The fact that the height of adult males with ADHD is greater than that of males without ADHD (first figure/graphs, G & H) should indicate that there is no causative link that the medication has an impact. For females, the average does not show this, but if you look carefully, the variation is bigger. The same selection bias is possible in this case.
Instead, to me it looks like there is selection bias going on. Shorter males are more likely to get MPH prescribed is an equally valid explanation.
Luckily, the conclusion makes no assertions about height either, nor does the paper make conclusions about any causative relation.
I disagree, wood pellets are more expensive than oil for energy, especially if only counting the production cost of oil w/o the tax. So even the first time an old forest is cut, when the land changes, it already displaces oil use. At greater expense even, so demand would be reduce the amount energy produced further.
Furthermore Europe can also choose to replant non-forest land or replant permanently afterwards.
Quitting implies there is a problem, the authors even state so. But is it really¹? I'm quite sure "Over 90% of college students quit college within a decade". They graduate.
Should science grow exponentially? Is there no value in a PhD graduate that isn't a researcher? Get everyone a PhD and chain them to a desk for research!
(1) Except for gender (and others not in scope) where past discrimination is still felt.
Every tenured professor is expected to have at very least one PhD student. A PhD takes on average less than 8 years and a tenure more than 20.
Though I think a more reasonable replacement rate is 10+ PhD graduates per professor. I do not think this problematic somehow, unlike what overproduction implies.
It is a neat game. With a bit of trying you can find some patterns:
* Every tile has two orientations 0 and 180 degrees which allows to cut a lot of possibilities for small fields.
* Three tiles can be flipped together, meaning if you have one or two tiles unsolved, your idea won't work out.
* Large fields have more solutions.
Sadly I found some bugs:
* World generation does not work correctly: there is an unmovable field (nice idea!) but during generation it gets moved. This makes some puzzles unsolvable. The randomizer should ignore this field.
* The undo function has some issues undoing the wrong move or skipping a move. Fully undoing a puzzle does not always result in a solution. If this happens while you're playing you get locked.
They are trained to duplicate, we just hope they do so by abstracting patterns. Various techniques stack the deck to make it difficult to memorize everything but it still happens easily, especially for replicated knowledge.
"You train them by comparing the output to the original." ->
You train neural networks by producing output for known input, comparing the output with a cost-function to the expected output, and updating your system towards minimizing the cost, repeatedly, until it stops improving or you tire of waiting.
Cost functions must have a minimal value when the output matches exactly the expected to work mathematically. Engineering-wise you can possibly fudge things and they probably do so ... now.
I don't agree with your critiques. It isn't an oversimplification, published code literally works as stated.
You have an urn of 50 red and 50 green balls. Roll a die and add a red ball for every pip. What is the probability of the next ball you take being red?
I say both can be a question in Statistics I where you calculate probabilities based on combinations.
So I'll say it depends on the level of education for how the question gets interpreted and saying those who never took Bayesian reasoning and consider n unknown are wrong gets elitist.
So? There's plenty of problem statements with irrelevant data. Children are also getting taught to determine which is relevant in class.
But also, it's not irrelevant because for two cases the probability stays equal. Calculating the exact chance is still an interesting problem and it could have been dumbed down for twitter only.
OIDC/oAuth seems like the solution: make it somebody else's problem. But OIDC tokens can be stolen, they can change domains because of misconfiguration or bad redirect urls.
Because you may have meant --f=oo or -f -o -o, both of which are standard unix interpretations of single-dash multi-character flags (e.g. ls, ssh). Or maybe the newest version added the -foo flag.
And if you've got something like 'sed' overwriting the input file (-i), it'd better make sure the flags are exactly as documented.
The sidelining is to show damages to her reputation etc. Page 50 or so starts the description alleging how the administration and the dean gutted her department by blocking, reallocating funds, stopping hiring, and refusing to extend contracts when funds are available.
Instead, to me it looks like there is selection bias going on. Shorter males are more likely to get MPH prescribed is an equally valid explanation.
Luckily, the conclusion makes no assertions about height either, nor does the paper make conclusions about any causative relation.