This rubs me the wrong way. Resource renaming is a high level concept, which was one of the features of OpenGL that all the modern APIs have successfully dropped. A modern low level GPU API should not do that.
The placebo effect is measurable. If there is no measurable improvement, there's no placebo effect either.
Bear in mind that what most claims in favour of the polygraph measure is not truth but potentially-false confession. Extracting false confessions is relatively easy, it's also completely f-ing useless to wider society and massively harmful to the victim.
You're assuming truth is the goal, which isn't correct. The goal of police is to close cases, and in this goal, polygraphs are quite effective.
They don't care if you actually did the crime, they care that they can extract a confession, or provide damning evidence to a prosecutor that lets them throw you in prison, so they can put a nice big checkmark on that case. Did they actually jail who was responsible? Maybe not, but who cares about that, apart from you?
Same reason for Forensics to exist. Don't misunderstand, some Forensic science has validity in many cases, but a lot of it is just straight up nonsense that isn't proven or peer-reviewed in the slightest, in fact many Forensic sciences that appear in modern court cases are completely, 100% debunked.
And like, why should they care? Even if you hire a crack lawyer team that gets you out of the court case, it's not like anyone involved in the investigation that almost threw an innocent man in jail is going to suffer an ounce of consequences. Or hell, even if you're wrongly convicted, worst case scenario you get a financial judgement after years of litigation, that's paid for by the taxpayers.
I see no issues with using polygraphs for hiring at intelligence agencies (I defer back to the comment about people missing the point of it), but as an investigative tool it's definitely a net negative.
The problem is that the polygraph doesn't work on both levels. Obviously, it doesn't detect lies. But more to the point, it also doesn't extract useful information from most liars, and leads to fake confessions.
To stay in your metaphor:
- Not only do sugar pills not cure tumors, but imagine
- 60% of recipients don't report decreased pain levels (no placebo effect)
- 20% of recipients feel more pain
The placebo effect itself isn't real (at least in the vast majority of cases where it has been claimed to exist), when people measure a "placebo effect" what they are actually measuring is simply a regression toward the mean, not a causal effect.
I don't think this is right. Placebo effect definitely exists for conditions that are largely influenced by mental perception. The common example is pain. You can reduce people's perception of pain by deploying the placebo effect, e.g. giving them sugar pills that you convince them will reduce their pain. It extends to other similar conditions which are not generally (or possible to be) measured directly, but rather based on a patient's self-reported scoring. Like "on on a scale of 1-10 how would you rate your experience of this condition". Placebo effect can work for that. But not for other more tangible conditions.
Not only does a placebo reduce pain, naloxone will reverse the pain reduction just like it would if you'd given them morphone instead. Placebo effect isn't simple psychosomatic, rather something real and physical is going on inside the human body.
In my mid 20s I tried antidepressants for the first time. To me it was a big step because like many, I had a false perception of it having an unnatural effect on my personality, but I was finally ready to try them. The doctor said they will take at least 2 weeks to have any effect, and despite knowing that AND knowing about the placebo effect, I still "felt better" for several days after I started the regimen. To me, that was absolutely proof of the placebo effect, especially because after the 2 week window the effect was a backfire where I was in bed for a day and couldn't do anything. The pills backfired on me.
A single data point like that should never be considered anything close to "absolute proof" of anything - because you have absolutely no way of knowing that, for whatever reason (random chance, or the food you were eating at the time, or a compliment somebody paid you on the day you started taking them, or....), you might have felt better on those first days even if you hadn't started taking antidepressants at all.
Correlation is not causation, as they say.
(Hope your depression is gone or at least not too bad now days, regardless of what drugs or placebos may have played a part!)
