To take your fair coin example, publication bias is when the only studies that get published are the ones that show an unfairness in the coin – the rest of the studies that simply find 50% heads and 50% tails (aka a fair coin) don't get published because they're not interesting.
Fraud requires intent. Now, this extreme of bias would typically require said intent, sure. But let's say the experimenter has anterograde amnesia.
They get an idea, flip a coin - oh hey, it's heads! They publish the interesting result. They get an idea, flip a coin - oh, it was tails, nevermind that theory. They get an idea... each time, they don't remember that they've already attempted the theory. No intent, no fraud, just bias.
The good news is this is a pretty unlikely extreme in an individual. Anterograde amnesia is rare. The bad news is nobody can remember that someone else attempted a theory and came up with a negative result that they didn't bother to publish, and even individuals will have a hard time perfectly accounting for and preventing their own bias within a single study. The even worse news is that fraud exists as well.
This doesn't seem very feasible given the current level of privacy afforded to companies.
I don't think there's a way to distinguish between studies that have lost funding because there are genuinely less funds to go around, and foo experiment just happened to be one of the ones that didn't make the cut, and studies that have had the funding pulled for harmful reasons (Like negative results).
Mainly because it's devilishly easy to mask; you'd just reduce funding to research and redistribute it into something plausible like marketing. Of course this isn't feasible for lots of studies producing negative results.
Of course, one way to counter that is to insist that the data is published regardless, but I'm sure that the data could be hidden with clever use of NDAs and court arguments along the lines of "We need to prohibit the distribution of company assets".
> Of course, one way to counter that is to insist that the data is published regardless, but I'm sure that the data could be hidden with clever use of NDAs and court arguments along the lines of "We need to prohibit the distribution of company assets".
I find myself more and more treating complexity as a proxy for dishonesty. Companies that are trustworthy seem to have a relatively simple business model that they don't try to hide. The more convoluted it is, the more likely it is someone is scamming you. Wonder if that could be used as an effective metric - the more complex the reason someone weasels away from publishing the data, the more their "reputability" score goes down?
What about starting by implementing these measures in public universities? That seems very feasible, and could have a snowball effect on how studies are broadly analyzed and perceived.
Someone who majored in liberal arts but is able to themselves to code is likely to be an intelligent and motivated individual. I suspect that more readily explains the successes of these individuals than their liberal arts studies.
It's also my personal observation that someone's college major has no bearing on their ability to think critically.
Yeah, there's a lot of selection bias with this sort of thing. The average computer science graduate is probably going to go on to become a software engineer or otherwise work in tech in some way. This means that you will meet all of the average CS graduates every day. The average liberal arts major will not go on to be a software engineer. The only liberal arts major software engineers you will meet are the ones who are interested enough in programming to bother learning it and talented enough to become proficient in two mostly unrelated fields.
I do think there's a lot of value in studying non-technical, potentially useless, even esoteric things, but this argument is not extraordinarily convincing.
This. Most people with liberal arts degrees don't have pre-existing knowledge of/interest in all things tech/programming. The people on here who say they have graduate degrees in history, etc aren't even remotely the average LA degree holder. Without a lot of extra studying/bootcamps/programming since you were 12/post bacc certs/second BS degrees in computer science, a plain old average liberal arts degree I'd wager is much, much less valuable than a BS in CS.
In the course I took, the program would call home whenever it exploded and deduct points from your grade on the assignment. So naturally I just went in with hexedit and deleted that particular call to that function in explode_bomb.
> During the Iraq war, reporters informed us that a mob of jubilant Iraqis toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square. Never mind that there were so few local people trying to pull the statue down that they needed the help of a U.S. military crane.
I'm 90% certain I watched this live at home in the morning when I was home sick from school. There were a smattering of people trying to bring it down and then the crowd got bigger and then the U.S. crane came in and helped. This happened over the course of an hour or two. I remember thinking it was cool that U.S. military helped out.
Where does this claim of the false narrative come in?
Even the idea that Iraqis tried to topple the statue at all (and then the US "helped") is highly controversial. (That's how CNN portrayed it at the time.)
If you look how the image is framed (especially in the Fox coverage) the framing cuts out or de-emphasizes the vehicle while emphasizing the (quite small) Iraqi crowd. The accompanying commentary is all about the crowd throwing stuff (they seem to be standing around, mostly). And the later coverage definitely emphasized the Iraqis pulling down the status with US help, not (say) the US pulling down the statue while Iraqi's mostly watched.
--
it was an unnamed Marine colonel, not Iraqi civilians who had decided to topple the statue; and that a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team then used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist and made it all appear spontaneous and Iraqi-inspired
--
The propaganda machine around this event is disgusting.
Take down Saddam's stature by all means, but do not fake it, especially to your own electorate.
I don't remember 100% clearly but I think photos published of the event were carefully framed to make it look like a huge crowd of Iraqis and few if any Americans
1. Some sort of backend DB integration. It's very hard to figure out how people are interacting with NodeJS databases other than MongoDB these days, frontend alone isn't the issue. Sequelize + postgres for example would be great to get an app up and running I expect, including things like connection pooling. (Bookshelf seems okay too, but I don't like it purely because it seems to automatically infer attributes from the database, which makes coding harder as you'll need to hit the REPL or schema to know what's coming out). In addition, webpack is easy to get running. Making it sane from a module size perspective (dead code elimination...etc) is harder.
2. Test coverage. Unit + integration. There's a million test runners, mock frameworks, etc etc out there. It's not trivial to get something you know is sane working (more so from integration side). Not to mention new-style imports entirely break most frameworks like rewire in my experience, so I wouldn't encourage their usage.
