The author touches on this near the beginning-

Winamp skins are actually just zip files with a different file extension

So they’re treating them like archives and extracting them

I’m going to treat you with good faith and assume you were using “cool man” in the same way someone might say “that’s just like your opinion man”, as a saying, but I will remind you that this person has their pronouns in their display name and you need to respect them.

Not an ideal time for this to go to the supreme court 😔

But they do exist, and while it’s great to be optimistic about a future in which they don’t exist, it’s also counterproductive to advocate against a better future which is much more likely to exist.

How about, in addition to attempting to publish null results in existing journals, you also publish them in free online federated databases? Or better yet, work to establish a federated database which focuses on publishing null results to serve as a repository for articles which seem to struggle with getting published, so that scientists can draw upon it as a useful resource.

I can’t imagine who possibly lobbied for this and why it’s focused only on artists and journalists

this poll is homophobic, gays are not good enough at math to know the difference between countably and uncountably infinite /s

duplicate of https://beehaw.org/post/15113153?scrollToComments=true

I’m not sure why there’s the need to rebrand confidence to the term dominance, but I generally agree with the author. With that being said, I’m not sure I fully understand what dominance means or where the data comes from. It feels like there might be some cherry-picking here, because upon reflection I think even many centrist dems do draw hard lines in the sand on certain issues. In general I agree with the praise for MLK and for being more uncompromising on the issues that matter, and I also agree strongly with how important a positive uplifting message (It’s how AOC and many of the true progressives got elected) is and how very few democrats actually execute on this.

Oh absolutely, just calling it out because the fact that it is erased is important. There are malicious actors at play, and we should recognize what’s happening.

but somehow we collectively keep forgetting about it.

I mean, it’s not an issue of forgetting, it’s actively erased.

Your first sentence was passive aggressive. You suggested that the person is not worthy to judge, based on your own judgement of the show, and you suggested that they don’t have a basis to form a judgement based on their lack of watch history. Here it is, for posterity-

You need to watch more shows if you think Fallout was worth awards.

Also, welcome to Beehaw! We tend to be a bit more hands on when it comes to moderation. A reminder to be nice is just a reminder. It’s not a warning. I’m not going to ban you. This is about setting the tone for discussion and helping ensure that posts don’t go off the rails or that fights don’t start. If that’s not your vibe, that’s okay too! You don’t have to participate here 💜

Being passive aggressive about taste of all things, is not nice. This is your reminder to be(e) nice on this instance.

Great thought process! Yes, fMRI imaging is very vulnerable to p-hacking, which is more or less what the dead fish paper is pointing out (even when properly calibrated, it’s a problem with how noisy the raw data is in the first place). By classifying broad patterns, however, you eliminate some of the noise that the dead fish paper is showing can be problematic by abstracting away from whether micro structures meet statistical probability for being activation and move that to the more macro. While the dead fish paper may have shown activity in specific areas, if you were then to look at activity across larger portions or the entire brain, you would detect no statistical difference with rest (or dead fish, in this case).

Furthermore, this study doesn’t stop there- it asks the question of whether these groupings tell us anything about these groups with regards to treatment. Each group is split up into subgroups based on treatment modality. These different treatments (therapy, drugs, etc.) are compared from group to group to see if any of these broad groupings by the fMRI machine make any kind of clinical sense. If the fMRI grouping was complete bogus and p-hacked, the treatment groups would show no difference between each other. This two step process ensures that bogus groups and groups which do not have any difference in clinical treatment outcomes are lost along the way via statistical rigor.

Completely agreed, which is why it’s promising that they’re looking for patterns rather than specific areas of activation and they are pairing up findings with treatment and using statistics to see if certain treatment modalities work better for certain broad patterns.

If you can’t show sympathy, are you different to him?

I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn’t deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that’s perfectly reasonable. I also think it’s fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.

I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I’m a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.

This is just a reminder to be nice on our instance - this could be read as hostile or not extending good faith to the other user.

