Prometheus

Have you looked at Partial Least Squares? It deals nicely with highly correlated variables by projecting them unto a subspace before fitting the model.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

If we're talking terminators, i.e. assassination, then something like the imagined slaughterbot is a more realistic goal.

You're just missing a pair of square brackets.

Recently tried both these frameworks: Tensorflow is nothing like Python, it's like another language embedded in Python. Pytorch has much more 'Python-like' syntax, if you're familiar with numpy, Pytorch will be simple. However, the community support for Pytorch is currently paltry compared to Tensorflow. Either way, Python is a good start. I don't think the language matters as much as learning the fundamental concepts of ML though.

Here's a list a well over a hundred.

Genes also have their own evolutionary agenda - was that not Dawkin's great contribution to evolutionary theory, that the unit of replication is the gene not the organism?Wouldn't memes be the same? Therefore i don't think it's useful to think of some memes, like religious ones, as particularly self-serving - they all are. But we can think of memes that better serve the organism, in this case the cultures they exist in. Perhaps some religions are more suited to secular societies than others. But then evolution is a blind process and what constitutes better? By some metrics religious countries do very well. My guess is that the changes to the memetic landscape that social media brings, and the click-bait maximising algorithms that appeal to our reptilian instincts which drive it, will change the selective pressures towards favouring extremist religious interpretations. But then i favour the Greco-Roman tradition and they're known Cynics.

I've already given an account of the Genesis myth. The Jesus myth is from several centuries later. If you see how terrible and inconsistent the Star Wars prequels/sequels were compared to the original 50 years later then i can well understand why the Biblical mash-up so poor. A generous reading of the Jesus myth is that human sacrifice is no longer needed, because god has sacrificed himself/his only son for us. I'm not going to defend Christianity too much though, i think it was a regressive step even 2000 years ago when compared to the Greco-Roman traditions to the west and Vedic traditions to the east,. In the bible sacrifice comes up many times (Abel and Cain, Jacob and Jesus). Each instance demands that the best of humanity is demanded. But in the Greek myth Prometheus urges mankind to keep the best for themselves, tricking Zeus to take a lesser sacrifice. The Greek myths challenge mankind to aspire to godhood - which is the greatest sin, Lucifer's sin of Hubris, in the Christian tradition. My interpretation is that the blossoming of man is regarded as terrible in Christianity (although i don't think that's true of the Jewish myths), but as glorious in the Greco-Roman tradition. If we think in evolutionary terms, meme theory, then religion must have served quite a strong survival function. If it was so malignant, it developed so early in mankind it would have been like getting a childhood cancer - not something you survive in the natural world. I think a more accurate analogy would be to compare it to something like the appendix: something that helped us survive in the past, which became thought to be useless in modern times, but has been found to still serve a function for some people. Religion can can understood in terms of psychology and sociology too. The Greeks said that you can know a people by the idols they revere. Religions have their idols, as does the secular world.

At least one Gandhi statue has been removed in Africa, and a new one stopped from being put up in the UK, due to his well documented racist opinions of Africans.

Depends on what else happens, but i fear it could be worse than useless. On the one hand authorities and individuals can simply start removing monuments, hence being able to say 'look we tackled racism', while doing nothing to address current problems that disadvantage various communities. It could also provide recruitment material for far right groups (i'm sure the recent defacing of a Churchill monument will feature heavily in their propaganda). That's not a reason not to remove monuments, but since they will ensure there is a price to pay, what we get in return should be worth it.

