## Comment: Re:Concerns about online voting (Score 2) 139

Indeed. Selling your vote is like cutting out the middleman.

Indeed. Selling your vote is like cutting out the middleman.

Ah, the inner platform effect at its finest.

So, R is being Embraced. I wander what's coming next...

I am not sure what this "globally assigned" means, but I imagine it means that they had a pile of IP addresses allocated to them decades ago and that they weren't using, and now they started using them. Doesn't sound like a bad thing if it is so...

a) you can't log into gmail from a different computer unless you brought your keys with you, because they don't have them; if you lose your keys, you're hosed.

Can have secure encryption at all without the "if you lose your keys, you're hosed" part? I have never seen a solution to this fundamental problem.

Thanks for the informative answer. I am looking forward to reading the new data privacy policy, to back up your claims.

Wait, how will they make money then?

Oh, right. The usual answer. Selling our data.

Oh, right. The usual answer. Selling our data.

what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?

What is so illegal about changing 0 to 1 and 1 to 0?

Heavier penalties, or more frequent controls. Both methods work to reduce the expected value of fare dodging, and the latter has a better educational value: if controls are rare, when one gets caught they think "Wow, how unlucky", not "I shouldn't do that anymore".

What WoOS writes seems ok to me. He's not rearranging the components, he's pointing out that the correct formula is a different one. There's a constant involved in the most common definition of the big-O notation --- look at line 3 of the wikipedia page that you linked to.

"blame" - like it wasn't in their interest to be the ones who take the real decisions...

So, I've followed the notes on MIT's courseware up to this (first formula on page 3), and it seems that my "intuitive" test formula is correct apart of the fact that I am summing SDs instead of variances, which will account for a factor \sqrt{2} at most if I am not mistaken. Is that it? Or the fact that statistical significance \neq practical significance (which I was never claiming in the first place)?

Yeah please enlighten me. I'd be happy to learn more on the right way to set up the calculation, this was just to have a magnitude estimate.

Yes, but this shouldn't be an issue in this research, since they are comparing apples with apples, at least from my understanding.

That is my intuition anyway: if the SD of a single IQ measurement is 15, then the SD of the measurement on the population that possess the gene is 15/sqrt(718*1/5)=1.25. The SD of the measurement on the population without the gene is 15/sqrt(718*4/5)=0.63. The SD of the difference should be 1.25+0.62=1.88. So yes, 6 points is over 3-sigma. IANAS and I could be saying complete nonsense.

We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.