The headline is unfortunately as misleading as the official report summary. It is technically correct that Sweden had a record high number of deaths so far this year. But it miserably fails to analyze them per capita.

The population in 1859 was about a third of current population. Going back even ten or twenty years also make a huge difference in relative numbers.

TLDR: Swedenâ(TM)a population has grown a lot so it would be very surprising if there was NOT a record absolute number of deaths this year.

Naming principle is good but âoeLottoâ sounds too random for marketing!
Confidence-sort it is! Or bigly-sort!

> The point is that if you hit a key at the right moment, and the sound for your key does not come out in under 5-20ms (depending on the person and attack curve of the instrument), you straight-up can't play music on it!

You obviously never played a church (or theatre) organ. Latency is 30-150 ms for the organist and great music has been played since at least the 1500s.

These statistics are really lousy and does not say anything about if an expensive card will really increase the player performance.

1. The "low" frame rate is 120 fps which would not by any means be considered "low" by most gamers.

2. They only asses GPUs and do not include displays and other hardware or network lag. They have no idea of which frame rates are actually experienced by the players. There is even a graph to show that the more expensive cards are helpful even on 60 fps screens, despite that all studied GPUs produce much more than 60 fps.

3. As many have pointed out, this is very likely a skewed data set to start with. The serious gamers buy more expensive cards. Nivida actually have the data to confirm or refute this but don't show it. They could show the distribution of hours played per week, grouped per GPU type. They don't show it which is cause for concern.

There is little reason to believe gamers would experience any significant improvement going from a 120 fps to 200 fps system. That would be equivalent of reducing absolute worst case lag from 8.3 ms to 5.0 ms (on average it would actually be half those numbers). Then consider that the human reaction time to visual stimuli is around 120-150 ms in ideal setups.

Nivida claims that "pros in our labs have been able to consistently discern and see benefits from even a handful of milliseconds of reduced latency". That may be true, but it just proves that the handful of milliseconds that you could possibly gain can only be discerened by pro players on extremely high-performing systems in controlled environments.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case Nividia does not even produce ordinary evidence.
This is purely a marketing ploy.

Please correct the text, the referenced study is about neotame only and does not investigate the other mentioned molecules or products. The CNBC article is probably to blame as it is misleading on which results were obtained in which study.

Human DNA is the most impressive software ever written. It uses extremely complex feedback control structures, analog and digital. It has also lent its name to "genetic algorithms". It is a simple construct but so complex that we have barely understood the outlines of it after five decades of global research. It may not be "written", but that's another story.

Stuxnet on the other hand is a rather short piece of code that based its success on using secrets obtained from external sources. A good example of cross-domain collaboration and a masterpiece in its own domain. But hardly the most sophisticated piece of code ever written.

Obviously, it should be nano-thermite.

You can still do the work and refuse payment!

Or consider CUDA coding for charities. YMMV.

Based on all the "if it ain't open source it's rotten"-shouting seen on this forum over the years, the relevant and realistic comments received so far must be deliberate misinformation posted here by your jealous competitors. Thus my advice is that you open-source all your algorithms and software and immediately notify your competitors.

It seems to me that all you need is descriptive statistics (change from last month, mean, min, max, etc and probably graphing). Using a general spreadsheet application like Excel or Calc will do the job just fine. Remember that Excel is designed to support business calculations and what you are asked to provide is exactly that! Using a dedicated statistics software for this task (in your environment) is a waste of resources. Full stop.

However, the solution may not be straight-forward to solve in Excel or any other program. In my experience there are two main reasons:

1. The request for data is unclear.
Why do they "increasingly want data on various aspects of our activities"? It could be that the data you have provided so far has not provided support to decisions. Are the questions they really want answered possible to support with the data you can provide? Meet up with the actual decision makers or at least someone who knows what the statistics are actually used for and ask them WHY they need it. Is it used to support resourcing? Is it used to describe changes? Not even a university administration creates statistics for no reason. Most likely, what they really want to know is a handful of numbers like "change from last month", "overall sum", "hours spent on teaching vs information searches".

Do this with an open mind. You will probably learn that many of the imperfections you see in the details are less important to them. When you know their true needs, suggest a package of data, graphs, free-text report or whatever is suitable. If some parts are easy to provide, be clear about that. If something is more difficult to produce, tell them that it is is possible but time-consuming and costly. Get their buy-in before you spend time on producing the output.

2. The raw data is not optimally formatted for the calculations
First of all, if raw data quality can be improved, do that first. Update forms used for feedback, ask for output in a specific format etc. Then arrange the data and calculations in Excel to make it flexible and easy to read and troubleshoot. The trick is to use structure your data and calculations in Excel in a way that is easy to follow visually and logically. In my experience it is very useful to use different tabs for data entry, data analysis and presentation.

It seems from your examples that your input will come from a variety of sources, both manually entered and output from other systems. To get it into Excel, create separate source data tabs where you can enter or paste your raw data. For each source data tab, create a "clean up and calculate" tab where you rearrange source data and make most of the calculations. If raw data is very far from optimal or calculations are complex you may want to use several tabs or even several workbooks for this. Then create presentation tabs where you present the results from calculations in a useful format.

I'm convinced you are suffering from both these problems. Attack them in numeric order and you are well on your way. And by all means, sign up for a course in advanced Excel that is suitable for your application. Best of luck!

I'll just cite the Quote of the day, at the bottom of this page:
"In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables."

Or "app store".

There are several factors
- Hearing aids are medical devices, regulated by FDA. This means that companies have to spend time and money to get their devices approved. Quality assurance, traceability, reliability of components etc contribute to the higher cost of medical devices.
- Some really clever engineering, algorithms, materials and manufacturing are required to make a modern hearing aid. Not many companies can make an original design that is competitive.
- Not only processing power is limited in the small size, power consumption also needs to be minimized. I wouldn't be surprised if batteries cost more than the appliance over a few years time.
- You also pay for a professional to personalize the hearing aid, to adapt it to your specific hearing loss
- The performance increase per dollar is small in the premium range. The best performing hearing aids can charge much more than the second best ones, even if performance is only slightly better in normal situations.

However, I doubt that the fact that insurance companies often pay would impact the price. They are extremely cost-aware and would demand a cheaper device providing the same performance if it were available (or limit their contribution to the cost of the cheaper competitor if it was as good).

This post is simply wrong. The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods.
If you actually read the article, it defines the openness continuum as the range *between* "freely [---] accessed, reused and shared" and "non-documented, proprietary software". Not very groundbreaking or controversial.
Boring.

On the other hand, it is obvious that nearly all responders with strong opinions on the matter also have not bothered to read the article.
Interesting?