We have come to a similar conclusion, with our first. This is really hard since, as has been echoed, these really are magical times. I'm wondering, in what ways have you shared with family the most?
Great recommendation. Irvine sets the historical background and suggests practical application. I plan on revisiting the original texts, this time with more meaning, and context.
You're right. Although it's likely he may live an extended life due to genes, his parents passed in their 90's, he's living the latter years the best way possible, by being rich.
And it's reasonable to think his wealth is buying "power packs", like hormone replacement, that he'd rather not see in the press.
What’s more dangerous, the bias in an opinion page or bias in a feature article masquerading as neutral fact?
More data, more samples, can produce more spurious relationships, whatever statistical massaging is applied. Given more Noise, there’s more opportunity to inject bias in finding your Signal. Journalists shouldn’t pretend their data doesn’t stink because they just figured out how to get Excel to crap out regression results.
I agree this is tone deaf, mostly. And certainly journalists have room for improvement in understanding data. However, I certainly agree with this statement:
>Neutrality is an evasion of responsibility, unless everything is like sports.
More data can also mean more noise. More data can also mean implying more causation where none exists. And the world isn't a giant game with sterile constraints and static rules.
I'll echo comments herein suggesting project management. If you're in QA, a good next step would be to get into your company's project management or program management group. So you'll make more money and get experience getting other people to get things done. Both of which will help when you decide to do your own thing.