>I’m so sick of people on either “side” faking data to prove their presuppositions on this.
I don’t think this research is carried out with ulterior motives. Scientists make mistakes, and are prone to biases whenever they have a hypothesis. The progression of repeated studies is the final arbiter of truth. Saying that long-term heart abnormalities would be faked to push an agenda is suggesting the existence of a conspiracy. Beyond the usual “publish or perish” drive, nobody stands to benefit from reporting results either way.
Saying that Forbes has no motive to sensationalize things is a different matter entirely, though.
Plus, what am I to make of a researcher that doesn’t correct for the most basic confounding factors in their data. Are you seriously suggesting they never thought of that?
My Citi card comes with a desktop app that can generate new numbers for online payments all the time. Beyond one-time use, I can generate a number that will work only with ‘x’ company for ‘x’ number of months. When I saw that, I assumed Citi+MasterCard must have at least 10,000s of times more numbers than customers
I agree. The only incentive to write neat code is to save yourself the pain and suffering of having to go back through it yourself to fix or add things. I am currently doing data analysis in MATLAB for my PhD, and I know nobody will ever use my code besides me.
I’d like to learn to do my due diligence, but without someone training me, it just takes so much time to learn things like git. I’d rather be recording more data and submitting my paper so I can get the hell out of here
“Euthanize” implies an often tough decision to end a condition of prolonged suffering that has little hope for improvement. “Kill” does not imply any such decision
Crawling the web is expensive, barrier to entry is very high.
Many alternative search engines claim to have built their own crawler, however their coverage is small and they have to fallback to Bing or Google.
You can actually check this btw. The results on Bing are identical to DuckDuckGo's in many cases, which are often inferior to those of Google. When different make sure the "location" parameters are the same and clear Bing's cookies, although local searches are absolutely terrible in Bing/DDG anyway. But they sometimes diverge on some queries, either because DuckDuckGo's cache is not up to date, or because it had relevant results in its own index.
But yes, if Bing closes its API, DuckDuckGo either switches to Google or it's dead in the water.
> The ASD and ADHD diagnostic criteria are still too broad and imprecise.
One analogy has stuck with me. Defining mental disorders is like drawing up the constellations. The individual behavioral traits are the stars, and the constellation’s boundaries are as much a function of the culture who defined them as they are a function of how clustered these stars/traits really are.
And like constellations, those clusters are only observable together from a particular vantage-point (the earth), as soon as you go elsewhere (e.g. Alpha Centauri) the stars are in a totally different place and the constellations, as originally defined, simply don't exist.
I don’t think this research is carried out with ulterior motives. Scientists make mistakes, and are prone to biases whenever they have a hypothesis. The progression of repeated studies is the final arbiter of truth. Saying that long-term heart abnormalities would be faked to push an agenda is suggesting the existence of a conspiracy. Beyond the usual “publish or perish” drive, nobody stands to benefit from reporting results either way.