This is a key point in the article. The researchers (original) did not want to throw out the data that doesn't "seem random", this group argues in favour of doing so.
> so that if another person is shown your sequence of digits from 1 to 6, he/she should not be able to tell whether these numbers were produced by a real die or just "made up" by somebody
This explanation leads me to think that the decision of what is random in the study is based on human perceptions of randomness, not actual statistical randomness. Although any sequence is equally (un)likely to be rolled, 1111111111 would stand out from the other sequences much more than 3156263441.
No, they're just saying that no person who was following the instructions would produce a sequence of all heads or all tails as a "random" sequence, so they're throwing out those two specific sequences.
Look at the graph of responses. There are a few clear clusters and lines outside of the main, statistically random cluster. Those other ones can be dropped.
1. The quote says "diagnoses of autism" not "diagnoses of severe autism" so if the definition of autism has expanded over time due to improvements in our understanding of autism (which it has) the diagnosis argument is far more effective.
2. It is easier for children of poorer people to get an autism diagnosis now than it was 50 years ago, so even severe cases might not have shown up in the stats if the child was born to a poor family.
I meant it could explain some of it, but not the full 16x times.
I am talking under the presumption that researchers today are aware are correcting for that fact that there is some selection bias (if that's what I can called) in stats.
edit After consideration and with regret, I am not that comfortable having political views represented so openly in a very public space. Not a retraction of my position but the issue of permanence is a massive privacy concern for me over a subject this sensitive and contentious. Sorry if this breaks thread flow.
If you were to walk around Ottawa and ask random protestors whether they’re aware of the document and what it states, how many do you think would know? I’ve listened to quite a few interviews with them and have not heard one mention of this document. If the people protesting aren’t aware of it, then it isn’t significant.
I would venture to say almost none and that's exactly what bothers me about it. If they did know about it, do you think they would be comfortable realizing they're in the position of being a negotiating tool to achieve this political end?
I'm sure along with discovering this, it also gave you an explanation for the science of sweeping which is also super neat and to the casual observer, not a well understood part of the game. At the micro level, the abrasive texture of the brooms is melting pebble (not entirely, just temporarily along the sweeping path) and affecting distance, deceleration, curl.
Sorry, kinda nerding out over seeing a curling article on HN.
What's interesting is that several things can affect the sheet of ice and make sheets even within the same building behave differently. Often if sheets on the end of the building have an outside wall, you'll see the outside sheets behave different from the middle sheets of ice. The same thing can happen depending on how cold it is outside. It's grown more scientific in recent years, especially at the professional level.
Ice makers are indeed held to a challenging task and what you said is true - they're recognized across the club, on site, by basically every member and they more often get blame than praise for how the ice affects a game!
During one of the gold medal matches they were talking about how play is different because with only one game going on there were fewer people (aka heaters) in the building
I do not think that is entirely true - all my PCR tests have contained the name of the lab where the test was performed as well as the performing (or, in some cases), supervising physician.
That does not mean it is easy to verify test results, but it should be possible.
Not to challenge the overall idea too hard, but have you thought about what that really means, to say that? If you extend the IFR of, let's say, 1% to the entire population of (let's pick, for example, the US), would it be acceptable to just let 4,000,000 people die and take no mitigating procedures against that happening?
4 million, my mistake, squeezed an extra zero in there.
Probably depends on a number of factors. If you're 4 years old and the next year is 20% of your life and you may never have this level of social and intellectual plasticity again, you may be way better off being free to intermingle with people and learn to live life at the expense of more dead old people.
If you're old and vulnerable, but not near death, a year of reduced social exposure might be better for you.
Sadly the pandemic measures have forced us to sacrifice one for the other. I fear my toddler's development will always be just a little decayed due to masks during her early linguistic development and being shut in the house during shutdowns. But I also acknowledge some old folks may have been saved at her expense.