And, well, for me I KNOW those answers for python (I haven't done that much nodejs backend work since ~2013. I've used the node ecosystem exclusively for frontend since, a lot), so it's a lot more simple for me to get started.
The model I was shooting for was having your API be an independent HTTP rest service (whatever framework/language you want) with the nodejs server consuming it to render the initial view and then the client also consuming it in order to carry on with execution.
Martyjs (and the marry-express module) makes this very easy to do in that you can write your application without having to consider the context in which it is running (server or client).
I think the backend DB integration is a separate concern from how to build isomorphic js apps.
In terms of test coverage I don't have much experience testing js apps so I can't speak to the pain points there.
Yeah, I think that's a reasonable model where it will make sense since the client/backend can actually be more or less identical, since they'd both just be consuming REST.
But that's a pretty painful way to start a project as well. /shrug
I watched the video twice and I can't figure out what the purpose of this is.
The copy on the website suggests it's a mine clearing device but it doesn't seem you can use these to methodically clear a tract of land in order to 'reclaim' it - the paths that these things take are subject to winds and the terrain. Also there's the issue of retrieving the device to repair it and then if you can't retrieve it, there's the issue of these things littering their debris everywhere.
Then at the end of the video he says that it's a tool for local peoples to "cheaply survey the danger in their own environment". This makes more sense. If rolling this thing over a piece of land causes a detonation then you know the area around the detonation is likely to contain more mines so you can avoid that area.
Maybe someone with more insight or a better understanding can chime in.
Most of what the device is 'supposed' to be doing is quite clear from watching the video. But leaving the wind to decide which path to take and clear in a given environment won't allow the people in affected areas to solve the problem methodically.
At least the iteration of the device presented on the website and in the video does not solve how it can be deliberately moved across a certain area, hauled back in and moved across a neighboring strip of affected land.
This looks more like an art project to me at the moment. I be believe a device fashioned in a similar vein could actually be quite helpful.
Huh and yet here, as per your links, we have mainstream media reporting on it.
Have those journalists been subjected to 'extreme retaliation'?
Perhaps we don't hear about it frequently not because there is a conspiracy among 'Israeli supporters' (we all know what you mean bro!) but because the issue is not so pressing or widespread as you would have us believe?
I don't see anything at all in your comment that doesn't contribute to the discussion. The fact that you are downvoted on HN for just for stating an uncommon opinion is disgusting and extremely disappointing.
The current top post in this thread makes some claims that are disputed. It is possible to vigorously dispute those claims without having to accuse the poster of being an anti-Semite.
If you're asking why those posts are being down-voted: I can't tell you. There probably are Jew-haters who downvote anything pro-Israeli; I'd be surprised if there were enough of them to counter the corrective upvotes.
But the post you responded to accuses anyone who makes a post that is not fully in support of everything that Israel does as an anti-Semite. That's a poisonous tactic; it's one reason why political discussion is strongly recommended against on HN and I stand by my claim that it is why that individual post was down-voted.
Here are two pro-Israeli posts that are not currently downvoted...
> A basic assumption with drones is they are great because the US has them
Are you advocating for some sort of 'red line' on the use of drones much like on the use of chemical weapons so that the use of such weapons anywhere in any context would incur reprisals from the international community.
That's really the only thing I can think of that would make this make your statement relevant. Regardless of what people in the US think of the legitimacy of using drones, unaligned parties will use them if they can.
Both of those would mean that Rice's appointment to Dropbox's board is no big deal, but neither one is compatible with their statement that she "fully supports our commitments".
It is a big deal, just not from your perspective because you're solely focused on data privacy.
The statement is meant to address the data privacy concerns raised about her appointment. This doesn't mean the concerns are valid, just that they exist and Dropbox is aware of them. The alternative would be to not address the concerns and look completely out of touch with or intentionally ignoring the frenzy of the past few days.
I have no idea how that's supposed to relate to my statement.
I'm just saying that their statement (not the appointment, but what they said right here) is completely at odds with the notion that they care about the privacy of their users.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not focused on data privacy, I'm merely noting that this statement appears to either contradict the facts at hand or be an implicit admission that they don't care about data privacy.
Oh ok. I think you're saying that because you think that Rice believes [something bad with respect to data privacy], by Dropbox saying that she's fully supportive of their commitments Dropbox must also believe in [something bad with respect to data privacy].
So I guess that comes down to what Rice's exact views are.
Personally, I doubt she's completely against the idea of data privacy in all cases and thus it's possible that Dropbox's existing views and policies on data privacy are compatible with hers.
And anyway, I doubt that Dropbox could or would stop responding to FISA requests or warrants regardless of who's on the board considering that they operate in the US.
Rice's exact views don't seem too difficult to figure out. She spoke publicly in favor of warrantless surveillance of US citizens. It's possible that she's subsequently changed her mind, which is why I included that possibility as point #1 above.
FISA requests and warrants aren't really at issue here. Warrants are exactly how this stuff is supposed to be done. FISA requests are pretty much just an odd form of warrant, and any opposition to them comes down to thinking they shouldn't be issued, not that they shouldn't be obeyed. The issue at hand is warrantless surveillance. Does Dropbox hand over user data to the government without a warrant? If not, given that Rice is in favor of such things and Dropbox says she fully supports their commitments, there is a contradiction somewhere.
To take your fair coin example, publication bias is when the only studies that get published are the ones that show an unfairness in the coin – the rest of the studies that simply find 50% heads and 50% tails (aka a fair coin) don't get published because they're not interesting.