> The most important study on the placebo effect is Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche’s Is The Placebo Powerless?, updated three years later by a systematic review and seven years later with a Cochrane review. All three looked at studies comparing a real drug, a placebo drug, and no drug (by the third, over 200 such studies) – and, in general, found little benefit of the placebo drug over no drug at all. There were some possible minor placebo effects in a few isolated conditions – mostly pain – but overall H&G concluded that the placebo effect was clinically insignificant. Despite a few half-hearted tries, no one has been able to produce much evidence they’re wrong. This is kind of surprising, since everyone has been obsessing over placebos and saying they’re super-important for the past fifty years.
The words "clinically significant" and "benefit" are not the same thing as the effect being real. To me it reads as if they are testing the hypothesis that a patient comes into ER with a sprained ankle and the doctor gives them this "new powerful prescription pain pill that just came out" and instead tricks them with a sugar pill. If this worked, I'm sure it would be used as much as possible. And the study you linked is simply confirming that PE is not an effective treatment for anything.
That's not the topic at hand here, which is "is the PE real?". For me it absolutely is.
This is what you were replying to when you said "The placebo effect itself isn't real":
> while a sugar pill doesn't make a tumor disappear, it can be very good at pain management.
And now you go to this version:
> There were some possible minor placebo effects in a few isolated conditions – mostly pain
So is it real or not? We're just saying the same thing, what's the point of saying it doesn't exist and then revert back to exactly what was said originally?
In a small but measurable percent of cases, the sugar pill does actually make tumors
disappear though. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12509397/], and helps with almost every other factor of
care in much larger percentages of the time.
> Conclusion: In randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials, presumably with minimum sources of bias, placebos are sometimes associated with improved control of symptoms such as pain and appetite but rarely with positive tumor response. Substantial improvements in symptoms and quality of life are unlikely to be due to placebo effects.
A sugar pill does not make tumors disappear. That's not what the placebo effect does; it changes your perception of pain and well-being, but not much else. (Of course, that can have a value in itself, but it's nothing like the magical healing effects found in urban legends.)
In what sense? Pain is a complex emotion triggered by various simple sensations (very hot, very high pressure etc). But remember that people with certain kinds of brain damage can feel these same sensations, but not pain. To them these just don't register as painful. Other people feel pain in limbs that they no longer have, so not triggered by any sensation at all.
Also, even beyond medical issues, different people perceive pain very differently. Hot peppers are perhaps the clearest example of this, where people accustomed to them feel the same heat, but not the same pain as someone unaccustomed.
Pain is the mental reaction, not the whole process (of course, mental reactions are themselves physical processes, but that's a different discussion). When you take an opioid, the pain goes away, but the physical process that was previously causing it doesn't.
This is such a one sided dogmatic view of how the body works and heals that I honestly don't know where to start. I've seen enough evidence of bodies healing themselves just from changed minds. The truth is the synthesis of western scientific reasoning and eastern mysticism and holistic thinking. The problem was always blind faith, dogmatism, which is exactly what you're doing.
The point is not to extract truth, it's to extract behavior. It's the fact you can convince a judge or jury to take the evidence as evidence of truth that's a problem.
If the interviewee's behavior is not indicative of truth then the test serves no purpose other than allowing the interviewer or whoever commissioned the test (like a prosecutor or employer) to invalidly convince other people that the interviewee was lying
Not if you view the interview as a process to expose reasons to not eg hire someone rather than to establish a list of facts or earnest perspectives. Literally just putting the candidate under stress. For this to apply in court you'd have to be suing them for not hiring out of discrimination over a protected class (i think, I am not a lawyer).
I mean maybe there are other civil suits you could file, but I suspect a lot of that would be signed away before the polygraph.
What evidence do you have that there is no evidence?
For sure, you have:
- your opinion
- your knowledge (which is a subset of all that is known/"known", which is a subset of all that exists...though, it all typically seems other than this, such is culturally conditioned consciousness), have you something over and above this?
Saying "there is no evidence" is sloppy cable political TV tier rhetoric. There is absolutely evidence[1]. You and others may not find that evidence convincing, or otherwise think polygraphs shouldn't be used, but nevertheless it exists. A brief survey of the evidence suggests that the polygraph is probably slightly better than chance, but with high enough error bars that we should be very cautious about its use.