The mistake, for the religious or non-religious alike, i think is to take the stories literally. Taken as frameworks they make more sense. The forbidden fruit ( Milton's Paradise Lost solidified it as the Apple) symbolises knowledge, particularly of good and evil. The first thing Adam and Eve notice after eating it is their nakedness - they can now discriminate between themselves and a potentially hostile world and so seek to place barriers between it and themselves. The most interesting aspect of this story is that this coming of knowledge is cast as a bad thing. (Also interesting to note is the role of the serpent - later interpreted as Satan - in bringing about insight in humans. There is a theory that snakes provided the selective pressure that developed the human visual system to such a high degree. Perhaps a hint of how ancient these myths reach back). Compare this to the Greek myth of how humans acquired divine knowledge. Prometheus, the bringer of light (incidentally the same meaning as the name Lucifer), gifts the divine fire it to mankind (again, that theme of light, fire is also probably one of mankinds oldest technologies, both bringer of life and death), so incurring Zeus's wrath and much liver pecking. However, the key difference is that this acquisition of divine knowledge is seen as a good thing, not something to be punished. Herakles, one of the greatest Greek heroes, repays Prometheus by rescuing him from Zeus's punishment. However, humans don't get off so lightly, with Zeus tricking Epimetheus and Pandora (the first woman, so equivalent to Eve in that respect) into opening her jar (or box), thus unleashing all the torments man experiences (hope being a silver lining or the final torment that makes you endure all others depending on your disposition). Both stories cast our acquisition of divine knowledge as the source of our suffering (indeed humans do seem able to suffer in a unique way compared to other animals). However, the Greco-Roman lineage sees that burden of knowledge as our bridge to divinity (through adversity to the stars), the Judeo-Christian lineage sees knowledge as what separates us from divinity - and our ignorance as a return to the divine (man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith).

To what end? Do yo want build mathematical models for medical/physiological applications? Do you want to keep doors open so that later you could move into a medical career? Are you just inherently interested in the subject but don't plan on applying any knowledge? Knowing your goal should help you focus on what you need.

I'm not familiar with SpaceXs financing, but my understanding is that SpaceX treats NASA as a customer and so tax dollars only go to the company via market forces, as opposed to direct funding or subsidies etc... The USA have been paying the Russians through the nose for the same service. Whether that's a good use of tax money is debatable, but SpaceX are just delivering for a niche in the current market.

This is the only one i could quickly find with healthy people. Modern ones focus on fluctuations in the presence of some condition. Use terms in that paper to search for more papers if you like. This has all the hallmarks of charlatanism though, so personally i wouldn't waste time on it.

Depends what you mean by god. If you mean a creator god, in the Abrahamic sense, then that only appeared ~500 BC - and only once in humans among the Semetic people. That's far too late to have any evolutionary basis. Therefore i think God far too new a concept to be subject to genetic evolution, though it may have stemmed from older concepts that are rooted in our neurobiology.

I believe the consensus is that human sacrifice had already largely vanished in most European traditions before the arrival of Christianity, but accusations of such were propagated as part of the subjugation of pagan traditions.

In one person? 100? 1000? WBC fluctuates more than that during the course of a normal day. Even if true, does it translate to more resistance to covid-19? You'd probably want to measure coronavirus antibodies to make that claim. Unfortunately not - medical science progresses slowly for a reason. But they claim to already have data - ask to see it and post it here.

So there's a consideration of statistical significance and clinical significance. As you state, there are natural fluctuations in serum biomarkers, even over the space of minutes let alone a day. To prove this increase/decrease in various biomarkers is not simply a result of these natural fluctuations you would need to repeat the test numerous times until you can be reasonably sure that the role of chance has suitably diminished. This is statistical significance. Related issues include multiple hypothesis testing (in this case there are three biomarkers being measured, i.e. 3 hypotheses being tested, unless they are clustering them somehow) and cherry picking (maybe they measured 20 biomarkers but only reported the ones they liked). Even if statistical significance can be established, is the the finding clinically relevant? So maybe the procedure bumps up your RBC a tiny bit - from within the normal range to a bit higher within the normal range - so what? It might be relevant for high altitude climbers and other niche activities, but for general health i'm not aware of it making any difference. Also well worth considering are any side effects of the treatment - any treatment must weight potential benefits against potential harm. You need to know about both to make an informed decision. Banned by Brazil, eh? The place that doesn't even listen to the WHO? Doesn't sound promising.

That should be the model - and though i'm not following the case, i'm aware discussions about removing the Colston statue were in progress. However, the protestors have precluded any dialogue but forcibly removing it. I have no love for such statues and i'm happy to see them removed if a process is followed - but not by an act of violence. It legitimises vandalism and further polarises the population. The complicating factor in this is that statues represent different things to different people. Colston didn't have statues erected for his slave trading business but for his philanthropy. Presumably to the people who erected the statue it was this aspect they were celebrating. Now no one really cares about Colston today, but what happens when people want to rip down Mahatma Gandhi statues from Parliament square for his racist attitudes to Africans? He was both racist and a great liberator. I'm happy to have the discussion of whether his statue should remain and hope vandals will not force a singular narrative on what should be a dialogue.