In the future please put articles like this in politics.

It sounds like you reached a conclusion you’re happy with but I did want to address a few things-

What really just puzzles me is what you guys are saying about weapons. You are really telling me that if I am in the forest alone with a guy, that a knife or pistol with basic training doesn’t help me? Obviously I am here to learn, but what are you guys talking about? Statistics? Why can’t I just shoot the guy in the leg? It’s confusing!

I brought up statistics because I think it’s important to mention. When researchers look at recorded violent interactions they are able to see certain patterns from which we can draw certain conclusions. It turns out that most violent interactions happen between two armed individuals. This implies that when one individual is armed and the other is not, that they feel a certain level of safety being armed and don’t often escalate to violence as often. We can also look at broad strokes for weapon ownership in places where you need a license to be armed - and we find that people who get a license to have a weapon are more likely to be injured in a violent altercation with someone else. In short, owning any weapon increases the likelihood that you get into a violent altercation with someone else. What I’m getting at here is that arming yourself might make you feel more safe, but it can also be a form of escalation in an altercation. Someone who might be responsive to you de-escalating with speech might not be responsive if you’re also pointing a weapon at them.

I don’t say this to discourage you from owning a weapon, especially if you are a target. I’m trans too, so I fully understand being attacked and the desire to arm yourself. I think it’s important to think about what kind of weapon you are bringing, however, and how those weapons are perceived. If someone pulled a can of mace on me, for example, I’m going to approach that person much differently than if they pull a knife or a gun and I think that distinction is important when it comes to escalation. Non-lethal forms of self defense escalate less than those that are lethal and some non-lethal forms such as defensive sprays are really easy to use, have good range, and are easily concealed making them ideal self-defense weapons.

isn’t the best defense a good offense? What’s the point of running if he runs after me? Isn’t it better to break his arm and then run?

I think you are underestimating the risk of getting in to any physical altercation with someone. Even if you break his arm, that may not stop his pursuit and depending on how close you are to him when you break his arm, it’s possible he could incapacitate you in some way at the same time you break his arm. You causing physical damage to him may also cause him to respond spitefully towards you - the anger at you hurting him may bring him to injure you as a response to that, above and beyond the initial intent (or in the worst case scenario, inspire him to murder). Furthermore, in many situations he may not be acting alone and being good at getting away and drawing attention to yourself are much better ways to survive as social pressures and being seen doing illegal acts or pursuing others is usually a good incentive for them to not pursue. In general, violence should always be seen as a means of last resort, because that escalation almost always means an escalation in response, especially when we are talking about someone who already showed up with violent intent.

Without proper studies on the damage of consistently high decibel sound exposure? We’ve got a lot of those… where do you think the guidelines around decibel exposure came from?

What’s your opinion on a lay person carrying a knife? What if they have basic training?

Carrying any weapon increases the statistical likelihood that you will die to a weapon. Owning certain weapons increase the statistical likelihood that you die to that weapon. This is because if you bring a weapon to a fight, the other person often responds in kind and being armed when someone else is armed means tensions are higher and they are more likely to use deadly force. In the worse case scenario, you lose your weapon to someone else and get killed by it. Training will reduce the likelihood of being disarmed and increase your proficiency with any weapon, but what @[email protected] has been stating with regards to anyone being a deadly threat is extremely true- real confrontations don’t happen like they do in movies and even a highly trained individual can be killed by a complete novice.

If you’re looking for a self defense weapon one of the best self defense weapons that exists is not deadly at all, but rather debilitating - mace/pepper spray. It requires no training to use, it can be activated very quickly, and it is very portable. Depending on where you live it is possible that it is illegal, in which case this is simply not an option, but in most countries in the world it is a legal form of self defense. In countries where it is illegal, there are usually other irritant sprays which you have access to which may not be as strong but will generally speaking do the same thing. Some sprays are also designed to be slippery in addition to irritants which can make holding weapons difficult.