Honestly, given the nature of the site and the kind of communication it promotes, I wonder whether there is any *original* information that can be found in there. I mean, great scientists, philosophers and artists did exchange letters in the past, but even if we're talking about some real geniuses, I don't see how the "tweet" format can ever contain anything more than shit. It's not easy to convey a properly argumented original thought in 160 characters... So, in the end I don't see why anyone would care to search tweeter data at all. Other maybe for the purpose of some obscure IgNobel-worthy research or in the case of stalkers following the hot star of the moment (when exactly did she pee? that is the question...).

P.

I have 2 sound cards and Pulseaudio has only given me great frustration. Not that Alsa is much better, but at least I hear something from the speakers. While I respect the work of the developers, they should probably get to the stage where everything works as intended with minimal features and then start adding complexity.

I am able to read the original greek text and I agree. The original grammar, even if unusual, is correct.

Furthermore, the pronoun is required to be in plural because in fact the first phrase is in plural (for example, the adjective naked is in its plural form in greek).

A more faithful "to-the-word" translation would be:
"If a brother or sister ARE naked, and destitute of daily food"
instead of "be naked".

So.
Didn't you ever have to read Aesop in a Lit class?

As Umberto Eco has commented ("Apocalittici e integrati", "Semiotics, fiction, popular culture"), what was once conceived as an original contribution to art may lose its artistic value if presented in a different context, especially in a more modern audience. Any half-decent artist could easily copy Van Gogh's painting style or Hemigway's writing style. When everyone has been exposed and digested the original, the interest is usually lost. In that sense, although a modern fable may be part of our popular culture, it has much less artistic value today unless it explores some new dimension of the art.

In a similar spirit, stories which try to enforce an interpretation by using excessive artistic means (rather than leave that to the receiver) are what Eco calls "Kitsch". As Saint-Exupery had said (to paraphrase), "elegance is a process of substraction". The grand-parent was correct in the sense that a moral is usually a shallow literary tool that hinders open interpretation. Morals should not be handed down by art by generated by its interpretation.

P.

Well, I wouldn't expect most people to intuitively grasp Bayesian statistics without some formal introduction to the subject. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that as part of a decision algorithm for detecting terrorists/cancer/whatever, a not-so-accurate test can be useful as a first step. Specifically, if said test is minimally bothersome, cheap and permits us to apply a more costly and accurate strategy to a limited number of individuals at a further stage. For example, a metal detector stops about 30-50% of passengers, very few of which are terrorists. Subsequently, some will get strip searched, some will be detained and some will enjoy a free anal probe. Although failing a metal detector is not catastrophic, failing all subsequent (progressively "invasive") examinations is highly suspect (accumulated evidence).

So, a 90% specific (false positive) test is not worthless if it is sufficiently sensitive: it protects 90% of the population from further tests and saves money.

P.

Singularity will come from game AI. Let it be said that I was the first to predict this. That Milo dude was ... too close to passing the Turing test. WTF, Xboc LIVE will become sentient in 2020...

P.

This does not mean that a government has to provide internet access. It implies the inverse: that a government (see for example, French "HADOPI" law) or third party cannot terminate your internet access on the suspicion that you are infringing copyright, without legal recourse and due process. Seems quite reasonable...

I asked one of the doctors what would be the chance I would develop deadly condition x if I took treatment y (treatment y would otherwise potentially help in other ways). I got something along the lines of: "Well if you're the one who gets the (deadly) condition in the end, what matter is it that there was z chance of getting it?".

The point being made is that probability is meaningful for populations and in order to define clinical practice but much less useful for individuals. For example, I often get patients asking how long the will live and even though I can give them a statistical average, I cannot give a valid prediction for the person asking the question!

As for your other concerns, you should know that with over 18 million articles in PubMed, you can find supporting studies (of varying quality) for anything you imagine. Unfortunately, evidence-based medicine is not a magical solution to all medical problems. And, by the way, elementary statistics are indeed taught in medical schools, even if later forgotten.

P.

Well, speaking as an MD/PhD, I can tell you that even though useless treatments DO exist (for example cough medication), there is a lot of controversy for several other issues. Even guideline groups cannot always agree on a specific attitude.

For example, beta blockers are clearly indicated for myocardial infarction with evidence grade IA (the highest possible!) in the guidelines of the european society of cardiology (freely available in http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/GuidelinesDocuments/guidelines-AMI-FT.pdf). Anyone with half a brain and ten years of training knows that beta blockers (especially IV) should not be given to someone who is hemodynamically unstable, which is the conclusion of the cited study above (published in Lancet 2005) and the aforementioned guidelines. Saying that beta blockers should not be given is completely wrong.

Things are much less clear for low back pain surgery, even though recent reports have shown it to be more effective.

In conclusion, the original article incorrectly criticizes and mixes good treatments that should be avoided in specific subgroups (beta blockers) with useless treatments (cough mediciation) with controversial treatments (low back surgery). Such oversimplification is dangerous, especially if strongly motivated by cost concerns.

P.