on the diet in the first place.

It's not quite as starkly obvious as "people who choose to jump out of planes are more likely to die in a parachute accident" but it's close.

Where does the article say the problem started with AI? It doesn't even mention LLMs, just the explosion in grifter apps since it became easier to produce a grifter app.

If you read the article, you did not read it properly.

Parental age has been steadily increasing for decades, it can't be an explanation for things appearing to have got worse recently. What's your reasoning?

You didn't read the article.

You can't generalise about conferences any more than you can generalise about individual journals, or publishers, or peer review.

Lack of peer review is not a standalone criticism. The problems with this study are obvious and you do not need to rely on an imaginary peer reviewer to point them out.

I didn't say they did. But authors don't just get to submit an abstract and have it accepted, it has been selected by whatever committee process was set up to sift the submissions. Many conferences will do a better job than the journals but mileage varies all over the fucking shop.

But my main bugbear here is the idea that peer review means anything. The dross that gets published is beyond depressing. But it's probably worth noting that dross is much less likely to get submitted to a conference because a) fuck all CV points for an abstract and b) getting accepted means registering for the conference and turning up to get your peer review in person. Scammers don't do that. Although there have been entire scam conferences so ... heuristics don't work any which way, really.

Lot of pointless semantics and desperate denial in this thread.

You don't have to agree that 'smart' is a good choice of word. You just have to accept that Trump knows exactly how to motivate his base while the Dems are apt to shit on theirs.

Turnout is the only thing that matters in this election, as in 2016. Trump's voters will turn out. If you (Dem loyalists) want Biden to win, stop sneering at everyone who will need to hold their nose to vote for him.

Peer review is unfortunately not a magic bullet. And conference abstracts do get a form of peer review because that's how they get accepted for the conference.

The actual problem is that academics can pad their CVs doing terrible research and publishing it with alarmist headlines.

When they've written it up, it will get through peer review, somewhere, somehow, because peer review does not work. The fight will happen in the letters pages (if anyone has the energy) and won't change a damn thing anyway.

This is so obviously confounded. If I told you that people who use asthma inhalers have a 91% higher risk of dying of asthma, would you conclude that it was the inhalers killing them?

Yeah, you need a calculator (Can they count?).

But I wasn't talking about third party candidates. I was talking about liberal conspiracism: dismissing all criticism as bad faith attacks from secret Republicans because you couldn't possibly be wrong about anything.

Stop sneering at the voters you desperately need to hold their nose and vote for Biden.