This example doesn’t fit the updated definition:
One tip is on 2, and the other tip is on 2 ÷ 2 = 1.
Good read, I don’t think I’d heard of Ramanujan primes before.
purge
Karma: 101
My guess is that without school we would clearly be at or near the peak, so the question is whether school will change that. My guess is no at least right away, because when we look at last year we don’t see a rise happening in September.
Many schools that weren’t open/in-person last year will be this year, though.
Think Twice is another good one for geometric proofs.
I also liked Epic Math Time’s video on the operation a^log b.
>>> x = True >>> id(x) [etc...]Due to Python’s style of reference passing, most of these print statements will show matching id values even if you use any kind of object, not just True/False. Try to predict the output here, then run it to check:
def compare(x, y): print(x == y, id(x) == id(y), x is y) a = {"0": "1"} b = {"0": "1"} print(a == b, id(a) == id(b), a is b) compare(a, b) c = a d = a print(c == d, id(c) == id(d), c is d) compare(c, d)
Two teams of two players (strong + weak vs. medium + medium) is fairly common, I think. It’s called ren go. But 2 vs. 1 would be different—the team of 2 players would be handicapped not just by the weaker player, but also by the lack of communication. This is a possible way to handicap, sure, but it can’t be tuned as precisely as komi or even star-point handicap stones. Precision is an important consideration for handicapping.
I’ve also seen another method where two players of unequal strength played an even game, but a stronger third player teamed up with the weakest player. They didn’t communicate, and didn’t alternate turns within their team—instead, the strong player was allotted a certain number of stones at the beginning of the game. Then when he spotted an especially big mistake by the weaker player, he could spend a stone to correct that move. This might be categorized like asymmetric time controls: the weaker player gets more resources.
The most important bit here is not “double-layered”; it’s “all recruits”. There was no unmasked group for comparison, so this study tells us nothing about mask effectiveness beyond “some people still got infected, so they’re less than 100% effective”.
Correction: for participants on day 14, it was somewhere between 11 and 33 out of 1847 (0.6%-1.8%). Not that it makes much of a difference.
It’s not that I “don’t believe in Evidence-Based Medicine”, it’s that you didn’t mention in your first comment that your were talking about a different study, so I really didn’t know what you were talking about. Thanks for giving the link.
The Marine study doesn’t address the effects of masks. Both the participants and nonparticipants wore masks. The actual difference between those groups was that the participants were asked about symptoms, tested, and isolated if positive at day 0, 7, and 14, versus only on day 14 for nonparticipants. It gives us some (unsurprising) evidence that surveillance testing and isolation helps: on day 14, at least 11/1760 (0.6%) and possibly as many as 22/1847 (1.2%) participants were positive, compared to 26/1554 (1.7%) nonparticipants. Unfortunately the reporting is not great, so we don’t know exactly how many participants were positive on day 14. And this is pretty weak evidence: we don’t know how many of the nonparticipants would have tested positive at day 0, so it’s hard to say how much of the day-14 difference was due to weeding out infected participants versus the participants possibly starting with a lower infection rate.
What military recruits are you talking about? I didn’t see any reference to the military.
My current understanding is that masks work by keeping you from spreading virus. If you don’t have the virus, wearing a mask is useless.
That’s an overstatement, by my understanding. Masks are better at stopping outgoing germs than incoming ones, but they still do some good for both directions.
Also seemingly reversed:
A lot of folks, it seems to me, focus a lot on the content
on the coin being heads-biased, on it being tails-biased, and on it being tails-biased
1⁄3 on it being fair.
I had thought you were arguing for strong selection pressure based on variation in pigmentation among aboriginal Australians compared to their latitude within Australia. The map doesn’t support that (in Australia or South America), since it has nothing to do with skin color.
If instead you’re arguing for pressure based on aboriginal Australians quickly becoming darker-skinned than their southeast Asian ancestors, then that doesn’t point to the importance of vitamin D. It points to the importance of not getting skin cancer. Rapid evolution of lighter skin would point to the importance of vitamin D. I suppose if the southeast Asian ancestors of aboriginal Australians had similar pigmentation to modern aboriginal Australians (maybe due to rapid migration from Africa? I don’t know), and if those who remained in southeast Asia developer lighter skin in that time, then that argument could work. But do we know what sort of skin tone the Asian ancestors of aboriginal Australians had?
On the other hand, B is about the skin color of the residents of the area by their sensitivity for the wavelength of 305mn.
The source you linked to says something different:
The coefficient of variation (CoV) for UVB (Fig. 9.1B) is strongly associated with its seasonal nature outside of the tropics
So that’s the standard deviation divided by the mean, all calculated purely from UVB levels throughout the year, not from skin color.
Even if the map were based on skin color, that still wouldn’t point to rapid evolution unless they excluded Australians of European descent. Otherwise, if you tell me that lighter-skinned people living in Australia tend to live farther from the equator, well… sure, that’s where I’d expect the British to settle.
I take D3 as well, though I didn’t know about the link between the timing of it and sleep, so thanks for that. I’ll switch to taking it in the morning.
Closing the loop: I got my second shot at 8 weeks, on the basis that 1) I could get it as a walk-in with no wait, and 2) there’s more “normal” available to go back to now.
How did you arrive at 12 weeks?
I did confirm that my slot would be available for someone else, although I can’t guarantee that the slot was filled.
I have relaxed my own precautions to some extent after the first shot. I’m not too worried about being barred from anything based on anyone else’s policies—the limiting factors are more likely to be my own caution, local prevalence, and whether someone else’s onerous policies (general, not specific to my vaccination status) make an activity not worth doing anyway.
Do you have a reference for the comparison of first-shot Pfizer vs. J&J?
I agree my personal impact on FDF is small, but I’d like it to point in the right direction. I expect the impact would be less like “one person gets their shot X days earlier” and more like “X people get their shot one day earlier”, though I’m not sure which of those would have the bigger effect.
As for the impact on perceptions, I’m not telling many people what I’m doing, and the people I have told don’t have any vaccine hesitancy. So I’m not worried about that.
Corollary: if you surround yourself with a group of fellow game theory nerds, you can do more frontier exploration. But successfully developing/explaining/using new mechanisms within this group will then be less instructive about how easy it will be to export new mechanisms beyond the group.