babblingdweeb

[flagged]

Trust in the numbers is extremely important and we should all be calling out that we need to trust the numbers and the methodology. It should also be transparent.

However, it's extremely common in forecasting to revise the forecast once actuals come in. In the case of the BLS, it's the documented approach for a very long time.

Every month the numbers are adjusted and annually. All of the notes as to why, the method, etc are in the actual reports*.

*I don't recommend reading them or the footnotes unless you have insomnia. :)

** Also, if the source data is inaccurate, corrupted, etc; if the models are non-transparently adjusted, that would be horrible and cause for alarm. At the moment, we don't know if that is the case. Yet.

(reposting a version of my comment somewhere below)

The BLS (USA) does adjust the numbers every month (for two months after the initial release) and annually. Regardless if the numbers go up or down, this is fairly common with statistics and forecasting in general. When actuals come in, the forecast is adjusted closer to reality.

Anecdotally: It gets lost in the mix of headlines when those adjustments show that the initial projections were on trend, or "close enough the talking heads don't care enough". However, it gets "interesting" when it's off-trend; or confirms prior notable good/bad news. In this case, it confirms* what was suspected, mostly confirms what was reported. As actuals came in, the reality was worse than projected.

*"Confirms" use case here: job growth is poop right now.

Regardless of which administration is in place, the BLS (USA) does adjust the numbers every month (for two months after the initial release) and annually. This is fairly common with statistics and forecasting in general.

Regardless if the numbers go up or down, regardless of the administration.

So, yes...the last administration did the same thing, and the administration before that, etc.

I was just talking to younger coworkers about this recently. Mid-90s to early 2000s: FORTRAN, COBOL, C, and C++ classes all had handwritten code parts for homework, handouts, exams, etc. This wasn't just pseudocode, you had to have full syntax, variable declarations, correct spelling of functions, etc. You frequently had to show code optimization, debugging, etc even on paper. Wild times!!

* All of those classes also had lab time (some dedicated, similar to a chemistry class), info on how to get the IDE if you had $ access to a computer at home, and alternatives as well.

Personally, I see more value in pseudo code (written or typed) and sketch type diagrams (analog or digital) than handwriting code. However, it was WILD and amazing to watch the gray-hairs of those days debug your code on paper!

Similar for me. MacBook Air M1 (8 cpu / 8 gpu; 16 GB RAM)...running in or out of clamshell with a 5k monitor, I rarely notice issues. Typically, if I'm working very inefficiently (obnoxious amount of tabs with Safari and Chrome; mostly web apps, Slack, Zoom, Postman, and vscode), I'll notice a minor lag during a video call while screen sharing...even then, it still keeps up.

(Old Pentium Pro, PII, multi chip desktop days) -- When I did a different type of work, I would be in love with these new chips. I just don't throw as much at my computer anymore outside of things being RAM heavy.

The M1 (with 16 GB ram) is really an amazing chip. I'm with you, outside of a repair/replacement? I'm happy to wait for 120hz refresh, faster wifi, and longer battery life.

This is an odd hot-take for an active globally invasive and life altering virus.

That person has assessed their risk level and determined that their community's disregard for their personal risk, negatively impacts their personal model. Therefore they have to use a different device to mitigate their risk.

Seems pretty logical, matches with known science, with a minor exception that the half face respirator may not offer greater protection vs a well fitting* N95/KN95

* well-fitting being the crucial note there.

Just to hop on this, the standard is counter intuitive for rain probability. I'm annoyed, but also fascinated by how much it "makes sense" when I have read about it, but it also "makes no sense" when I just want to know: should I get my jacket? :)

Loose definition (with errors and assumptions, but helps some without getting into actual probability math):

If it says "30%" - many of us have heard "30% chance of showers". It is NOT "30% chance of showers"; it actually is "100% percent chance of rain, over 30% of the area, within a given time, of a particular amount of rain."

Which is STILL (to me), difficult for the average person to comprehend.

Copying and pasting from Weather.com (linked PDF - https://www.weather.gov/media/pah/WeatherEducation/pop.pdf)

PRECIPITATION PROBABILITY The probability of precipitation forecast is one of the most least understood elements of the weather forecast. The probability of precipitation has the following features: ..... The likelihood of occurrence of precipitation is stated as a percentage ..... A measurable amount is defined as 0.01" (one hundredth of an inch) or more (usually produces enough runoff for puddles to form) ..... The measurement is of liquid precipitation or the water equivalent of frozen precipitation ..... The probability is for a specified time period (i.e., today, this afternoon, tonight, Thursday) ..... The probability forecast is for any given point in the forecast area To summarize, the probability of precipitation is simply a statistical probability of 0.01" inch of more of precipitation at a given area in the given forecast area in the time period specified. Using a 40% probability of rain as an example, it does not mean (1) that 40% of the area will be covered by precipitation at given time in the given forecast area or (2) that you will be seeing precipitation 40% of the time in the given forecast area for the given forecast time period. Let's look at an example of what the probability does mean. If a forecast for a given county says that there is a 40% chance of rain this afternoon, then there is a 40% chance of rain at any point in the county from noon to 6 p.m. local time. This point probability of precipitation is predetermined and arrived at by the forecaster by multiplying two factors: Forecaster certainty that precipitation will form or move into the area X Areal coverage of precipitation that is expected (and then moving the decimal point two places to the left) Using this, here are two examples giving the same statistical result: (1) If the forecaster was 80% certain that rain would develop but only expected to cover 50% of the forecast area, then the forecast would read "a 40% chance of rain" for any given location. (2) If the forecaster expected a widespread area of precipitation with 100% coverage to approach, but he/she was only 40% certain that it would reach the forecast area, this would, as well, result in a "40% chance of rain" at any given location in the forecast area.

I have had problems with other non-Apple headphones (Bluetooth) as well as a headset with a dedicated dongle.

Removing the MX products completely solved the problems with every other Bluetooth device I have.

To add on here: Same issues. Then it started impacting other items I had.

In the beginning, I only had the MX (Mac Specific) mouse, and the problem did not happen very often. On occasion, but not too bad. After one of the OS updates, it was a non-stop issue. Disabling the auto switching (between Apple devices) helped a little.

Later, I also bought the MX Keys (Mac Specific) keyboard. I started having issues with a non-Apple headset on/off out of the blue. I could never use my AirPods with my laptop for anything other than listening to music. I tried everything from killing Bluetooth pref, to resetting my AirPods.

What finally solved it? I deleted all Logitech Devices from my laptop. Reset all Bluetooth settings. Re-paired my AirPods. I have not had a single problem in audio quality for 3 months now.

My Logitech devices are just sitting off to the side collecting dust now.

This is wonderful. I have been studying communities and food as a way to rebuild trust...this sums it all up nicely. I have been looking to start up a local "potluck" type idea --note: not my idea, many people do this already.

I just thought a little rough organizing might be nice.

To just add on here - voice control AND a stylus might be a nice combo (and another user below also mentioned this). I'm not an expert, been around tech for 30+ years...and I'm always fascinated with how people use it.

I have family that has issues with grip and/or circulation --which causes other issues with capacitive touch. I found a stylus (and a nice collection of inexpensive ones too) goes a LONG way towards helping. In my non-medical opinion, I believe decades of muscle memory holding a pen/pencil helps the elderly navigate. Their hand also doesn't get in the way of their view either.

Voice control is a really amazing addition, but it may be overwhelming to recall some or most of the controls. So I would start small. I found a lot of success working with older adults and tech while just starting with small wins.

Also mind conditioning: start your day asking what the weather is like. That helps get them to feel less "funny" when using it. It becomes more casual and less embarrassing.

I had an interesting experience when I was in high school, watching this happen to my parents with a comic they enjoyed. I forget the name of the series...but the story went like this:

In the 80s, it was just a daily life comic, Parents with young kids, more from the parents perspective. As their kids [comic] grew older, so did I and my siblings [real world]. The comic progressed to show when their kids had kids [comic ]--in the 90s. My parents were also grandparents at the time, and they would smile and giggle as they shared the Sunday comics.

Being old enough to witness those moments were really touching to me. Made me have an even deeper appreciation for a story that evolved, but also watching my parents grow and change --not just "grow older".

Thank you for sharing! I know this exact arc very well and have referenced it a few times in my life (sent to friends, talked about it, etc). Death is not usually an easy topic, so when this arc is relevant, but maybe not to death, I use it to discuss what is finite.

Personally, I found the the more I looked at concept of most/all things being finite, the more appreciation for those things, people, moments, food, jobs, projects, etc I have. I haven't become a mindful monk by any stretch, but it has both shaped and improved my outlook in many ways.

Correct! I forgot, there was a little nuance there. Thanks for posting that.

I cannot speak for other email providers, but my understanding for the past 10 years: this is a Google thing vs. Apple. Google both allows and ignores periods in emails. first.last@gmail.com is the SAME email address as firstlast@gmail.com you CANNOT log in with both accounts. If you created your account as first.last@gmail.com, you can only log in by using that email address.

For more information from Google on this topic: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7436150?hl=en

"If you're ever in doubt about reaching out and letting someone in need know that you're thinking about them, just do it. It is helpful."

This is really important and touching for all types of situations. I have been fortunate to be the recipient of messages like that, as well as the deliverer. The warmth I felt in both occasions was overwhelming. It seems so small, but those moments can really help people in massive ways --ways that can be hard to verbalize.

Example: I had a friend tell me years afterwards about their emotional struggles and how my note helped them through a difficult and dark time in their life. Similarly, I had some very difficult days where it was hard to cope with my grief (not a loss of life in my situation). A friend had sent me a card telling me how much I meant to so many people. On my hard days I would read the card over and over. Something small, helped me in a massive way.

Your statement is true, but leaves out some facts. The issue is that diamonds are not naturally rare, they are artificially rare. De Beers buys diamond mines to shut them down and only lets so much of the product on the market to inflate the price. Used gold vs. used diamonds also reflect the artificial pricing. De Beers is a cartel, trying to protect their cartel. The marketing scam of the last 50 years is showing cracks.

In my experience: They tend to be clearer, "brighter"(more white), and more "brilliant" (reflectivity) than natural diamonds. One of the best ways to tell? They reflect more of a distinct rainbow vs. natural diamond.

There are a few of these out there. https://cofounderslab.com is one. When they first came out I lived in Chicago and used their site a few times. Totally reminded me of Match meets LinkedIn.

(note: I have no affiliation with them)

The L0Pht crew produced some awesome tools as well. Anyone remember the Windows NT password decryption tool? You could do dictionary attacks or brute force (if you had the CPU power).

I still have old versions of their software on some Zip disks collecting dust somewhere :)

While I apprecaite your passion...I think there is one thing worth mentioning about generalpf's post: they stated how someone informed them of something they had not known, they are openly stating they realize they were wrong in their original assumption, and they are now spreading that same information to others in the hopes (I assume) of correcting others who might feel the same as they previously did.

When looking at any problem, social or otherwise, the newly informed that become champions are just as important to the very passionate and an entire movement. We don't need to say "Good job" every time someone turns around, but we don't need to beat them up either.

(edit) My apologies, looks like I commented off thread...this was in response to forgotten pass' comment.

RE: visit and/or getting a chance to sit in

Ditto on the added insight. It also produces a setting where you can ask different questions, on my mind right now are the ones that might have a historical reference. Meaning: was there some reason in the past that made you do things this way now?

Personally, I have seen interesting habits when people switch software and technologies, so they do things a "legacy" way that complicate their process.

Not that I want to advocate for NOT selling a final product, but I find people are sometimes just as happy if you can show them an alternate way of using their current tools. And other times, they end up giving you better feedback on what they really want vs what they think they want.

THIS. The problem lies with reporters lacking the basic econmic and statistical background to either report the news and/or challange others they are interviewing.

We are often surrounded by "armchair specialists" who know little about what they are talking about, yet carry large opinions about said topic. I'm all for constructive discourse, but that seems like a rare thing when talking about hot topics.

Outside of a "traditional" lab setting...I don't see a conversation about research on the "job" here.

I'm curious how some of you in a startup and non-startup handle employees doing research. I'll give a quick example and then propose a personal problem for those who want to skip my dribble. ;)

EXAMPLE: I've held various levels of IT positions at various companies. Great. At times, you need to do more than just read a quick article or blog post, you need to do some serious reading (and testing) if you are doing some major changes. At times, this reading was met with dirty looks or snide remarks from upper management, but I was lucky 90% of the time and my immediate boss would back me up. For clarification, I would also spend hours reading (and testing) at home.

I understand the thought of not paying someone in corporate to read, but at some point, I think it should be reasonable to allow employees to read on the job. How do you police it? That's a different conversation.

(unless you want to read personal dribble you can stop here)

Personal anecdote: in two different jobs I became the "go to" research person. In one instance, I stopped coding, but I kept writing algorithms. Nothing at all fancy. But my teammates loved it. One specific colleague and I worked together regularly to come up with faster and cleaner ways to do some complex business logic in our web applications. I'm not much of a sports person, but everyone else was...my nickname was "special teams" and they would call me in where there was a problem.

Sure, he could have done this on his own, but I worked better as a generalist, a problem solver. I do not like coding for work, I love doing it on the side. I was in heaven, so was he. Clients were happy.

The problem? There are not many jobs, at least that I can find, where I can say "Yeah, I don't want to code, I just want to be your 'special teams' guy." I mention this to say, be careful where research takes you. I might suggest that you let it improve your skills or go full-research route. Sitting in limbo between the two isn't pretty.

Ditto for me.

"Above the fold" photos of severely/epic photoshopped boobs, etc. Scrolling a little further down I was greeted with photos of poop. Lots of them. I'll skip what there were photos of on the next page.

Suffice to say, I am sure there are a ton of Internet trolls taking advantage of the lack of filtering, and they want to make the site look bad. Hopefully MS can put some type of fix on that sooner than later. Otherwise, I assume some early adopters might be turned off just from going to the home page.

Random event: I just walked by one of these (Grand Central-UN area) on my way to the library today and said "Wow. I wonder why I didn't hear about this before...or see it before?" So I started looking for other payphones/WiFi-stations and didn't see one.

Great idea.