COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 196

starting strength gym
Page 196 of 2376 FirstFirst ... 961461861941951961971982062462966961196 ... LastLast
Results 1,951 to 1,960 of 23756

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #1951
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    493

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Noah Ebner View Post
    I see you haven't spent much time at any institutions of higher learning, so let me explain how funding works: individual academic departments do not get an unlimited budget to hire as many professors as they want. Obviously, that would be a terrible idea. Funding for hiring new faculty and opening up new positions is made at the division level. The school of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford has 50 departments. The department of statistics is already bloated with nearly 20 tenured faculty at least as many adjuncts and auxiliary appointments. No dean that wants to stay a dean would approve anymore hiring for a department of that size, that has more faculty than graduate students.

    And please, before you embarrass yourself any further, look me up in your favorite academic database before you question my knowledge of Statistics. You may want to start by having a look at the bootstrap regression analysis I did with Rob Wallace a decade ago for the FAO and WHO, where we modeled the diffusion of avian influenza. What more can I tell you about modern Statistical Epidemiology, since, you know, I have a master's degree in the subject and you're clearly in over your head...
    I am not talking about hiring. I am talking about the fact that, of 17 authors on the Stanford paper, not one has background in mathematical statistics. This is why they made mathematical errors while applying the delta method. There are, in fact, many serious mathematical statisticians working on COVID-19.

    Noah, you are a professor of geography at a community college. You have used the bootstrap (an old computational tool which requires even less mathematical background than the delta method), on a paper which everyone here would consider a junk model. It is fine for you to impugn your own work - there are indeed many dumb applications of statistics.

    Do not tar well-designed serological studies, and certainly not the entire field of statistics/ML, with the same brush. These studies can be conducted properly. Furthermore, machine learning and statistics are now the primary consumer and impetus for many rich areas of applied mathematics. It's a shame you can't appreciate that.

    Returning to the initial reason for my concern: I hope political bias is not dissuading researchers from working on these serological studies.

    Stanford will soon be releasing a couple more of these studies. We'll see how their methods (and authors) evolve.

  2. #1952
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Yucaipa
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    You have used the bootstrap (an old computational tool which requires even less mathematical background than the delta method), on a paper which everyone here would consider a junk model. It is fine for you to impugn your own work - there are indeed many dumb applications of statistics.
    Here's what's shockingly lost on you: I agree completely with the above statement. The FAO/WHO flew Rob and I to Rome to present them a whole bunch of bullshit dressed up in some fancy-looking equations. This is what the FAO/WHO/CDC does--they pay for trash because they have zero actual mathematical knowledge and so are consequently impressed by the smoke and mirrors of the greek alphabet mixed in with numbers. This has been my whole point the entire time--the so called 'experts', mathematical or otherwise, don't know poo-poo about pee-pee yet you go marshalling their analysis around as if it were The Truth.

    FWIW, machine learning was in its infancy in 2011 when we did that research, so we were using the best tools at our disposal (itself an indictment of the always behind-the-curve nature of Statistics as a discipline).

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva Kaul View Post
    These studies can be conducted properly.
    Another truism with which only an idiot would disagree. The part that's lost on you is, again, glaringly indicate of your blind spots as a thinker: a well-designed ML/AI/Statistical experiment, at best, will tell us remarkably little about serology, epidemiology, economics, or any other application you wish to apply it to. See, e.g., every single model ever presented about the threat of SARS-COV-2.

  3. #1953
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Woodside, CA (aka The San Francisco Bay Area or as I like to call it, the belly of the beast)
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy Rich View Post
    Comrade deBlasio Introduces New York City Snitching Program – Take a Photo of Non-Compliant Behavior…and save lives.

    Comrade deBlasio Introduces New York City Snitching Program – Take a Photo of Non-Compliant Behavior… – The Last Refuge
    Proving the de Blasio doesn't give a shit about actual crimes being committed he only cares that people are violating his edicts.

  4. #1954
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,554

    Default

    He's been elected twice, by large margins. Proving they have no problem with the guy. Let them enjoy his decisions.

