sonofgod
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
Let's assume that the baby has a perfect ordered ranking of blocks, 3 > 2 > 1, but that the experimenter doesn't know what it is.
There's three scenarios for what the new, third block is: 1, 2 or 3.
If it's 2 or 3, then the rejected block in the first round has a score of 1, and so we'd expect. So we'd only expect the baby to switch in a third of the cases, as opposed to 50% of the cases where the blocks are assumed to be equal.
"However, in the critical test trial that followed, 16 of 21 infants (76.2%) chose the new block (block C; Fig. 1)"
I can't work out the p-value vs. 66% compared to 50%, though...
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." -- Nathan Poe
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/22/21076806/google-janelia-f...
In two dimensions, a vehicle moving North-South and a vehicle moving East-West have to cross into each other's path at some point, and 2.5D solutions (bridges and flyovers) help but require significant investment in resources that simply isn't possible at every junction.
In three dimensions, this simply isn't the case; we can separate different directions of traffic by height, and provision of dedicated corridors for changing route is merely a matter of making regulation rather than infrastructure.
There's a reason why we've had autopilot on planes for significantly longer than on cars.
* Can you expand on Orthogonal Persistence -- is this a "per actor" persistence, or from the references to blockchain is it some sort of shared state between actors?
* How does the internet look/feel/work different once this exists?
In this specific case, it is both a refactor and a breaking change.
For a sense of scale on satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit#/media/File:Or...
Less musical than I expected...
I was, surprisingly, not disappointed.
That's how you sentence someone for 141,078 years... (They served eight.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentenc...
The only relevant question is: "Will the investigator use ... information ... obtained through ... manipulations of those individuals or their environment for research purposes?"
which could be idly thought of as "I'm just sending an email, what's wrong with that? That's not manipulating their environment".
But I feel they're wrong.
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/hs-decision.htm would seem to agree that it's non-exempt (i.e. potentially problematic) human research if "there will be an interaction with subjects for the collection of ... data (including ... observation of behaviour)" and there's not a well-worn path (survey/public observation only/academic setting/subject agrees to study) with additional criteria.