Jump to content


Members Plus
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent


About splbt

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

425 profile views
  1. thought about this post and how it relates to the responses in this thread. i mean, surely there's a selection bias as to which members respond to this topic, but it seems the few who have are quite unaffected. braindancers = mainly white collars? wouldn't surprise me. no offense intended in any direction, of course. i do know there are some blue collar workers here though
  2. i've just been passing time at home since february, doing the occasional shifts at the hospital where i've worked for a few years while i wait for my new (graduate, woo) job. if anything i've worked less since the outbreak, but that's mostly due to me wanting to kick back and relax before i jump onto the 40h/w treadmill life, rather than the virus. i can honestly say the quarantine hasn't meant much of a difference to how i've lived the past few months.
  3. last options sounds suspiciously like how i played the sims back in the day
  4. remember to only hire trusted, authorized consultants when you test them
  5. oh right lol i made a mistake there -10 IQ points
  6. true. not what i meant though. i was referring to the difference between measures of covariance and correlation where the former says how much X affects Y (i.e. how steep the curve is) whereas the latter only tells you how tightly aligned with said curve each data point is
  7. feminism isn't cool anymore dude get with the program
  8. i think that anime already exists
  9. also there's a correlation between IQ and workplace performance. iirc correlates regardless of workplace and tasks. but then again 1) correlations only tell you there's covariance, not how much one variable affects the other, and 2) i'd rather have a well-adjusted coworker than an exceptionally well-performing one
  10. retroactively estimating IQ is a really dumb thing to do.
  11. lol "i just had my little bit of vegan food"
  12. very clickbaity so, and regardless of the validity of his numbers flattening the curve seems to be the best we can do at this point. the head of the swedish cdc condemns some interventions as being political opportunism (i.e. closing borders when airports are practically empty anyways), which i tend to agree with, while encouraging people to stay at home and away from elders. at this point i feel like people are more afraid of an eventual economical collapse than they are of the virus itself. and by acting accordingly, hysterically stockpiling, scaremongering and what not, they're contributing to the very same collapse more than the virus itself may be. this is what i'm afraid of. however, to concede a point, yes––considering the size of facilities flattening might not be enough. at the same time, he assumes a normal distribution with "a steep exponential onset", which is exactly what flattening is supposed to counteract. a few paragraphs later he admits himself that "in reality, the spread of a disease does not follow a normal distribution". i mean, come ON dude. i'm not an epidemiologist myself, but he's clearly contradicting himself and what he considers the evidence. on top of that, he's manipulating the incline of his curves to support his point. i'm not sure he's actually using validated current predictions of epidemiologists, but his own slightly skewed interpretation of them. he even writes "my curves are not correct!" in bold italics. and yeah, i realized i too sort of contradicted myself on that last bit. but while they're not necessarily schooled in the subject themselves, they're still poking holes in a lot of his assumptions and arguments. to me, that's having something valuable to say. i dare say not just the title is clickbaity, but the meat of the article as well. there'd probably be more professionally supported criticism of flattening the curve if he was right. but maybe i've missed it
  • Create New...