> Signal spokesperson Jun Harada wrote in an email: “Intel alerted us to this paper... and we were able to verify that the CPUs that Signal uses are not impacted by the findings of this paper and therefore are not vulnerable to the stated attack.”
Wikipedia uses a “文Ａ” icon; IMHO far better than a flag. What flag would you expect to see?
As for finding the language in the menu, listening a language in the foreign language seems like bad design too. The menu should list “English” as an option!
I personally had no idea that icon let you change the language of articles (a concept I explicitly looked for before).
Still confused at what the icon is actually supposed to mean.
Wikipedia's UI has perhaps been over-optimized over time, by people already too familiar with said UI, and so has lost the natural context cues for learnability. (Similar to what happened to modern smartphone UIs re: secondary-interaction gestures.)
Here's how the same chooser looks on Wiktionary — which is also how it used to look on Wikipedia, back when Wikipedia used the full default MediaWiki sidebar: https://oshi.at/HhVH/zhWZ.png
You've got a subsection header "In other languages"; and under it, a list of links titled with the names of languages. (This reads as: these are a set of popular suggested alternative language views of this page, and clicking these links will take you directly to the page in those languages.) And at the end of this list, aligned as the final list item, there's a button with a weird icon with the text "51 more" on it. (And this reads as: clicking here will expand some flyout menu or modal, which will allow you to see you the rest of the list of language options, and perhaps search within them.)
In that context, you don't really have to understand the meaning of the icon to know what to do; rather, the interaction of changing language is directed by the rest of the design, and going through it teaches you the meaning of the icon. Which allows you to later understand its use elsewhere in the site's design.
The popular reason is likely because 文 is used across East Asia in Chinese and Japanese (Korean and Vietnamese too, though written differently)[0], with the ideograph standing in as a sufficiently different contrast to the Latin alphabet, and as a reference to a major non-latin-alphabet based user market, while being simple enough to render (compared to something more "difficult"[1] like 语/語)
It's also been used in the Google Translate logo as well.
[1] Not only because of Simplified/Traditional/Japanese renderings (文 is mostly the same across all three), but more strokes for a small icon is a bad idea regardless
But I don’t know Chinese so I don’t know that is an arbitrary Chinese character with the Latin A for contrast. I’ve seen languages that don’t use the Latin alphabet occasionally intersperse Latin letters before so until I was told just now I assumed that this Chinese character with A had some significance in Chinese.
Visiting the Netherlands right now and every time I visit local.google.com, it reverts back to Dutch. I had no idea what the symbol on its own and only figured it out when searching how to get things back to English and seeing the symbol used in that specific context.
The 文 also appears in the Google Translate icon on iOS [0], which is why I always attributed it to a machine translation, not a version of the article written in another language by a human.
Salesforce translates (or did when I last used it) all the language and time zone options. If you switched to Japanese by accident, switching back was a bit of a challenge.
I have also seen this icon on google translate, used to denote text. I wonder who came up with it first. Any time I've seen it, I have immediately guessed what it meant.
If you had an appreciation for emissions technology and policy you would be able to see how it has swung past the point of it's intended purpose. People are dismantling new engines to find all kinds of issues that will severely limit the useful life of the vehicle and/or cost the consumer a ridiculous amount of money in repair or replacement costs.
The lengths to which manufacturers have gone to "hit the numbers" has resulted in these major deficiencies. This has all formed out in the last decade. Previous to that, a lot of the emissions standards had a positive affect (in most cases).
The automotive manufacturers and the regulators are colluding without enough transparency and it has corrupted the process.
Much likely not, and that's a good thing, because nobody has yet found a way to limit emissions without seriously impacting performance (especially concerning responsiveness and low regime). May be damned them who invented drive-by-wire!
Irene also wasn't involved in me removing srid's attempted brigading or it being the last straw for his ban.
