Places that were once ruled by the Ottoman empire you could have whole villages or clans where all males have exactly the same y chromosome and have very high degree of relatedness. Such populations would pledge allegiance to the clan and take great personal sacrifices for the sake of their clans or tribes or villages or their shieks.
Trying to impose a western style democracy of a society with a mean value r on to other societies with an order of magnitude different r would not work easily. Giving autonomy and self governance for people/tribes/clans with high degree of relatedness, but subject to collective punishments and rewards would be considered sacrilege in the West. But such practices are more likely to succeed, pacify the population and lead to peace.
There's an old Bedouin (who were part of the Ottoman empire for a while) saying: "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers"
Tribalism/clannism doesn't bring peace, it just structures violence and corruption differently while removing many of the checks and balances.
Funny, my Android phone uses a common charger. Apple does not, so I don't buy from them (among other reasons). That's how a free market works.
Android phones use a common charger because the EU started pushing for that standard years ago, not because of a free market. Apple signed on to the micro-usb 5V standard in Europe back in '09 and introduced the necessary adapters a few years later.
People complain all the time about what they think their preferences are, and how they think they work -- when you look at real behaviors though, there is often a disconnect from what people say they will and won't do.
Everyone says, "I never click on ads." While it is obvious that someone does, or else they would abandon the ad model and change for the service.
I think Google's revenue extraction ideal is a presentation of ads that clearly differentiates them from search results but still leads people who avoid ads to click on them anyway when they aren't paying close attention. That's why the ad text and formatting matches the search results. A tiny iconprobably works better for that than a completely different background for most users. Shifting formats around occasionally probably helps too since people will eventually condition themselves to any given format.
I agree, it is a waste of time to investigate fraud. Every study should be independently replicated to catch all types of false results.
It would be much more expensive to replicate each study than to investigate fraud; in some fields independent replication would be almost as expensive as the original. If we are going to flash anywhere near that amount of cash around I'd rather see grant proposals graded a bit more on bigger sample sizes and internal replication (reviewers could look at applicants' prior publications to see if they follow through on those promises) with funds increased accordingly. NIH could also have requirements for training in experimental design and data analysis for any grad students or postdocs that its grant money pays.
The wise man accepts reality and makes the best of it and tries to be a good example.
Exactly. He doesn't fantasize about righteously shooting criminals and vigilanteism, especially not to the point of buying a gun. What kind of example would that set? Hint: imagine someone so creepy they natter on about hoping they get hit by a car 'cause they really really really want to sue someone to bankruptcy/death. Then they launch into a comparative description of which law firms will cause the most damage to the driver. Then they get snippy when you suggest their priorities might be a wee bit off.
When you hear someone vomit nonsense about how much they hope somebody gives them a reason to draw their weapon you are not talking to a gun enthusiast. You're not talking to someone who sees self defense as a necessary tool. You're talking to a gun nut.
A wise man also doesn't carry a loaded gun everywhere, since for most people in most places risks of both violent and property crime are quite low and getting lower. When he does carry it's in a fucking holster, not sharing a pocket with a fucking phone.
Finally: why the hell do they call it a concealed carry permit when 90% of the people who get them seem completely fixated on telling everybody all about their gunnnnzzzzz?
Honestly, it's like the "how can you tell if someone is vegan?" joke, except the concealed carry crowd is worse.
This article covers a bit of the complexities involved:
It's worse than that: by the time things like Alzheimer's or cardiovascular disease are symptomatic a lot of damage has already been done. To prevent the damage you may have to start treating a decade or more in advance of any symptoms, since healing the damage will only be partial at best. To develop a therapy and determine its efficacy means running clinical trials over a decade or more, something no Pharma wants to face. You can improve the situation a lot via biomarker tests - or just complicate it further. If the tests accurately determine who is at risk and accurately chart their progression into the disease then the trials can be much smaller and potentially much shorter. But if the tests are so-so then approving a therapy based on its ability to change the levels on a biomarker test (as opposed to waiting 5-10 years more to see if it actually changes the levels of Alzheimer's) could be an incredibly expensive and horrific mistake. The antibody based therapies could easily cost $10k or more per year and would need to be taken til death.
To compare the situation to aspirin: giving daily aspirin to people at lower risks of CVD increases their chances of serious/fatal brain bleeds and GI tract bleeds about as much as it decreases their risks of a big CVD event. Now imagine that baby aspirin cost $30 each.
They used mass spectrometry to analyse the blood plasma of 53 participants with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease, including 18 who developed symptoms during the study, and 53 who remained cognitively healthy. They found ten phospholipids that were present at consistently lower levels in the blood of most people who had, or went on to develop, cognitive impairment. The team validated the results in a set of 41 further participants.
I think they will need to look at a much bigger sample before calculated odds will be meaningful. Also, the test may well lose its predictive power if applied to the general population as opposed to people over 70.