I think it's more important to look at all-cause mortality, because treatment can also harm you. In this case it's a fairly tight confidence interval: "The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04)."
Mostly agreed. I think everyone (including myself) was ready for a huge pop science book to be bad, and boosted the post based just on its title.
In defense of the post, Walker's called-out claim that "Routinely sleeping less than six or seven hours...double[s] your risk of cancer" does seem pretty out there. Even if that correlation were well-established it would be hard to interpret.
He's rightfully dunking on the Van Ness bus line for some reasons, but it's basically a major utilities infrastructure project disguised as a bus lane. They're overhead power and reconfiguring the street, but they're also replacing ~4 miles of 1800s water main, putting in a new earthquake-resistant sewer system, and redoing the fire hydrant water feeds.
I feel like it's more of a branding failure honestly. People would be much more understanding - if you heard "we're replacing 1800s utilities with 21st century tech built for the earthquake zone in SF and you get better transit along with that", I think the conversation would be much different than "it's taken a decade to build a new lane".
That reminds me a bit of the California High Speed rail project. A bunch of the work in the central valley is grade separation for existing freight rail lines.
But then we'd wonder why the transit needs to be conditioned on the utilities. This is political malpractice undermining support for bus lanes citywide.
News article says [T]he $189 million project, which is part of a larger complimentary (sic) sewer and street light replacement project totalled at $316 million.[0]
The new Berlin airport is a classic example, and one that really undermines the stereotype of German efficiency and competence when it comes to infrastructure projects.
Across BER airport, the Elbphilharmonie and Stuttgart 21, the stereotype of German efficiency is dead in the water at least as far as infrastructure projects are concerned.
That goes for all cathedrals though. Just two random examples, Notre Dame took about 100 years for the main structure, Cologne Cathedral took 600 years.
Crazy Horse Memorial has been dragging out too. Got the impression that what exists now is functional enough to serve as a tourist trap so there's less incentive to complete it.
Hum, I think things should be broadened beyond just a fast/slow axis, and inquire what some of these projects actually serve. Or at the least what they've costed in the long-run in terms of resource use.
Definitely! That would be very cool to see. I bet there are a lot of great things that have moved slowly with great success. Berkshire Hathaway is probably a good example, although I don't know how it compares to other companies during a similar window of time.
I always thought this was just price discrimination, extracting more surplus from readers by bifurcating them into two groups. Hardbacks are released first. Everyone who really wants it now needs to shell out more, even if they don't really care about the physical properties. Then the paperback is released to attract the more reluctant readers.
Yes, this seems obvious to me. If it were not, then publishers would release the hardback and paperback at the same time and let readers choose the format they preferred, wouldn't they?
Same here. Very similar to a typical patronage model you see for digital media where there are some perks like early access, but rarely a major exclusive work.
> [C]hecked-out books automatically will renew as many as 15 times, as long as no one else places a hold on them...Items will be marked as "lost" and accounts will be charged a replacement fee one week after the last due date, but the charge will be cleared if the item is returned
>nearly 40 percent of Americans, a Federal Reserve report found, are in such a financially precarious state that they say they would have trouble finding $400 for an unexpected expense like a car repair or a medical bill.
Good on him for digging into it, but his conclusion is not much more cheery than the 40% statistic he is bashing. His conclusion: most of those 40% would be able to borrow money to cover an unexpected $400 expense, and only 14% of all people truly would be unable to meet a $400 obligation.
That is still a damn scary statistic that still illustrates how close to the edge so many people live.
His conclusion: most of those >40% would be able to borrow money to cover an unexpected $400 expense, and only 14% of all people truly would be unable to meet a $400 obligation.
That's pretty much exactly how I interpreted the original.
14% is still ~35 million adults. That's still a problem. And yes it's better than it was right after the global financial crisis, but this boom is not going to last forever. Our economic policies and policy makers are too busy sticking their heads in the sand.
But honestly, even if all those people made twice as much, you'd still see millions of people unable to cover an unexpected expense (maybe not 14%, but, say, 10%).
I've met more than a few people who are just mentally unable to save money. The second they get money, they spend it, regardless of the actual need.
> Not worried enough? Imagine an attacker who manipulates road signs in a way such that self-driving cars will break traffic rules.
If someone was manipulating a bunch of road signs for bad, human drivers would probably be in trouble too..I guess the point is that these attacks could be more subtle/scalable?
More on this point: computer vision tasks are (currently) far more reliant on the presence of a number of identifying features in the high frequency details of images.
The are looking for a significant subset of some identifying group of highly localised features:
think a large number of small things, rather than a small number of large things;
think colour gradients rather than colours.
These sorts of high frequency pieces of information can be placed into images in a way that is imperceivable to humans, but screams at computer vision neural networks.
A sign could say no right turn to people and no left turn to machines.
Is the headline figure here actually kind of small?
| The IEA finds that global offshore wind capacity may increase 15-fold and attract around $1 trillion of <<cumulative>> investment by 2040.
Averaged over the next 20 years, that's $50 billion per year, or 2.5 percent of oil and gas revenues in 2017[0], or 7 percent of what was invested in oil and gas supply in 2016[1]. I could be thinking about this wrong but it seems like there numbers could have been much more encouraging.
