PetDinosaurs @ PetDinosaurs @lemmy.world

Posts

8

Comments

617

Joined

2 yr. ago

There is not going to be any rational discussion in this thread.

The article is far too shit. There is nothing there. No evidence. No nothing. It's just anger bait.

I can add a lot of (correct) information here, but I will just piss people off.

Let's be better.

I thought salon was better than this, but I guess we can't escape enshitification.

How old is your son? I imagine I'll do the same, but this is the only magic trick that I've really wanted to learn. My son has some fine motor delays so he won't be able to do this.

I realized that I've interacted with you a few times here, so I ended up looking at your comment history. We seem to share a lot of similar characteristics.

I noticed that you're trans and had a Q&A. I'm cis-het and I missed that session. I hope that we'll interact again. I want to understand T as well as I understand LGB. I just don't know anyone T.

Sure, but majoring in art history at Duke University is the classic example of a major problem with education.

That person will never be able to repay the loan and neither should even an extremely government subsidized education program support more than a handful of people in that field.

Most of these are "liberal arts" in the extremely classical, Greek sense: they are for people who will never need to work for a living.

It's sad that we can't have this, but what does one do with an art history degree? There's a few jobs, but not that many, and they certainly don't pay for tuition at Duke University.

Aside from National Lampoon Vegas Vacation, it would be in back alleys. It's not a commercial game because it's not exciting enough and it would be easy enough to fool with a machine (also the paper at hand). I just didn't expect it to be so biased for actual people flipping coins.

I seem to have confused people. I just thought there was a different understanding and didn't want to explain gambling.

What I meant to express in "the house always wins" is that in games of chance, you're always at a disadvantage. That's how the house is statistically guaranteed to make money when played at a large scale.

Roulette has red, black, and the green one.

A "fair coin" is a mathematical abstraction. There's zero probability that actual coin flips are "fair", in the mathematical sense. What I was expressing was the fact that this is way larger of an effect than I expected and, over time, this effect will change things that use coin flips.

Omg. I must learn this.

Shit. I have zero cash in my house.

Bless the maker and his water.

Thanks!

Here is the most scientific version of this I could find from that article. I've got work to do, but I'll try to come back later to add something else.

There shouldn't be any barriers to entry for this. It won't be as cheap, but NIRS is not prohibitively expensive.

This is just really new. It takes lots of time for completely novel medical devices to enter the clinic.

This is also vastly more advanced than a pulse ox.

You're definitely correct about the pulse ox. That has also been known for a long time though. COVID just brought it to the public's attention.

I'm not sure that there is any alternative tech though. Pulse ox work by measuring the color of the blood at specific wavelengths.

I can't imagine that there'd be anything that non invasive around.

If you know of a citation, I'd be really interested.

Tldr: this specific issue is more physics than racism. Plus there's more!

I presume op knows this, but others may want to look up WEIRD as an acronym.

It's actually both simpler and more complex than that, and it's less of an underrepresentation issue. It's not that that isn't an issue. Repesentation is just less of the cause of the problem in this context than you think.

It's also very much not explicit discrimination. The people who do this type of work are overwhelmingly anti racist. There's also plenty of dark skinned people amongst them. Most engineers are white males and Asians. That's an issue as well, but for another time.

First of all, they don't mention that this only applies to optical imaging. CT, ultrasound, MR, PET, etc. are not affected by skin tone (that's an ultrasound in the image, btw).

There are representation issues in medical testing. Not just purely racial ones as well. For example, most psychological studies are done with white women of college age. That's because the only people they can get to participate in such studies are psychology students who are overwhelmingly white women. Then there's the issue that you can't really experiment on children at all. That's WEIRD.

These are all well known and studied issues. They just don't have easy solutions.

The problem here isn't mostly representation. It's physics.

In order to image someone optically, you need to reflect light (or have something that emits light). Dark skin absorbs more and reflects less light than light skin. That is the purpose of dark skin.

No matter what we do, or how hard we try, optical imaging will never work as well on dark skinned people as light skinned people.

There's way more issues, too.

You can't just collect people based on skin color. Medical testing is extremely sensitive and difficult. You can't pay people too much. You can't pay people too little. Like the psychology issue, there are plenty of studies that are conducted on strange populations.

My brain is in several publicly available databases and papers and such. I get rooked into it because colleagues need subjects when I was in grad school. These studies are full of two kinds of people, grad students in the sciences, professors, their children, and people for whom a trivial amount of money is worth their time. That's not a cross section, and it's not really solvable.

You're correct that, in principle, you could collect people on quantitative skin color metrics for optical imaging. Other issues need a more complex understanding of race.

Now what is race? People say it's a social construct, but that's not scientifically correct. Race is a collection of phenotypes that helped our ancestors survive. It can be quantified. At the very least, genetically.

That's scientific racism. That's what the Nazis did. Granted, it's being done for anti racist purposes, but still, it's ugly.

So, I want to conduct a study that's DEI. How do I know I have proper representation? The terms Asian, black, Latino, and white are so huge and diverse that they are useless for this purpose.

What do I do?

Anyway, I could go on, but I'll stop after one last thing. The FDA is considering making DEI mandatory. That won't really solve the problem, though.

Edit: typos

Exactly.

Just making sure.

I had a lot of trouble gathering that confidence as well until I got into industry.

You can bet on dice and coin flips.

"I bet you a dollar that my coin flip will come up heads?"

This research suggests that this is not only profitable, but can be improved upon.

Edit: so weird. Why would such a simple and correct statement be controversial? I would've thought that betting on heads or tails was not this far out of fair coin odds.

I'm curious why you don't think this is significant?

This is a pretty high house edge (or whatever you want to call it) for a game that seems the most fair as possible.

No casino games are that fair.

As is discussed elsewhere in this thread, you could probably practice and get that higher.

If you're still young, careful about too much imposter syndrome.

It took me until some reasonably extreme events for me to acknowledge that I was smart.

I, too, was a poor grad student.

At that time I didn't have a child to suck the life out of me. Just a dissertation.

(My hypothesis is that the child is worse, but my wife won't let me conduct double blind, placebo controlled studies. Fortunately, we didn't have twins...)

No! Bad treefrog.

If it "feels like" something, you're probably fooling yourself.

Hard evidence. The easiest person to fool is yourself.

Edit: people, please don't down vote treefrog. They are learning, and I am joking.

Be nice. This place is way toxic. I'm not sure how much more I can handle it.

Yeah... I had that thought for a second. Then I geeked out on the math and came to the same conclusion I had before.

Just as I won't learn to play poker or count cards, I'm not learning and practicing this.

I've got other things to do with my limited life.

It's just bizarre how high quality this evidence is. It's probably because it's so cheap to collect this data, and other science nerds are also science geeks like me.

Actual video of this many tests. Just data orgasm.

here it's not ready yet.

My favorite part is this:

Funding The authors have no funding to declare, and conducted this research in their spare time.

As there is no culture of tipping there, potential employees don't have the same opportunity.

In North America, wait staff have two options. Restaurants where they work for tips and restaurants where they don't. Logically, they'll choose the ones that pay more, which are invariably the ones that work for tips.

This is why European wait staff make an average of 12 euros and North American wait staff make vastly more.

I don't recall a recent meal where I haven't tipped more than that, and the staff will have several tables.