Imagine if Richard Feynman used his IQ as a metric for deciding whether he should become a physicist. Physics would not be the same.
I am certain that there are mathematicians below, near, and above an IQ of 145 that all have great research productivity. IQ tests do not approximate the creativity, effort, and collaboration required in a mathematician. Not to mention the dubious nature of the 145 claim.
Of course, there are some people that will have a greater aptitude for mathematics than others. But you do not need to be a genius, and this is echoed by Terence Tao [0].
This approach would be interesting to use in league football (La Liga, Premier League, etc) as there is a lot more data available across different seasons.
Which data did you use? Since the leagues were from the Quarterfinals and onwards, was it data from the group stages, euro qualifiers? Averaging the last 5 games would introduce a lot of variance, especially in tournament football.
I think I remember reading somewhere that electric planes would have a much lower energy density than liquid fuel, making its utility minimal. How does hydrogen-powered flight compare regarding energy density?
Any physicists in here that could layout a path of going from rudimentary first year level physics knowledge to being able to understand on a deeper level topics such as gravitational waves?
These articles are interesting but are very abstract when you do not have knowledge from first principles.
This is a basic question, but how is the accuracy of the predicted biomolecular interactions measured? Are the predicted interactions compared to known interactions? How would the accuracy of predicting unknown interactions be assessed?
From the Methods section of the paper (under "study design"): "We also included meta-analyses that pooled data from primary prospective/retrospective cohort or case-control studies. These studies were the focus because of their ability to assess causality for observational research".
While "causality" is a strong word in the sentence above, the data is much stronger than simple correlation. Of course, outright causality has not been established, but the evidence to determine a predictive association is strong.
Very true about consuming more stories. As Stephen King famously said, "If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot."
Yeah, I've heard other authors using ChatGPT in a similar way. Could definitely be helpful.
It depends on what you mean specifically by "worth your time"? What "value" (in the sense that you're using) are you trying to get from the book? If you are reading to solve a specific problem, then a book being worth your time would depend on its ability to help explain the problem or approximate ways towards a solution. However, if you are reading non-fiction for other reasons, such as leisure, then the value-approach becomes more complicated.
"The winners will have to prove by 2030 that their intervention can turn back the clock in older adults by at least a decade in three key areas: cognition, immunity, and muscle function."
"To win the competition, teams have to develop a “proactive, accessible therapeutic” that improves muscle, cognition, and immune function by an amount equivalent to a 10- to 20-year reduction in age in healthy people aged 65 to 80."
It's nice to have optimism, but the fact that the therapeutic has to be "proven" in healthy humans (not animal models) by 2030, makes this impossible.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not aware of a tool that can allow you to organize papers in such a way. There might be, not sure. Also, if I understood you correctly, the tool would work in a way that would enable you to visualize the historical narrative leading to the latest paper. What would be really interesting, if not only could you manually organize papers in such a way, but have the software automate this process to delineate the most relevant papers.
I believe CPI is unchanged in October. I did not take a close look at the CPI numbers, but I believe the steady index is in part due to energy falling. But rents and food are increased. Not an economist, so I'm not sure how much to read into that.
I am certain that there are mathematicians below, near, and above an IQ of 145 that all have great research productivity. IQ tests do not approximate the creativity, effort, and collaboration required in a mathematician. Not to mention the dubious nature of the 145 claim.
Of course, there are some people that will have a greater aptitude for mathematics than others. But you do not need to be a genius, and this is echoed by Terence Tao [0].
[0] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/does-one-have-t...