And here we get into perverse incentives in scientific research distorting what you see. Public health agencies generally care more if there is a threat to public health. So if you are a researcher looking for grant $$$ over the long term, repeatedly not finding a link between WiFi and health makes you uninteresting to funding agencies. Note that I’m not suggesting nefarious intent, it’s more bias than anything else.
For purely scientific pursuits the “other camp” on any given issue often has a voice. Unfortunately in this situation, the other camp is largely made up of industry folks. They are happy to fund your research that finds no link as many times as you want. The cost to you as a researcher is being labeled an industry shill. The problem here is sometimes people are industry shills. So separating the good from the bad is nontrivial. This problem is pervasive in scientific research and solutions are non-obvious. Never forget that humans are biased creatures and scientists are not magical. They carry all the same baggage the rest of us do. Many are self aware enough to know it. But doing something about it is quite hard.
my apologies I did not see the previous post - I wanted to review what this article suggests is correct and incorrect Wi-Fi testing.
This article states that many previous studies tested: (from the article)
It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh wire mesh to provide reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which animals are exposed on a platform at its center, is also surrounded by antennae in all 6 directions (up, down, all four horizontal directions) such that each antenna is broadcasting with one polarization is opposed (at 180°) by another broadcasting with the 180° opposite polarization, as well as by four other antennae, broadcasting with 90° different polarization in each of the four possible directions. This produces a field that is more like a non-polarized EMF rather than the usual polarized artificial EMF"
the second group of papers mentioned in the article was commented on as follows:
"Laudisi et al. (2012) used a different exposure system, that of Ardoino et al. (2005) where the vast majority of the exposure is produced from reflections off a long cylindrical surface in a TEM cell, where the curvature of the cylinder will also produce a largely non-polarized EMF and different reverberation paths and consequent destructive interference, may both be expected to occur. Consequently the predicted low biological activity of EMFs produced by the Wu et al. (2009) system may be expected to also occur from this TEM exposure system Ardoino et al. (2005). It is not possible to study biological effects of EMFs from Wi-Fi, cell phones or any other important exposures using such exposure systems because of the polarization changes they produce from the original polarized EMFs and because of destructive interference."
Ultimately, and in addition to many existing "innovation" or "time and motion" tools, Design thinking is in-depth analysis of the customer and desperately hoping that somehow a "new idea" comes out of it. Roll in billions of consultancy dollars.
Nothing at all to do with a professional design process however.
If I remember correctly, the key case study in Change By Design (that started he whole Design Thinking movement) was Nokia Ovi. So even ‘might work’ needs to be put into a time bound context. At the point when Brown wrote the book it was ‘working’, and there were claims in the book how Nokia is reinventing itself driven by design thinking, but then the whole ship sank soon after.
my understanding (without research) was that one of the founders of IDEO created the concept so they could broaden their client pool from traditional design to finance / business consulting.
Things change. For all intents and purposes, this is a nobel prize in economics, given that the winners are referred to as Nobel laureates by the Nobel committee.
If anything, I think we put a bit too much weight in these awards in general which leads to silly articles like this one.
This shouldn't necessarily be taken as support for the economic research selected for prizes as much as a response to attacking the prize on the basis of it being in economics.
It was not established by Mr. Nobel, the name was taken. The family does not acknowledge it.
To me this is disrespectful to the man who set up the prize in his name.
Nobel left his fortune to a foundation to maintain the prizes and the entire point was to award people that helped mankind. Furthermore the award is called "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" not "The Nobel prize for economics". It was started by Sveriges Riksbank with a donation to the Nobel foundation. Everyone calls it the Nobel prize for economics because it's administered by the same foundation, its mission is the same and it's easier to say and for others to understand.
In my opinion pedantry for its own sake is a hallmark of reddit and it kind of chaps my ass that it seems to be cropping up more here.
It was not intended to be pedantry, though you are within your rights to see it as such. If you don't perceive a central bank with an interest in legitimizing a field of human endeavor for it's own interests as wrong.
As other articles have noted, there are many other fields that may be more deserving of a prize.
Given the economic damage that the recipients of the prize have caused, can we really say that it advances human knowledge in any other way than identifying what is wrong?
That is a very different impact than the majority of the other awards.
If you had lead with this instead of taking issue with the name I wouldn't have accused you of pedantry. That said, I am sorry for being so negative. I'd seen several instances of that sort of behavior in the prior days and I was more annoyed than I should have been.
No worse than giving the Nobel peace prize to someone like Barack Obama, who has not advanced the cause of peace and fraternity, but has done much to destabilize the world and create conflict...
One issue not being discussed is the revolving cost of having products out in the market and the cost of the next production run.
if your orders double from 20K units to 40K, your costs will roughly double, usually meaning that any profit made on the 20K is re-invested to make the 40K - usually plus additional capital.
So long as your production quantities double, you will not actually "have" any money (unless your FOB cost is north of four times sell price). Many companies cannot "realise" profit until orders stabilise.
My thoughts would be:
1) sponsor the private schooling of an orphan or disadvantaged child - if they get the grades you pay direct for the school and materials. (this system exists for most orphanages in most 2nd and 3rd world countries but you can start at home.)
2) International work camps for peace - fully volunteer organization and you get to see another country in a real way and do good work while doing so.
Exceptionally long passwords can be difficult to type accurately. Probably most on HN are good typists, but still I find entering long passwords error-prone and frustrating.
