orforforof

I really enjoyed the book Mathematica by David Bessis, who writes about his creative process as a mathematician. He makes a case that formal math is usually the last step to refine/optimize an idea, not the starting point as is often assumed. His point is to push against the cultural idea that math == symbols. Sounds similar to some of what you're describing.

It would be more relevant to look at reading scores for children who specifically tuned into Reading Rainbow. I suspect the number of viewers was a small fraction of all children in the US, in which case the show's ability to affect the nationwide reading scores would be low. In other words, I don't believe the data you cited supports a conclusion that the show was ineffective at educating individual viewers.

At the State university where I teach, literally part of our mission statement is to graduate every student who we admit. It has become a big part of the messaging from upper administration in the last few years.

I can think of two factors. First, some direct costs could be prohibited. But more importantly, to make this work universities would need to restructure to make all of their services fee-based, and researchers would need to allocate these fees item by item in their proposals. Which seems doable, but is no way to run an efficient operation. Even if the bottom line looked the same, the value to NIH and taxpayers would be far worse due to the inefficiency.

This sounds good in some niche cases, like an English class with a small class size and a highly experienced teacher. However of all the potential fads in higher education this one seems particularly risky to students. In the end the grade is given based on how the prof feels about you, and if they agree with your self assessment. Which can be easily gamed (e.g. student pretends to be a bad writer at first and has a seemingly miraculous transformation) and is subjective. The assessment will also be tainted by one's individual biases, by definition. Whether you agree or disagree about the importance of diversity equity and inclusion in higher ed, one useful principle of that movement is that of clearly defined evaluation, precisely to avoid effects of personal bias.

Agree. Academics are now going to write an extra $11k into their grants (=$15k if you count uni indirect costs), with the justification "I plan to produce Nature quality results". If your article doesn't get accepted by Nature, all the better there's now an extra $9k in your budget to play with. Let's just keep in mind, these grants are funded by taxpayers.

My layman's understanding of earthquakes is that they have a heavy tailed probability distribution which makes predictions fundamentally difficult. Does ML (as in this approach) get around that somehow?

I would agree with many others here who say publish it. In some fields there is an additional question of where to host it, lest your paper's impact outlast the lifetime of your current GitHub repo or whatever. There are good solutions out there. Assuming you are at a university it's worth having a chat with a librarian.

For many of the papers I read (engineering) I would love to be able to click on symbols in an equation and have it link me back to where that term was first defined in the paper, either in another eqn or in the text. Tracing back in this way is a major pain point e.g. when trying to reproduce calculations. Seems like something journals/latex could easily implement in an automated fashion (maybe already possible?)

His recent podcast series called Bob Saget's Here For You is worth a listen, as a reminder of what we've lost. He really was deserving of the title America's Dad. RIP.

According to Table 2 their sample had 8,199 unvaccinated and 9,269 vaccinated. It seems odd that more cases were found in the vaccinated people, can anyone suggest why? Statistical anomaly?

Edit: I misread the table, I thought column 1 was number of subjects. The replies explain well why the # of cases would be larger for the (larger) vaccinated population.

The only saving grace is at least they know the word 'safety'. I've ridden with such guys too and yes they are assholes, but notably they espouse the same defensive riding opinions of most riders, and they're still alive. That's the key in my opinion, being safe/responsible is not the same as being polite, and I think this gets lost when people focus only on (e)bikers needing to learn good manners and be nice to other road users. (One should do both of course.)

I used to ride a motorcycle, now I have an ebike. They seem equally safe to me, which is to say neither are safe at all if there are other people on the road. The only solution is extremely defensive driving/riding, assume no one (including pedestrians) can see you. This attitude has been embedded deeply in the motorcycle culture and is the best way to all-around responsible riders -- and it needs to be propagated to ebike riders. I don't think it's about having manners, really. Also, sound awareness is a myth propagated by Harley riders.