Please keep in mind that p-values (and null-hypothesis testing) suffer from officially recognized intrinsic flaws:

https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913

That is, they have intrinsic problems even when used “correctly” (for examples see e.g. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105). On top of this, they are often misinterpreted and used incorrectly.

A p-value is the probability of observing your particular sample data or other imagined data, assuming your null-hypothesis is true, and assuming additional hypotheses (such as underlying gaussian distributions or the like), which may or may not hold:

p-value = Pr(observed data or imagined data | null hypothesis and additional assumptions)

Because of the presence of imagined data, a p-value is not the likelihood of the null hypothesis (+assumptions), which is Pr(observed data | null hypothesis and additional assumptions)

My personal recommendation is that you do your analysis by using more modern methods that do not have intrinsic flaws. Many good books are out there (just one example https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429029608). Of course any method may be misused, but at least using a self-consistent method we have worry only about one problem (misuse) rather than two (misuse & intrinsic flaws).

An example of the quirky, unscientific characteristics of p-values. Imagine you design an experiment this way: “I’ll test 10 subjects, and in the meantime I apply for a grant. At the time the 10th subject is tested, I’ll know my application’s outcome. If the outcome is positive, I’ll test 10 more subjects; if it isn’t, I’ll stop”. Not an unrealistic situation.

With this stopping rule, your p-value will depend on the probability that you get the grant. This is not a joke.

This is a quote from H. Jeffreys, “Theory of Probability” § VII.7.2 (emphasis in the original) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198503682.001.0001:

“What the use of P implies, therefore, is that a hypothesis that may be true may be rejected because it has not predicted observable results that have not occurred. This seems a remarkable procedure. On the face of it the fact that such results have not occurred might more reasonably be taken as evidence for the law, not against it.”

Cheers! Looks like a great fediverse platform. So sad that the choice of English-speaking servers seems somewhat limited - for now.

What’s Misskey? Never heard of! Time to check.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

For a moment I thought the “here’s how” meant “here’s how to play in mud and dirt”. Let’s do it like pros, folks!

these autonomous agents represent the next step in the evolution of large language models (LLMs), seamlessly integrating into business processes to handle functions such as responding to customer inquiries, identifying sales leads, and managing inventory.

I really want to see what happens. It seems to me these “agents” are still useless in handling tasks like customer inquiries. Hopefully customers will get tired and switch to companies that employ competent humans instead…

Cheers! Got a bit clearer now.

Appreciated if someone can explain what is the problem and its context in simple terms 🙏

I understand the GNU “framework” is built on free, open source software. So I don’t understand how one can “discover” that there were pieces of non-free software there… They were put there by mistake?

😂

The current security philosophy almost seems to be: “In order to make it secure, make it difficult to use”. This is why I propose to go a step further: “In order to make it secure, just don’t make it”. The safest account is the one that doesn’t exist or that can’t be accessed by anyone, including its owner.

Just wanted to applaud the fact that you’ve come here asking people, rather than asking some large language model.

We aren’t supposed to accept that. We can simply not use their software. And as users that’s the only power we have on devs. But it’s a power that only works on devs who are interested in having many users.

Nobel prize in computer science. Looks like the Nobel Prize committee has forgotten what Physics is.

Well done! 💪🚀

This reminds me: what kind of Youtube replacement or quasi-replacement in the Fediverse? I’ve heard that Peertube may be difficult to maintain long term, which makes sense…

This is a fascinating phenomenon – but fully within current theory. And there’s no “inversion of the arrow of time”, despite what the sensationalistic, misleading title seems to imply. From the recent paper (my emphasis):

Our results, over a range of pulse durations and optical depths, are consistent with the recent theoretical prediction that the mean atomic excitation time caused by a transmitted photon (as measured via the time integral of the observed phase shift) equals the group delay experienced by the light.

The theoretical explanation is given in this paper:

We examine this problem using the weak-value formalism and show that the time a transmitted photon spends as an atomic excitation is equal to the group delay, which can take on positive or negative values.

It is essentially related to the difference between phase and group velocity of waves.

One more example of how nature – as we currently understand it – offers amazing, fascinating, unexpected phenomena. It doesn’t need misleading sensationalism.

deleted by creator

Fully agree.

It’s worth posting the blog post you linked.

Personally I disagree on value of sex/nude scenes – but it’s a subjective matter of course. Your final argument is absolutely fair and logical, and very general too. Extremely well put – I subscribe 110% to it!

It’s utter bullshit from the very start. First, it isn’t true that the Ricci curvature can be written as they do in eqn (1). Second, in eqn (2) the Einstein tensor (middle term) cannot be replaced by the Ricci tensor (right-hand term), unless the Ricci scalar (“R”) is zero, which only happens when there’s no energy. They nonchalantly do that replacement without even a hint of explanation.

Elsevier and ScienceDirect should feel ashamed. They can go f**k themselves.