Appeal to Trump Derangement Syndrome is the right's denial of how unstable and unethical he actually is. Time and time again it's been invoked and Trump's critics have been proven correct.
Even if Trump never actually invaded Greenland everything he's done so far has been completely insane anyway, in violation of ethical norms and international laws, and counter to the treaties in function. He's already crossed lines that shouldn't have been crossed ever.
No, some people on the left cannot talking about Trump, even when he is not pulling crazy shit, and we call that TDS and it has, for example, made CNN unwatchable.
That does not make Trump sane, it does not defend his actions, it is merely stating a fact.
Except articles like this are doing it again, just swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.
The best reading of the cardiovascular literature based on meta-analyses is not that saturated fat is better for you, but that it's probably not worse. Even there the literature is complicated by the fact many of the studies are done in people with preexisting cardiovascular disease, whose functioning might not be improved by dietary changes. There's kind of a paradox sometimes found, in that replacing saturated fat in RCTs with unsaturated fat improves metabolic profiles and decreases minor CVD outcomes, but doesn't affect major ones — but that sometimes depends on what someone's cardiovascular functioning is already like.
Their take on the diet literature in this article is pure nonsense. The best literature suggests overall no difference between types of diets, only overall actual caloric decrease, with a smaller effect of exercise.
There's also emerging evidence that all of this is individual-specific, so some people might respond best to a low-carb-high-saturated-fat diet, and others to a low-fat-high carb one. E.g.: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/19/1176905...
I've been to research symposia where they've replicated findings where they go back and reanalyze RCT data and show that longitudinally, people vary wildly in responses to different diets. So even though there's no difference in the RCTs between types of diet overall, specific people respond best to one or the other.
In the article they state "We found that emojis were sent in portal messages to patients aged 70 to 79 years at the second highest rate, after those aged 10 to 19 years" which implies some of this at least is in messages to patients.
I can see sending emojis as a way of trying to be friendly and informal in communications with patients, especially if the patients have already used them.
Patients are all different so I can see some of them hating their use, but I can also see some patients appreciating a more lighthearted tone.
Pediatrics in particular is full of this kind of stuff in general.
The betting-voting distinction is interesting and was on my mind while I was reading it.
So much of this breaks down when the binary nature of the variables involved becomes continuous or at least nonbinary.
It's an example of a more general interest of mine, how structural characteristics of an inferential scenario affect the value of information that is received.
I could also see this being relevant to diagnostic scenarios hypothetically.
I've also had to deal with the IRB a lot as a professor. The retroactive application is extremely weird (although maybe better than nothing?).
This seems like one of those situations that would usually require regular review to err on the side of caution if nothing else. It's worth pointing out there are exceptions though:
Generally those exceptions fall into "publicly observable behavior", which I guess I could see this falling into?
It's ethically unjustified how the whole thing actually happened but I guess I can see an IRB coming to an exemption decision. I would probably disagree with that decision but I could see how it would happen.
In some weird legalistic sense I can also see an IRB exempting it because the study already happened and they couldn't do anything about it. It's such a weird thing to do and IRBs do weird things sometimes.
>I've also had to deal with the IRB a lot as a professor. The retroactive application is extremely weird (although maybe better than nothing?).
I mean I feel like the IRB is mostly dealing with medical stuff. "I want to electrocute these students every week to see if it cures asthma". "No that's too much.. every other week at most". "Great I'll charge up the electrodes"
So if a security researcher rolls in after the fact and says "umm yea so this has to do with nerd stuff, computers and kernels, no humans, and I just want it all to be super secure and nobody gets hacked, sound good" "ok sure we don't care if no people are involved and don't really understand that nerd stuff, but hackers bad and you're fighting hackers"
People can do whatever they think is right, of course (: so there is no "should". My point was that saying that a government should not impose communication restrictions is not necessary right. So, no, people should be happy: if they are happy without freedom, then let them be. If they are unhappy without freedom, let them make a revolution.
Apparently we should hire the Guardian to evaluate LLM output accuracy?
Why are these products being put out there for these kinds of things with no attempt to quantify accuracy?
In many areas AI has become this toy that we use because it looks real enough.
It sometimes works for some things in math and science because we test its output, but overall you don't go to Gemini and it says "there's a 80% chance this is correct". At least then you could evaluate that claim.
There's a kind of task LLMs aren't well suited to because there's no intrinsic empirical verifiability, for lack of a better way of putting it.
Even if Trump never actually invaded Greenland everything he's done so far has been completely insane anyway, in violation of ethical norms and international laws, and counter to the treaties in function. He's already crossed lines that shouldn't have been crossed ever.
reply