Jump to content

Prometheus

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Prometheus last won the day on January 22

Prometheus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

544 Glorious Leader

3 Followers

About Prometheus

  • Rank
    Primate

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Building statistical models for Raman spectroscopy.

Recent Profile Visitors

20428 profile views
  1. That's exactly what insulin does - without insulin cells cannot absorb glucose through facilitated diffusion thus blood glucose levels accumulate. Giving insulin treats this. Unless by treat you mean only therapies which would restore function to the pancreatic beta cells which fail to produce insulin in type 1 diabetes. This is not currently possible. Perhaps there is a language barrier here.
  2. Two cases is not enough to draw the conclusion that 'medicine treats symptoms rather than disease'. It's true that there are cases for which medicine can only treat symptoms - these usually reduce to not understanding a disease sufficiently. But there are plenty of cases where the cause of the disease is directly addressed - antibiotics, for instance. Even your own example of diabetes is not representative - all type 1 and many type 2 diabetics take insulin , which is not treating a symptom. I didn't understand the points about hypertension, melanin or skull shape.
  3. Appreciated, though there are still a few teachers i would slap if ever i met them again. I think the thing that pissed me off the most though was that my GCSE science teacher had never even heard of the big bang, and laughed at me when i asked what exotic particles are.
  4. I think that's an unfair representation of what MigL said, at least i didn't read it that way. Lack of motivation =/= laziness. You could be an extremely hardworking and unhappy warehouse worker, but never even think you could improve your lot through education. It's just not a thought for many socio-economically disadvantaged people. If your dreams provide the ceiling of what you can achieve in life, then poor people in rich countries are conditioned to dream no higher than the dog's bed. It's as much a barrier to education as is anything else, but perhaps the most important because it's the only one you can directly tear down with your own mind. That's not mutually exclusive with making changes to education system, but while we're waiting for that to happen, as Billy Bragg says: the system might fail you, but don't fail yourself.
  5. I think this joke perfectly captures the essence of the topic. In this joke the monks were just following teachings blindly. Apparently they never questioned or explored their celebicacy. But i understand (some?) monks are encouraged to explore the experience of celibacy. It's not just an arbitrary rule, but a tool used to explore a headspace few humans choose to navigate. There's an inquisitiveness to it. In this case the transcription error wouldn't matter to their practice because they are focused on the experience. The mindset of the former monks might not be conducive to science, but the latter monks would have an easier time of it. Now it might be that certain religious institutions encourage one way of thinking over the other, but religions are not homogenous and each should be taken on their own merits.
  6. I remember a conversation with a Pakistani friend at school where he said he was going to try to become a doctor and that i should do the same. I just laughed at him - i've no idea where i picked it up, no one had ever explicitly said i couldn't, but even the idea of being a doctor was already beyond me. I was, however, explicitly told by my teachers that i couldn't be a pilot or a scientist.
  7. I don't think it's an unreasonable question, after all astronauts spend some of their training under water to better approximate zero-g conditions. Unfortunately are probably not a good model organism in this context:
  8. Have you looked at Partial Least Squares? It deals nicely with highly correlated variables by projecting them unto a subspace before fitting the model.
  9. You are worried perhaps by countries like Hungary? Being in the EU makes military intervention less likely surely? It means economic and political measures can be much more effective, due to integration. Also, why do you think the UK would be dragged into a war. If we objected to a military intervention (even though historically it seems EU countries are the more reluctant) , it's likely that other EU nations would also object, and we could pursue other avenues. I know the UK were quite passive in the EU, always complaining rather than offering solutions, but we could easily have had as much influence as Germany. Presumably you would also like to leave NATO for the same reasons? And that Scotland, Wales, NI should leave the UK for the same reason (England must have dragged them into many wars down the ages).
  10. Dietetic studies are notoriously difficult to run. They recruit often just dozens of patients, trying to track 100s of variables and several outcomes. And for any prolonged period of time, which dietary changes often need to manifest clinically relevant outcomes, you lose patients to follow-up, or they start eating stuff they agreed not to introducing noise to the dataset etc... The answer to most of your questions is practical considerations. Another is there are bigger fish to fry: hard to justify the additional resources when we still haven't even got a vaccine to market.
  11. I'm sure the Soviet threat played a part, but it seems a stretch to say peace in Europe has nothing to do with the EU and its antecedents. Do you have a specific reason for believing this? Has the EU dragged us into any wars - ever? Do you have a specific reason to believe that the EU is about to engage in a war? The US seems more likely to drag us into wars than the EU, as was the case in Iraq. No, i don't want to go to war, hence i'll be voting to rejoin the EU when the chance comes back round in 20 years or so.
  12. I wanted to stay in for the very same reason (except i guess it'll be me fighting in the war) - the EU was formed primarily as a peace keeping entity by tying economies so tightly together war between members becomes unfathomable. What old pressures do you see? Russia? Serbia? Whatever the pressures, surely the approach should be to stick together not divide. If anything the EU seem very reluctant to go to war, to the point that they should have done more in the Balkans a few decades ago. Isn't that what the EU is pursuing, but most Brexiteers want a border between it and the EU (Eire) - wasn't that the whole point of leaving, to regain control of our borders and all that jazz?
  13. I don't know about the GFA nearly enough to comment. My point is only that US diplomats can reasonably claim to have a stake in process. In a similar vein i believe the UK has a moral obligation to stand up for Hong Kong citizens against Chinese measures. China can rightly claim we are interfering in their politics - i don't see that is necessarily a bad thing. I agree with Studiot on this one. The Remain campaign should have opened with various Churchill quotes favouring European integration, even coining the term United States of Europe, and ended with an excerpt from one of England's great poets, John Donne: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less.
  14. Weren't the Americans important in brokering the Good Friday agreement? If so it seems they can reasonably claim to have a stake in the matter.
  15. Can someone give me sanity check. I've been doing PCA in matlab and python with sklearn and been getting slightly different results. Here's a toy dataset to illustrate: In Matlab: ty = -1.383405780000000 0.293578700000000 -2.221898020000000 -0.251334840000000 3.605303800000000 0.042243850000000 1.383405780000000 -0.293578700000000 2.221898020000000 0.251334840000000 3.605303800000000 -0.042243850000000 [~, ty_sc] = pca(ty) ty_sc = -2.5821 0.3192 -3.4260 -0.2174 2.4038 0.0184 0.1787 -0.2954 1.0226 0.2412 2.4030 -0.0661 In python with sklearn: from sklearn import decomposition ty = np.array([(-1.38340578, 0.2935787), (-2.22189802, -0.25133484), (3.6053038, 0.04224385), (1.38340578, -0.2935787), (2.22189802, 0.25133484), (3.6053038, -0.04224385)]) pca = PCA(n_components=2) ty_pc = pca.fit_transform(ty) ty_pc array([[ 2.58213714, 0.31918546], [ 3.42598874, -0.21739117], [-2.40383649, 0.01842077], [-0.17871932, -0.29536446], [-1.02257092, 0.24121217], [-2.40299915, -0.06606278]]) Notice how the scores in the first columns are identical but for the sign. If all the signs were flipped i could understand, and it would make no difference to follow-up analyses, but just having one column flipped seems weird. This makes a huge difference when you feed these scores into an LDA classifier which i'm doing with the real data. As far as i can tell both techniques are centering and scaling the data in the same way. Any ideas what's going on to produce the difference?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.