Had they wanted a good ML relevant physics Nobel, the committee had decades to award a prize to Marshall and Arianna Rosenbluth for the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. Would have been self-evidently important and relevant to both physics and ML. Too late now -- Arianna died in 2020.
Reducing the levels of allergens in food very likely has the side effect of promoting food allergies in children, due to lack of exposure during development. That's a strong negative consequence.
I am old enough to remember US internet companies spamming users to support net neutrality, even those who aren't American and can't do anything about it. And net neutrality was heck of a lot less of an existential issue for them.
Beijing has a veto on the sale, and are likely to exercise it. From their point of view, allowing the US to force a Chinese company to sell itself off as soon as it achieves success would set a very bad precedent, and encourage a torrent of other blackmail efforts.
They'll be willing to let Bytedance take the L on this. Bytedance can console themselves that TikTok can still operate elsewhere on the world, just making less money.
Not sure how this is "dishing it out and not taking it". They intend to "take it"; they will force Bytedance not to sell, and thereby lose its US business with no compensation.
The trouble with doing that for Freakonomics is that the work on abortions reducing crime, which has been proven wrong, is the first chapter and the centerpiece of the book. It's the thing that they use to exemplify the "freakonomics" approach in the rest of the book.
do you have links to the papers disproving that? That result is kind of the basis for the moral argument for allowing abortion for consensual fetuses for me. Without that result the cost/benefit looks terrible because the deflationary death spiral of the below replacement birthrate it helps cause is really, really bad.
Yes! I think their national budget rule is that 1 in 4 Sing dollars must be spent on the military. That is an enormous fraction. The annual military budget exceeds 11B USD. With a population of ~5.5M, that is 2,000 USD per capita.
I mean, Plato argued for governance by philosopher-kings, not too different from the Confucian conception of governance.
What's more interesting to me is the skeptical attitude toward omens and the notion of heavenly will. That sounds really remarkably modern, and not at all what I'd expect from someone writing during the third century BCE.
The desktop client is basically a web app, little different from running it in the browser. As for the app, I have been pretty unimpressed by it; performance is sluggish, and emails are displayed poorly (lots of unreadably small fonts with no options for text resizing). Worst of all, development seems to be either inactive, or so slow as to be undetectable.
I paid for Tutanota and started switching to it from Gmail, but the accumulation of inconveniences is starting to make me consider switching back, in spite of all the Google privacy issues.
From Fig. 2, it looks like the "hazard ratio" is minimized at a total cholesterol level of around 230 mg/dL, with both higher and lower total cholesterol levels associated with higher mortality. However, medical advice (see e.g. Cleveland Clinic page below) routinely asserts 200 mg/dL as the maximum for the normal range, with 230 mg/dL being "borderline high" and approaching the "high" band.
In the discussion section of the paper, the authors write:
"The current cholesterol guidelines are heavily based on heart disease risk and recommend a TC range of <200 mg/dL as desirable. TC range <200 mg/dL, however, may not be necessarily a sign of good health when other diseases are considered. The diseases associated with lower TC levels and potential mechanisms have not been conclusively identified."
This doesn't mean you should increase your cholesterol.
Low cholesterol (hypocholesterolemia) is commonly observed in critically ill patients. This could be driving the correlation and doesn't mean that if you lower your cholesterol you will increase your risk of dying.
So the data is interesting and speaks for itself, but of course, let's ask the ancillary but potentially relevant questions: why sci rep? Why isn't this in a higher impact journal? Is sci rep even read in medicine?
Scientific reports is read in many places, including in medicine.
Regarding your 'low-impact' comment I have a few thoughts.
1. Although this is a large study, they do not find any world shocking new insights that are otherwise found in other studies. Cholesterol phenotypes are very well studied. Changing a guideline is usually not done based on a study of a single population.
2. They do not account for medication usage which confounds results.
3. They do not find a causal relationship between cholesterol and mortality, only provide an association.
