swansont

(Renaming, since there has been a response) I recall a presentation some years ago on a problem (in the life sciences, in this example, but potentially elsewhere) that you'd draw some samples from your test subjects, and because it was so hard to get the experiment set up and approved, you would end up running all sorts of tests on the subjects. Not being in the field I can't recall what the tests were, but apparently you would test for dozens of different effects. The problem being that you were looking for a p-value > 0.05, and statistically speaking, you would do enough tests (>20) where a false positive would be expected to pop up. So you have the same problem here. if you start looking for correlations, you will eventually find them, without them being causal. (one of my favorites is that buying certain types of cars correlates with voting for a particular party is mistaken for causation , i.e. the situation where one might claim buying a Ford pickup truck causes you to vote republican) This is one reason why you don't rely on one study, and also why you need to find a causative agent that you can independently test. So they say there's correlation, and you see a correlation, but word this as if you disagree?

! Moderator Note This topic is "navigation ability" not "misuse of statistics" Do you want it to be retitled?

But we have a condition you have defined as not in equilibrium. A system being less than the sum of its parts.

But atoms reduce mass to form a stable state. ADS is wrong.

The trend says no, since Trump never takes responsibility fir anything bad.

So I have an atom, whose mass is less than the sum of its parts (individual neutrons, protons, electrons). You say this atom will change until equilibrium is reached?

What does this even mean? What are a and b? States of a system, or two objects/systems? What does “Or more” refer to?

Plus good and bad are subjective. Making them situationally dependent sound a lot like having the ability to define them so that your premise works, no matter what.

! Moderator Note No, that approach will not fly here, especially considering the consequences. ! Moderator Note "Free exchange" of information that is known to be wrong does not advance a conversation.

Do you have anything of substance to add? I mean, do you have evidence that Trump doesn't have a financial stake, when the reporting is that he does? Yes, it's small, and this won't move the needle, but there is a substantial track record of Trump funneling money to himself so it's not unreasonable IMO to have raised the question. If all you have is "bias!" then please go vent somewhere else. All this whining is giving me a headache. (To me the more likely motivation is that if it pans out, he's hailed as a hero. Nothing more than his narcissism in play)

No. I expect that will change in the future.

Then this philosophy already must exist, since science exists.

You appear to be mixing science and philosophy.

Newtonian gravity depends on mass and distance. You could express the mass in terms of a density, but it would also then depend on the size.

California borders an ocean. What is the cost of desalination? Transporting water isn't going to stop flooding. ___ California was mentioned, and their problems are partly their own doing. Agriculture requiring lots of water (e.g. almonds) in an arid region, and huge populations in the cities. Maybe it is political will that's lacking. But from where would California get its water piped in? The thing about dams is they're on rivers, which comprise the existing water transport system that we have. The problem is that anyone near the river tends to take water from it (and that gives rise to some long-standing water rights issues)

The graph here shows that the US residential cost of water is around 70 cents a gallon in major cities. Less than $40 a barrel. https://www.circleofblue.org/waterpricing/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoYvu0L-96AIVCoTICh1aJAOzEAAYASAAEgIWgfD_BwE What's the profit margin on that? How much would a pipeline cost to run and maintain?

That makes sense to me, because if you're going to do a bio experiment you need to be absolutely sure that you have no contamination, or else your experiment is going to fail. What would be useful for studiot's question (and I am also curious) would be a study for shorter exposures, or to answer the question similar to the study about the various surfaces — how does the population vary over time, so people would know if e.g. a 5-minute exposure would be useful for sanitizing surfaces.

It's a different strain, but I found a study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14631830 "Viruses stayed stable at 4 degrees C, at room temperature (20 degrees C) and at 37 degrees C for at least 2 h without remarkable change in the infectious ability in cells, but were converted to be non-infectious after 90-, 60- and 30-min exposure at 56 degrees C, at 67 degrees C and at 75 degrees C, respectively. Irradiation of UV for 60 min on the virus in culture medium resulted in the destruction of viral infectivity at an undetectable level." I don't know how to read that last sentence — the destruction was undetectable, or the infectivity was undetectable? Also, 60 min seems like a long time in terms of using UV to sanitize surfaces. (For anybody thinking that warm weather will help, 56 degrees is quite toasty.)

Absorption would make sense. Adsorption is a surface effect.

"up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard" A factor of 6 is significant, wouldn't you say? Brass is already a standard material for doorknobs and push plates. Unfortunately, so are plastic and stainless steel, which are often chosen for aesthetic reasons (they don't tend to tarnish)

djkfslgdljfghdjkfg has been banned as a sockpuppet of Hshshdndjjshs

Brass contains copper, so that part is sort of expected. Similar effect for bronze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_copper-alloy_touch_surfaces

tmx3 has been banned at their request (technically the request was account deletion, but we don’t delete accounts. This is the closest we come) Foul language and abuse would have led to this result anyway

But you haven’t actually done that. If you have a false negative, and the ones with the virus who have mistakenly been cleared will be able to more easily pass the virus along. OK, I was taking “a set of 7 samples” to mean you test 7 people. Still, the false negatives will be amplified, and testing needs to be more sensitive to come up positive since they’re diluted, as J. C. has pointed out.

How does a 1% probability apply? Is that based on anything valid? How have you eliminated anyone you haven’t tested?