  5. #1955
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coldfire View Post
    Let me see if I understand this correctly. Only people you consider to be experts are allowed to make arguments, and the rest are wrong just because you don't like their academic background?
    You clearly don't understand correctly. If I am going to reference something I would reference someone who has some actual knowledge in the field. I have written many papers in my life and had many students submit papers to me as well. There is a reason why the reference/works cited page is not full of a bunch of random google/youtube links. If you are basing your arguments from nonsense, propaganda websites, and random internet blogs are you going to claim to be informed regarding the conclusions you have drawn?

  6. #1956
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Murphysboro, IL
    Posts
    30,924

    Default

    NY and CA are prime examples of when morons elect fascists. Which is particularly apropos when you think of names like De Blasio, Cuomo, and the daddy of fascism, Mussolini.

  7. #1957
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Yes, it seems to be. The continually rising debt was not a feature of capitalism, but of a lack of term limits on the politicians that did federal budgets.
    I didn't say it was a feature, more like a bug. Maybe one of those bugs that are really features.

  8. #1958
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    I am not an expert on American demographic structure, but I doubt there has been sufficient immigration from socialist countries to make a huge difference. It's just demographics and markets. Even the indoctrination bit has to do with these two factors. Really, combine Marx and the American conservatives, and you get a really clear picture of how decision making is structured. You seem versed on the conservative point, I guess you just gotta read you some Marx. Consumption driven free market capitalism seems to be on its way out, like it or not. It's not a bad system, but it failed to account for continually rising debt, which made it too volatile for most people's tastes. Whether the new thing, call it what you will, socialism 2.0, welfare capitalism, whatever, turns out to be better or worse is questionable. Human societies do seem to have an upwards trajectory in living standards as time goes by, but the next decade or so is gonna piss a lot of people off.
    The term "Socialist country" is being applied loosely. In the past two generations, the U.S. population has doubled. The increase was almost completely due to immigration, the vast majority of which was from South America, China, India. Most of the South American countries over that time have vacillated between dictatorship, drug state and socialism or some combination of it. The people from these areas, especially the poor who have been immigrating, tend to have strong socialist leanings and some resentment of the established culture in the US (from mexican-american war, Iran contra, soviet influence, drug wars, perceived racism etc.) California is a good example of the effects; It was a solidly conservative state that produced presidents like Nixon and Reagan. I know it is not politically correct and people are attacked for recognizing this, but we shouldn't be afraid to evaluate it: In the 1960's, the minority population was around 10%-15% in CA. Two generations later, 65%+ is "minority". Voting preferences along racial lines support this conjecture: Currently, white voters cast republican ballots at almost a 60% rate in CA, while other races vote democrat about 65% of the time. California would still be a republican state without the demographic change. The country as a whole has followed the same trend. Previous waves of immigrants were expected to do their best to assimilate and become American, however multiculturalism and resistance against assimilation has been the advocated model recently.

    Although my opinions of Marx have not changed, I have been reading him the past couple of weeks. I do agree that we will likely see "socialism 2.0" or whatever it is. An area I disagree with is the 10 year time frame. For a moderately wealthy country, I think it could last 10 years. For the wealthiest countries per capita, I think it could last 50 years before the general rise in standard of living comes close to matching the decline due to the new system.

  9. #1959
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    East Haddam, Connecticut
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dsquared1969 View Post
    Proving the de Blasio doesn't give a shit about actual crimes being committed he only cares that people are violating his edicts.
    God, these government "snitching programs" being implemented by these petty tyrants are perhaps the most vile thing to come out of this mess.

  10. #1960
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    572

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by BrunoLawerence View Post
    If I am going to reference something I would reference someone who has some actual knowledge in the field.
    This is once again ignoring the arguments presented by that someone and an appeal to authority.

    I have written many papers in my life and had many students submit papers to me as well. There is a reason why the reference/works cited page is not full of a bunch of random google/youtube links. If you are basing your arguments from nonsense, propaganda websites, and random internet blogs are you going to claim to be informed regarding the conclusions you have drawn?
    Yes, when you write a paper you refer to other works that prove the facts you are using. You do not refer to a person who is an expert in the field, you refer to the arguments presented in his work.

    It's fine if you want to ignore someone because you don't like his credentials, just don't use that to dismiss his claims. I hope the difference is clear.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •