oldgradstudent

If true, that means the groups are different in many other aspects other than the vaccine.

The study does not control for the differences. No causality can be inferred.

So what you're saying is that they are comparing two distinct self-selected populations that differ in many other aspects than just taking the vaccine.

Why would you ascribe any difference to the vaccine rather to any other difference between the groups?

You're basically saying that the study compares two distinct populations that differ in many other aspects rather than just by vaccine.

Why then do you ascribe the difference in mortality to the vaccine?

In your flying car, no less.

I was working in customer support for one of the first ISPs in my country when the switch from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 happened.

Windows 95 was a massive jump in usability.

Regular people simply do no understand the overlapping windows metaphor. When a windows disappears behind another they are often completely helpless. The taskbar was a life saver.

Nothing in the study actually supports the claim in the headline and much of the text, though.

I too always claim my position is the null argument.

The statistical argument is basically:

Multiplying a number beyond our comprehension by an unknown probability >= 2

Right?

How exactly extraterretial life is a statistical fact?

There's a video review on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3c4mQty_so

The more modern approach is fake it until a liquidity event.

motivated by Netanyahu's almost certain knowledge that he'll go to prison if and when he loses his grip on the reins.

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is determined by trial in an open court where defendent has the right to cross examine witnesses and present evidence. Do not assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.

For anyone who is not following the trial, Netanyahu was charged with bribery and a few lesser charges which do not have a direct US equivalents. As soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.

The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.

During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the prosecution had in its possession all the necssary evidence to show such a meeting could not have occurred.

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)

Any day now.

But they haven't checked his employment eligibility or he wouldn't have started his first week.

This is simply not the case.

Edited: removed some inflammatory language I shouldn't have used.

Why investigate if we can simply assume the accused is guilty.

Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.

Favorable coverage was the original charge (סיקור אוהד). However, since this website was exteremely hostile to Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being unusually responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople (הענות חריגה).

There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of.

For anyone who is not following the trial, as soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.

The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.

During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the presocution had the evidence to show it could not have occurred.

Don't assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)

You can build a model, but is there any reason to assume it can predict what you want it to predict?

In the 1970s both my parents were programming computers professionaly.

Computing was already a huge industry. Just IBM's revenues were in the multi billion dollar range in the 1970s. And a billion dollar in the 1970s was A LOT of money in the 1970s.

Why would a bayesian model be better than, say, astrology in pricing that?

If a committee can produce the Cyberiad, books should always be written by committees.

There is a Scotland that the found an 81.4% reduction in cavities.

Do you have a reference?

We used Lotus Notes for email

My condolences.

Is this a parody?

Beyond problems at the border, the current Secretary for Health and Human Services - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - has said that he will send those with ADHD to camps. Source: Futurism.

What he actually said:

"I’m going to dedicate that revenue to creating wellness farms — drug rehabilitation farms, in rural areas all over this country," he said during the podcast. "I’m going to make it so people can go, if you’re convicted of a drug offense, or if you have a drug problem, you can go to one of these places for free."

That what happens when you rely on Futurism as a source.

Like Billy G selling DOS before he owned it

DOS actually existed. It just had a different owner.

Controlled by a quantum computer, obviously.

You can, but a patent is still limited to around 20 years. How can a 1972 invention be still be patented in 2004?

Note how similar this is to the pulse oximeter, which was invented in Japan in 1972 and patented in the US in 2004.

How could an invention from 1972, which I assume was publically disclosed around that time, be patented in 2004?

Were the details kept secret for 32 years?

It’ll provide mesmerizing computational properties

Maybe, one day, or never.

In the mean time, it will generate a lot of hot and humid hype.