I don't object to advertising. Highly optimized images can load quickly. I object like a banshee to the insane amounts of js that is raining down on my connection. The bad things that people are doing with that js, from crooked, inept, unprincipled, to down right criminal, well that's just the icing on the cake...
This is why I block nearly all adverts. I wouldn't object to ads that don't track me, or autoplay sound/video, or obscure the content, or waste my bandwidth.
It's the very same thing that struck me right away. The English is off, even though I understood perfectly well what the author intended to communicate. Then it clicked, he's Norwegian, and most assuredly English is a second language.
You may be collaborating with more people than you know. Cause it's, you know, google. I wonder how many third parties get access to your data. Remember, when you aren't paying or pay very little, _you_ are the product.
The data that G Suite organizations and users put into our systems is theirs, and we do not scan it for advertisements nor sell it to third parties [...] Google does not collect, scan or use data in G Suite Core Services [including Google Docs] for advertising purposes.
Does Google have any clauses like this with regard to Google Docs contents? I didn't think they did, but maybe I'm naive.
On another note that sentiment always reminds me of Morning Moon by the Tragically Hip (https://youtu.be/o-cI87djK2Y). It's a sentiment that bears a lot of truth, regardless of Google's privacy policy. But I digress...
I'm not making strain
Said, "Someone's paying
When something's too cheap
Somebody's paying something"
You said, "Some one's paying something."
Under a morning moon, yeah
Say those little things that don't make anyone feel better, yeah
It may be money for Castro, but we're talking about identifying an actor using MICE. The original poster was correct, the actor was being coerced. Don't over think it.
If you read that original WSJ article, Google allows companies to access your email if you give them access to your email. As in, if you install e.g. Kiwi [1] and agree to let them manage your inbox, then they have API keys that they could use to read your emails. Sometimes users just give their username/password to the 3rd party.
But, like I said when the original story came out, those headline writers really know what they're doing. "Google allows 3rd parties to read emails" directly implies your incorrect interpretation. Like, even on the original article, people who hadn't read it were expressing shock in the comment section that their personal emails were being read by Google engineers.
Article is light on details on what constitutes brain aging, but judging by 85 year old Willie Nelson's articulateness in his 2018 interviews, I hope to be aging my brain some day, as I get closer to retirement. Deep, gravelly, I don't give a fuck, voice. Zero hesitation, when he feels like expressing himself.
Article is light on a number of things, but I can illuminate some things...
Having worked in one of the largest centers that do this kind of work, the standard practice is to do regression models that predict the atrophy of different brain regions as a function of age. Several longevity studies have implicated grey matter densities in the anterior cingulate cortex as predictive of living for a long time.
Almost all of this prior work has been done with T1 imaging and DTI. SPECT is a new kid on the block, and has a lot of fans and detractors. It's use is somewhat controversial it seems. Someday I'll have time to dig deeper into the tech.
This correlates with low neuroticism scores, and is also a brain region that SSRIs improve grey matter volumes of over the long term.
You may be arguing from exception here. Yes, Willie Nelson is seemingly doing fine. But we don't know for sure how much he actually smokes. We have his claims.
But even giving him his self-reported claims, he is still a sample size of one.
Your mileage will vary.
Basically what you have done here is taken a piece of information, realized you don't like the results, and have found a way to rationalize continuing doing what you were doing anyway.
If you have ever complained about someone not believing in facts, not doing research, not trusting data, not trusting science, you have just put lie to your reasons for doing so. Because you are behaving just like them. Discarding information that makes you uncomfortable. And we can't do that.
Which makes an one-size-fits-all research less relevant as an absolute rule.
>If you have ever complained about someone not believing in facts, not doing research, not trusting data, not trusting science
Then you've done fine, as:
1) science is not some holy gospel given from god but a man-made endeavor (and prone to corruption, politics, error, careerism, and so on),
2) data can be manipulated or misread,
3) research can be bought, manipulated for grants, follow the wrong methodology, be unreproducible, and so on
4) facts themselves have no value unless you've seen them with your own eyes (and even then, you could be delusional or mistaken). With the term "fact" we denote something collected and reported by somebody that might be mistaken, told BS (e.g. how people self-report lies in studies and polls), distorted the actual bare facts for political reasons or private interests, and so on.
Not even peer review is some kind of holy process for the truth. All kinds of crap (even auto-generated) have passed peer review, academics prop each other up in little cliques all the time, tons of peer reviewed studies were found wrong and unreproducible, few "reviewers" take the time to reproduce or verify a study (to the point that studies quote the same old study for decades, and base their recommendations on it, and then it's found to be unsubstantiated BS), and meta-studies are more often than not very shallow.
If you trust science, you're not scientific and empirical enough.
Verify the crap out of everything you here, even if it's sold as "science".
And every "point" you've brought up is the same canard flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and other sort of pseudo-science hack pushes.
asdf has discarded out of hand the study for the first reason he could find because he does not like the result. There are better reasons elsewhere in this very thread for being skeptical. But he didn't look those up. He didn't do one bit of leg work. He decided "Willie Nelson, Checkmate." What he's done is no better than what so many anti-intellectual hacks have done when arguing against things like evolution and the Earth not being flat.
