This is my question as well, I've read multiple sources that imply the Kalman smoother would work for my problem, but not exactly _how_ in a way that I could make sense of programmatically.
See, what I fundamentally disagree with is the notion that hospitals should be "good business." Why are "some guys" allowed to try to make a profit here at the expense of patient care? Healthcare (or government) should not be run like a business, and instead be provided as a service using the taxes we already pay for, much like how roads are built. The health of the public is our most vital infrastructure, and public infrastructure requires investment that you really can't make money on without defeating the whole purpose of public service.
By this argument why does anything cost money? I need shelter if I am to contribute to society. It should be free!
My own healthcare is extremely valuable to me and I should be allowed to spend money on that. Someone else may decide they'd rather have a new pair of sneakers. Who am I to say they're wrong, that they are not permitted to allocate their capital in this way?
> I need shelter if I am to contribute to society. It should be free!
You do need shelter, and those without housing should be provided somewhere to live. If you'd like to live somewhere nicer/bigger, then you can pay for that, but in a just society I don't see why there should be people starving on the streets. Economically, there are multiple studies that show providing housing to the homeless is at least net-neutral, and results in quite positive outcomes for participants [1,2,3]. Although the research is still in early stages and not deployed on a large scale, I think it at least illustrates the point that giving people who need it housing is not the straw-man that your comment implies it to be.
> My own healthcare is extremely valuable to me and I should be allowed to spend money on that. Someone else may decide they'd rather have a new pair of sneakers. Who am I to say they're wrong, that they are not permitted to allocate their capital in this way?
Sure, for some procedures, it may be viable to shop around or neglect them entirely. But for basic or emergency healthcare, there really isn't an open market. I don't think anyone would choose to "allocate their capital" to a new pair of sneakers when they're bleeding out in the street. For many people, even routine healthcare procedures are out of their financial reach, or at least or prohibitively expensive. Frankly, attempting to compare medical procedures to common goods is not really a fair comparison at all.
Yes, PV waste isn't being addressed a lot right now, but research is ramping up alongside production on these. Alternatives to Si like perovskites may end up easier to recycle as well. Also, PV does produce waste, but it has the advantage of not being radioactive. That isn't to say it's not harmful, just quite a bit less volatile as nuclear. All in all, I do think nuclear should be reintroduced, but it has it's own issues, especially in the US due to construction difficulties (permits, safety, etc). In comparison, PV benefits greatly from economies of scale, and can be deployed at utility scale or in distributed micro-grids, which gives it more granularity then all-or-nothing nuclear.
This is stated like it is an absolute fact, not a reflection of our hyper-capitalist society. I would argue that reducing education to a content curator is harmful to what it aims to be, although the analogy is not entirely inaccurate, unfortunately. Is education an infotainment service or a search for the truth? The latter requires a free exchange of ideas and informed debate, although this is rarely encouraged in our current school system.
I don't think students are the right audience for "informed debate", since they go to school to become informed. Sure, you can (and should!) simulate informed debate in class, to train students in the method, but the value that teachers add is that they curate the topics and can provide arguments and answers.
Eventually education turns into an actual search for truth, but that only happens in university where actual research happens. Until then it's all a more or less guided preparation for independent research.
K-12 education is not a “search for truth” or about “free exchange of ideas and informed debate.” These aren’t college kids. These schools are to socialize kids into the morals and values of their society and to teach them the basic foundational knowledge their society believes to be true. That has nothing to do with “capitalism” and indeed is what pre-capitalist societies long understood education of children to entail.
I’m not following your “reflection of our hyper-capitalist society” comment here. Can you explain what you mean?
From my current point of view, curriculums are largely set by the state which has an interest in promoting itself with very little capitalist or free-market elements involved.
not at all trying to contradict you, but I think the discrepancy may be due to people's trust in virology vs psychiatry. Psychiatry has a bad reputation (we were giving people lobotomies not that long ago) and even today, the literature often fails to be as scientifically rigorous as other fields, in my opinion.
> the literature often fails to be as scientifically rigorous
I don’t think that’s true. I think the sciences of psychiatry/psychology/neurology have several problems that are very unique that make them challenging fields. The literature is scientifically sound in methodology and data-analysis, but these challenges have the field progress slower, and have many false paths.
1. The brain is inherently complex. It might not be the most complex thing we study scientifically, but it’s complexity is a very big issue.
2. It’s really easy for the third-variable problem to have in impact in psychology/psychiatry. A classic example of this is the generalization problem. A study done in the US or France or another Western Democratic Educated country often will have findings that do not apply in Asia or African countries. Large swaths of the literature have questionable generalization, to the point this is often acknowledged inside the literature itself.
3. We have limited tools for studying these fields. The gold standard, the FMRI, requires people to be completely still and in a very artificial environment. This clearly will influence test results. This lack of tools is everywhere. We cannot directly measure happiness. We can ask people if they are happy. We can ask their friends and family if they seem happy. We can measure how much time they smile. If our sample size is large enough we can compare life outcomes like suicide. Every way we have to measure happiness has flaws, which makes drawing conclusions harder.
4. Ethics plays a huge role. We cannot, for example, randomly assign 100 children to play violent video games for 20 hours a week from age 10-18 and assign 100 children to never play these games. Thus any data we have about violent video games and children will not be as clean. We can assume that children that decide to play violent video games probably share other traits and would differ in a lot of ways to children that do not decide to play violent video games. Thus, it will be hard to determine if the violent video games had any impact, or if it was a third variable that many in the violent-video-games cluster share.
5. This happens everywhere, but this field especially is prone to journalists misreporting and misinterpreting the literature.
Bad games facing intense competition will lead to a loss of profit. Not exactly rocket science. I do find it _interesting_ that New World is mentioned by name, but not FFXIV or other established competitors to WoW.
It's probably more evocative to point to fresh faced, newly launched competition that is suffering (the usual, not that most of Bloomberg's audience would know that) MMO launch issues with server capacity and queues.
Myself, I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the upcoming launch of the newest Battlefield, poised to compete nicely against Vanguard.
I'm also a little surprised the article didn't mention the loss of Destiny from the Activision portfolio and the turmoil in Overwatch and the loss of a lot of key Overwatch 2 executives and the slipping of almost all of its deadlines to the point that some people are on "death watch" for the title expecting it to be canceled. Activision's executive problems have already bubbled down to affecting their future games in a way that could snowball.
Be careful with this argument, it's a talking point that over-represents the amount of these jobs held by teenagers earning pocket money. Quite a lot of minimum wage jobs are held by single parents or people just trying to stay afloat.
By the way, even if it is just teenagers, I don't think that should somehow disqualify them from earning fair wages. They aren't being "provided" jobs, they work to produce value for a company, and and should be compensated fairly regardless of their financial situation.
But you have said yourself it's 'bagel' money, it doesn't seem to be coherent to be defending both teenager after school jobs and teenagers in poverty.
You seem to have read too quickly, the poster was talking about someone working a cashier in a store that sells bagels, not about someone making money to buy bagels.
Teenagers getting whatever after school jobs they can contribute to incomes for households in poverty. If the McD's kiosk takes the cashier job, the family loses income. I don't want households in poverty. I'm just unconvinced by this mechanism. I'd rather see minimum incomes or policies to deflate housing costs.
