Talking about one of the apparently bad psychology papers, Gelman says:
And that’s why the authors’ claim that fixing the errors “does not change the conclusion of the paper” is both ridiculous and all too true. It’s ridiculous because one of the key claims is entirely based on a statistically significant p-value that is no longer there. But the claim is true because the real “conclusion of the paper” doesn’t depend on any of its details—all that matters is that there’s something, somewhere, that has p less than .05, because that’s enough to make publishable, promotable claims about “the pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype” or whatever else they want to publish that day.
When the authors protest that none of the errors really matter, it makes you realize that, in these projects, the data hardly matter at all.
What has happened down here is the winds have changed – Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Someone sent me this article by psychology professor Susan Fiske, scheduled to appear in the APS Observer, a magazine of the Association for Psychological Science. The article made me a little bit sad, and I was inclined to just keep my response short and sweet, but then it seemed worth the trouble to give some …
Someone Is Learning How to Take Down the Internet – Schneier on Security
Someone Is Learning How to Take Down the Internet. Over the past year or two, someone has been probing the defenses of the companies that run critical pieces of the Internet. These probes take the form of precisely calibrated attacks designed to determine exactly how well these companies can …
I'm quite the DIY'er. In this context, by DIY'er I mean, I do my own taxes, I figure out legal stuff on my own. I'm just an all around competent person.
And even I don't read terms of service agreements for even fairly important products.
On the one hand, you have the slight chance that something will go legally wrong. On the other hand, you have the literal hours and days I'd waste reading every agreement and doing the research to understand the implications of what they said along with just a bare understanding of the legalese used within.
I understand the point of terms of service. They're necessary. But I also don't think the structure or paradigm of a legal system that makes a document necessary that no one is going to read is very useful.
Excessively Wavy — prophecyformula: Say it loud: FUCK THE FDA …
“ Say it loud:
FUCK THE FDA
for those who don’t want to click through to a forbes link, the FDA imposed a bunch of e-cigarette regulations, including forbidding them to make true…
Reshared post from +Kaj Sotala
Machine-Vision Algorithm Learns to Transform Hand-Drawn Sketches Into Photorealistic Images.
> A more promising approach is to use machine-vision algorithms that rely on neural networks to extract features from an image and use these to produce a sketch. In this area, machines have begun to rival and even outperform humans in producing accurate sketches.
> But what of the inverse problem? This starts with a sketch and aims to produce an accurate color photograph of the original face. That’s clearly a much harder task, so much so that humans rarely even try.
> Now the machines have cracked this problem. Today, Yagmur Gucluturk, Umut Guclu, and pals at Radboud University in Denmark have taught a neural network to turn hand-drawn sketches of faces into photorealistic portraits. The work is yet another demonstration of the way intelligent machines, and neural networks in particular, are beginning to outperform humans in an increasingly wide variety of tasks.