KempyKolibri

Excellent point, and one that’s not raised enough in these conversations.

Wat

What's the argument here, that achieving mastery sufficient to get to a 4 second Rubik's cube solve requires at most 4 seconds' attention span?

If you think I’ve made an error or am missing something, then you should be able to point it out, no?

You’re the one that used the term, not the author.

Where is it defined as "Random Controlled Trial"?

“feels more dignity getting beaten down and bullied by strangers or peers than confronting them openly or berating them publicl” is rather hyperbolic and (in my opinion) doesn’t capture what’s going on here.

I think this speaks more to a culture of thinking of other peoples’ experiences/rights/feelings as well as their own.

Whenever I drive in the US I’m always staggered by just how selfish people are on the roads, for example. Is another car very clearly merging onto a highway where it would be easy to make enough room for them to merge? In the UK, 90% of the time the cars on the highway will make room. In the US I’ve literally never seen it happen.

Lol have they seen what we do to animals for taste pleasure?

It's not a question of "can we learn to shut up?", it's "will humans ever care enough to even want to learn?".

Plenty of those in tech - in fact I think it may give people unjustified confidence that they’re more rational than others.

I engage with anti-science behaviours quite a lot (antivaxx, anti seed oils, etc) and the proportion of engineers I see there is staggering.

Welcome! Thanks for being pleasant.

Have done so! It’s basically just what I said - signs point to reverse causation.

Yeah, this is a good example of what I’m talking about - you take a bunch of people at risk of diseases that lower LDL-c as a result of having that disease.

They actually acknowledged that reverse causation is a risk here and so ran a sensitivity analysis by excluding patients with less than 5 years of follow up (a nice way of saying “patients who died within 5 years of the LDL-c reading”), the idea being that if these results were likely being driven by reverse causation, you’d expect to see an attenuation of the results.

I’d point out that even if we didn’t, five years is a bit of a weird cutoff - plenty of LDL-c lowering diseases take much longer to kill the average person. Moot point though, because excluding those participants attenuated the result to the degree that the association with LDL-C and mortality became statistically insignificant.

Quite why the authors said “we’re aware that reverse causation is a risk factor, let’s run a test to check if it’s likely influencing the results” and then completely ignored the fact the results suggested it was influencing the findings, is anyone’s guess.

So yeah, basically huge confounder seems to be in play that likely explains the “paradox”.

I've spent enough time around keto people to invoke Poe's law on that one.