HN user
This is much more than I would have guessed!
Considering how recent ~any level of EV mass manufacturing is v.s. the total stock and new purchases of ICE cars, a material dent seems rather impressive?
Why we always gotta be so cynical ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Their measurements (Figure 4) directly contradict this so they add another variable to their model ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Task performance & subjective rating don't change between the two groups.
The measurements are crude.
There's a lot of degrees of freedom in this study. Useful for others in the field, but a popular writeup deserves to go in the bin
Some good tips in here, I've find myself reaching for JSON/excel methods often.
Despite using it for years, I still haven't decided if pandas is poorly architected or if the clunkiness (for lack of better of term) is a result of the inherent difficulty of the tasks.
Which book, do you recall?
They're probably referring to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/
I think this is one symptom of a much greater issue: the inbred mice strains we use are disastrously weird (arising from the initial population artificially bred to make research easier). For the sake of controlling for genetics, we've chosen to make lab research translation drastically less effective.
There's many papers showing similar. (My personal favorite is https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw8412 where they removed the claimed target for various cancer therapies and many still worked)
If you've ever been within a mile of a research lab this shouldn't be remotely shocking. Typical research is done rapidly, sloppily, and in a context where getting the "right" answer is the only incentive.
The replication crisis that hit psych is only being held back by (IMO) that bio is harder to replicate due to tooling, protocols, reagents, cell lines, etc.
In complex systems you have the degrees of freedom to be wrong at a scale that folks still do not appreciate.
You captured the stochastic nature of building quite well - thanks for sharing : )
Important context is that all interventions that have assumed amyloid to be causal for Alzheimer's have failed to show material clinical improvement.
So the bar is really much higher than "did remove plaque" and the prior should be this wasn't going to improve clinical response. The fact that it didn't and was still approved is a complete abdication of what the FDA preaches. It's rare to see a uniform response from those that report on drug dev. but it has been unequivocal - the FDA needs to get its shit together.
I, personally, have little hope for that.
Thanks for the detailed reply! Can you drop some names of content creators you enjoy as a starting point?
Where does the fancy houseplant community hangout on the internet? I’m intrigued
What a weird story that keeps getting weirder.
I am a data scientist who spent June in Tallahassee helping coordinate state-wide COVID testing with FDEM (Florida Department of Emergency Management) and state health officials.
Everyone I worked with was pretty dedicated to getting the roll out right (including the governor and his appointees too..)
My data & work was spread far and wide with no issue - but just a personal anecdote