The author of this article doesn't seem particularly interested in checking facts, they implied some nasty stuff about my actions and motivation without bothering to read the publicly available info or contact me.
I'm not sure if you realize that people aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are, and they are getting tired of this ridiculous rhetoric, and in this particular case, it is quite provable that you are lying.
We know the game well, pretend you are legitimate at all costs, whether you are telling the truth or not. Well guess what? That doesn't inspire anyone to do anything, and only inflates your ego.
You know what does inspire folks? Being honest, even when you don't have to be. This is about more than just the BS unsubstantiated claim that Srid is somehow a "dangerous person" as so often is dubiously suggested, this is about folks being tired of this garbage already. It is quite ironic, in my view, that the only "crime" srid is commiting is being a part of a different culture. I thought we were all about inclusivity? What happened to that?
Tell the truth, or stfu so those that do can speak, I leave it in your hands. Please and thank you.
There was no attempted brigading. All srid did was post about a tutorial written on nixos.asia, I don’t see any problem in that. I was involved in the thread and it was hexa who posted an off-topic message in the thread. If anyone was in the wrong here, it was you and hexa.
Nowhere in the ban log you mentioned "attempted brigading"; rather what you mentioned, as reasons for the ban, was "lots of off-topic stories" & "[using] Lobsters to fight with the NixOS project".
Readers can’t judge for themselves because 23 of your comments and 21 of your stories were removed, mostly for abuse. (For context, less than 0.5% of commenters or submitters ever have a single removal.) You received several warnings about picking fights and you’re understandably focused on your fight with Nix but it only happened to be the last one you tried to start on Lobsters. There’s a pattern in your actions that’s why you keep getting rejected by technical communities, and it’s going to keep happening as long as you imagine a conspiracy or political motivation instead of looking at the pattern and taking responsibility for your behavior.
> [your fight with Nix] only happened to be the last one you tried to start on Lobsters.
For example, readers can easily verify that this statement is lie by going to that last submission and see that there was no fight (except Hexa himself fighting into the void):
So, once again, where is the evidence for your accusations?
(Incidentally, where you say "23 of your comments and 21 of your stories" -- a figure I can't confirm -- I'm sure none of those happened in the last few months or are related to Nix in anyway, as my involvement have exclusively been technical, ergo they are nothing to do with "[using] Lobsters to fight with the NixOS project", and if they were about "lots of off-topic stories" then I would have been banned long time ago.)
The comments are deleted so nobody can verify that it was "abuse". You're basically saying "source: trust me bro".
Back in the day, forums used to put a big fat USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST sticker on bad posts, but keep it around for posterity so people could see for themselves what the fuss was about. I don't like the secrecy of how moderation is done nowadays.
A explanation is visible to users on each comment and story, mod actions show up in a public log, and the site's source is available for any remaining questions on how things happened. There are users who store everything as it comes in via RSS or mailing list mode and call out mod mistakes as they see them. More broadly, modern moderation systems have evolved in response to the failures of the systems you describe. It's not about secrecy or power, it's about how leaving up abuse had a lot of bad effects that contributed significantly to the decline of platforms like Usenet.
>A explanation is visible to users on each comment and story, mod actions show up in a public log, and the site's source is available for any remaining questions on how things happened. There are users who store everything as it comes in via RSS or mailing list mode and call out mod mistakes as they see them.
None of that means anything if I can't see for myself what the purported infraction was. The most important piece of the puzzle is missing! "It's in the RSS feed" -- oh that's so helpful, I'll be sure to look for that in the locked filing cabinet in the disused lavatory, the one with the sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".
It's a hallmark of a free and democratic society that criminal and civil proceedings are generally public, when someone is punished, we can easily look up what they were punished for. Obviously software forum arguments aren't as important or dramatic as legal disputes, but we imitate in the small what we admire in the large. It is disturbing to me that one side of this culture war calls itself "democratic", but acts like a Star Chamber.
reply