There's still a lot of debate around this topic. It's obviously difficult for people who have used these methods for the past 60 years to simply say "I've been using a flawed method for 60 years" – although in the end that's how science works. The problem moreover is double: the method has built-in flaws, and on top of that it's often misused.
Journals that don't accept "statistical significance" methods anymore: this or this
Several books, for example this one. I agree with the factual content of this book, but I don't like the authors's braggart way of writing. In their defence, though: it's the same braggart way of writing that R. A. Fisher, the father of "statistical significance", often had.
What's sad is that these discussions easily end in political or "football-team"-like debates. But the mathematical and logical proofs are there, for those who care to go and read them.
P-values-based methods and statistical significance are flawed: even when used correctly (e.g.: stopping rule decided beforehand, various "corrections" of all kinds for number of datapoints, non-gaussianity, and so on), one can get results that are "statistically non-significant" but clearly significant in all common-sense meanings of this word; and vice-versa. There's a constant literature – with mathematical and logical proofs – dating back from the 1940s pointing out the in-principle flaws of "statistical significance" and null-hypothesis testing. The editorial from the American Statistical Association gives an extensive list.
I'd like to add: I'm saying this not because I read it somewhere (I don't like unscientific "my football team is better than yours"-like discussions), but because I personally sat down and patiently went through the proofs and counterexamples, and the (almost non-existing) counter-proofs. That's what made me change methodology. This is something that many researchers using "statistical significance" have not done.
PS: actually with Klipper I can go back and forth in the clipboard history too. I don't know if this is possible in Emacs. For example, if I go back two history steps, and then realize that I went too far by one step, I'd type H-v H-v H-C-v C-v. The H-C-v is "undoing" the last H-v.
Confirming: KDE/Plasma has it natively. You can configure number of rows and columns, whether movement should be cyclic or not, and shortcuts to change desktop and to bring windows to other desktops. You can create and remove new virtual desktops on the spot by right-clicking the tray icon. Also shortcuts to get an overview of all desktops at once.
KDE also has a slightly different way of separating workspaces: "Activities" (which can co-exists with virtual desktops); although I don't use it.
For the list of all clipboard items, ready to be chosen: Klipper tray icon, right-click → Configure clipboard → Shortcuts→ "Open Klipper at Mouse Position". You can choose from the list either with the up/down keys, or with the mouse.
Klipper's item-cycling doesn't require more keystrokes than Emac's. For example, what I achieve in Emacs with C-y M-y M-y I achieve with Klipper with H-v H-v C-v (no need to operate with the mouse). H is the "hyper" or "super" key – but the keys are fully customizable.
I solved that and much more with Xremap. It's really fantastic, fast, lightweight, and takes precedence over the key scanning of all programs. It handles also program-dependent keybindings. I managed to have Emacs-like keybindings for the whole desktop, but you could just use it to disable or remap C-w for some programs.
stravanasu @ pglpm @lemmy.ca Posts 38Comments 279Joined 2 yr. ago
Question: can this be done via a graphical interface (eg like
software-properties-kdein (K)ubuntu)?