So yes, I trust science, because I trust the process.
And it wasn't presented as a "one-size-fits-all" research. And regardless, if it was found that it was an average of 4 years, you're just saying "Yeah, well, I'm going to be one of the lucky ones".
The scientific process is an abstract idea. Unless you believe in the reality of platonic ideas, the real world offers a much messier application of the scientific process.
Besides, I've already covered that.
>And every "point" you've brought up is the same canard flat Earthers, young Earth creationists, and other sort of pseudo-science hack pushes.
Which is neither a scientific argument, nor a relevant one. The fact that people who have wrong opinions on another matter (e.g. whether the earth if flat) also put forward this argument regarding science, does not mean it is false. You simply committed a logical fallacy.
In fact, I'm not even sure those people put forward this argument in any case. Young Earth creationists, for example, put forward other kinds of arguments (e.g. that the Bible knows better, which is not the same as "real science is a messy human process, never trust what its practitioners say just because it's labelled as science").
>He decided "Willie Nelson, Checkmate."
Well, it's a good counter-example. At the very least, it proves (given what we know about Nelson is true) that the findings in the research are not an absolute truth but it can vary for each person. Heck, those researches should also study Nelson and other lucid older heavy users, and learn what they can from them as well.
Besides, asdf never professed to put up a scientific argument. He just made a casual comment in an online forum. Notice how everything he said is totally rational and empirically verifiable:
"Article is light on details on what constitutes brain aging, but judging by 85 year old Willie Nelson's articulateness in his 2018 interviews, I hope to be aging my brain some day, as I get closer to retirement. Deep, gravelly, I don't give a fuck, voice. Zero hesitation, when he feels like expressing himself."
He doesn't even say that the article is wrong "because Willie": just that Willie Nelson is very articulate despite being a heavy user, and that he hopes to be as "brain aged" as he is, when he gets close to retirement.
>So yes, I trust science, because I trust the process.
Too bad. There's no pure process in the world. There are just people who are supposed to follow a process, and you need to not just trust the process, but also to trust the people that they will follow it properly.
(In fact even the concept of such a "process" is mumbo jumbo: there's no single well specified "scientific process", with a predetermined set of rules that every practitioner follows or is supposed to follow. It's an umbrella term referring to all kinds of practices, described in several different abstract ways by philosophers of science based on a set of high level steps). Even "peer review" is a relatively recent phenomenon, as is "publish or perish").
The point "Sometime science is incomplete" doesn't say anything to any particular study. It doesn't address anything about the study itself. Saying "the data is wrong here" or "your statistical model is wrong in these ways" or "your sample size is too small" are tangible things and things worth bringing up. Saying "yeah, but science is wrong... sometimes" says nothing.
No one said the findings were absolute truth. It's a pointless thing to argue against. They said they found on average about 4 years of accelerated aging. You get averages from highs and lows. So a counter-example of one is irrelevant. Ok, put him in with the averages. Now the average is... about 4 years. His data point doesn't move the needle.
Sure the article is light on details, because it's a summary of a study. Not the study itself. But the point remains, he latched on to the first thing he could think of to dismiss the results. That's just bad process.
And I never said it has to be a "pure" process. If the only way you have of "making a point" is to stretch others' words to the point of absurdity, then you don't have a point. You are immediately assuming the worst possible interpretation of words rather than even a neutral one. The process is overall simple: perform, observe, record, interpret. If your findings are valid, if your methods are sound, and your tests repeatable, others will be able to duplicate your results. And I'm sure you're going to interpret that in the worst possible way. Because you have already an answer you want, you just need to fit the data to it.
Being skeptical, being open, also means being wrong sometimes. The idea is to consider new information and not just toss it aside because it conflicts with your personal preferences.
LMAO. This will go over like a shit hamburger with my friends of the middle class, middle aged, nuclear family persuasion. Which at least half of them are democrats, and I predict this type of thing would temporarily unify democrats and republicans, of the voting kind, to shoot this down. I'd have a hard time finding a non-laughable, scientifically backed, argument to press them with.
In the absence of historical data, receiving information from another person, without any quick way to verify what has been communicated, coupled with a necessity to decide/act, has long required/used a shortcut.
You look in that person's face, you make the call. You'all remember that stuff. Maybe not so common now, but it's still on TV.. "My word is my bond." and all that.
If that utterance doesn't come with a hardcore look of sincerity playing across the face, well then it's not believable. Looking emotional doesn't mean looking distraught. It means not looking like a mannequin.
Even with data, logic, reason, and an armful of facts, imagine two people with equal amounts of the aforementioned, trying to convince a 3rd party, but one of the individuals throws in expressions/mannerisms that communicate "trust", "sincerity", and "competence"...
I guess we could speculate that she wasn't bad looking at all, but not drop dead gorgeous, either.
But I think it's true that in general, personality can make a huge difference for both men and women. A captivating, engaging personality, combined with intelligence is a powerful thing.
