Chill out...the most condescending comment here by far is yours, and the "well ackchually" that sent the thread of the rails is your comparison between cancer cells and needing insulin. If you don't want people to poke holes in an analogy like that don't make it.
Nonsense. This is Stanford. The admissions process filtered for highly academically successful students and then 38% of them claimed a disability which impairs their academic performance. It's bullshit of the most obvious kind.
Example, do you think someone that's hard of hearing can't meet the standard for a 'highly academically successful student"? Or someone that's color blind? Or someone that's blind? Or someone in a wheelchair?
You've missed the point. How does Stanford end up with 38% of their students claiming to have a disability while other schools only have 3%? Are the other schools illegally discrimating against these students, so that their only alternative is Stanford? Or is it possible that something anomalous is happening at Stanford?
While it doesn't explain the whole difference, it's not surprising that Stanford has a higher rate. First: the more demanding the environment the more likely you are to find (got example) milder ADHD to impact your life. Second: the more well off you are or more access to resources you have, the more likely you are to actually care to get diagnosed. Third: stressful environment can actually cause serious issues, suddenly. For non-education reasons I suddenly gained panic attacks while I was at uni and they took years to go away.
On the contrary, it’s very surprising. There’s no way that 38% of people are disabled by any definition of the word. 10× differences between the disability rate between schools simply should not exist.
Where does the idea/reasoning that highly academically successful students cannot have a disability come from?
I would go a step further and say there is probably a high chance that neurodivergent students are more academically successful, iff they did get to that level of education. And it's not impossible that they are overrepresented in that group of people.
And people may be intellectually gifted, and yet experience strong behavioral and social difficulties. Not that my own observation counts but I've met multiple people on the spectrum who were highly intelligent and "gifted" yet faced more adversity in life, i.e. for social reasons. It's controversial because it directly goes against the idea that we exist in a meritocracy.
People are going to cheat no matter what. To me, it's more important that the people who do need and deserve accomodations are able to get them though!
Nobody said that. They are saying or insinuating that 38% of successful students are unlikely to be disabled. That certainly was not the case as recently as a decade or two ago. People have not changed drastically, so what gives?
Change in diagnosis criteria, that doesn't mean people before weren't disabled.
You need to understand people with ADHD usually overcompensate to meet the academic performance needed and it is not sustainable in the long run.
It also doesn't mean they need accommodations, just that they are categorized as disabled in some way or form.
> They said that 38% of successful students are unlikely to be disabled.
Which is an unreasonable claim.
I have a disability that impairs many aspects of my life. I was still capable of getting through college and am successful in my career. Having a disability does not mean you can't do academics.
What does that have to do with the claim? It is very unlikely that 38% of Stanford students are actually disabled, and your success has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
there is a claim that epigenetic mechanisms in bacteria provide weak support for such in humans, not true it was the basis for realizing that epigenetic mechanisms exist, and was central to understanding regulaion of expression.
there is a claim that meiosis resets the genome and that is absolutely untrue.
regulation would be impossible if epigenetic state was wiped out, the result is most often cancer, or lethal dose effects at the cellular stage of development.
you say you are not a geneticist yet you are criticizing geneticists for presentation of hypotheses while lacking the background.
timing of binding and procession reative to halflife of the expression complex is a critical part of regulation of genetic activity.
i am a scientist as well, molecular geneticist; organic chemist, nuclear physicist. i am a true polymath, this is not a meme, i contract for a body of government agencies, as a science officer, thus my ID and fine details of my work are not up for discussion, nor is any of my work for the last 10 years.
i would however be fine discussing generalities of expression regulation systems if you like.
The percentage change is the same for everyone. If a consumer pays 10.05 instead of 10.03, they pay 0.2% more.
If a store games prices to charge 0.2% more on a million transactions it's still 0.2% for them. Except the rounding on multi-item purchases isnt predictable so it would probably take a miracle of data engineering and behavioral science to hit 0.1% benefit on average.
Meanwhile stores are using 30% off coupons and buy on get one free to get people in the door, whilst hiding double digit price increases.
Worrying about the two pennies is stupid on either side of the transaction. Don't listen to the professional complainers.
As the project matures, the risk tolerance should mature too.
Betting your own time and money on the realization of a crazy ideal can be very noble. Betting a resource millions of people are relying on is destructive hubris.
They should take the untamed idealism to a separate legal entity before they ruin all the good they've done.
"Millions of people" should either be putting their money (and their objections) where their mouth is or stop relying on someone else's resource. The reality is, that like Wikipedia, few people have donated to IA as a proportion of all its users.
The "good" that they've done is the "good" as the creator's see it, not the "good" as the freeloaders see it. All of which is to simply say that almost all users of IA are relying on the goodwill of the creators.
I wonder if there would be appetite for a sister organization—one with a more conservative, risk-averse, long-horizon attitude—to emerge to mirror IA’s core archives. Let IA keep doing what it’s doing, crazy risk and all; duplicate the conservative functions in a conservative organizational structure.
It's not an argument by analogy. It's a reductio ad absurdum on the generalization that reality always lies in the middle but not always at the exact middle.
The author wants to find content when he is looking for something specific. He does not want his attention grabbed by something he wasn't looking for, no matter how educational it may be.
Multiple people have clearly explained this to you in several comment threads and you're still insisting it makes no sense. At this point the only question is why you don't want to understand.
Well, what is enough good to grab one's attention? If not Youtube, something/somebody else has to provide this function for the person. The impact Youtube does on me is like having fucking Aristotle as a teacher. Tell me please what is better.
It baffles me that they dug this hole in the first place. I have feelings on the zero-indexing vs one-indexing debate, but at the end of the day you can write correct code in either, as long as you know which one you're using.
But Julia fucked it up to where it's not clear what you're using, and library writers don't know which one has been passed! It's insane. They chose style over consistency and correctness and it's caused years of suffering.
Technically you don't need to know what array indexing is being used if you iterate using firstindex(arr):lastindex(arr). AFAIK the issue was that this wasn't consistently done across the Julia ecosystem including parts of the standard library at the time. No clue as to whether this still holds true, but I don't worry about it because I don't use OffsetArrays.
My dad got bit by a tick, came down with a high fever, but tested negative for Lyme so the doctor wouldn't prescribe antibiotics after two appointments with worsening symptoms.
He was hospitalized when he was too sick to walk and then an infectious disease specialist put him on antibiotics, and he got better in a few days, minus some permanent nerve damage in his face.
It's amazing how confident some doctors can be when they haven't got a fucking clue. The more I read about high false positive rates and non-lyme tick-borne bacteria the more mad I get about what happened.
Yeah, a family member and I had to basically throw studies at a doctor to get him to agree to prescribe a medicine he insisted "doesn't work" (even despite studies clearly showing it does, like indisputably). Even after that he still said something like "sure, whatever, if you want to try it you can", all dismissively as if we're stupid and wasting our time. Oh, and then he prescribed an amount that would never work. We still wonder if he sabotaged it on purpose. Had to go back and get it re-prescribed at the actually-correct amount. The medication worked, and we avoided a completely unnecessary surgery. I have so, so many stories like this.
That’s an awful thing to have gone through, but they are sometimes in a lose-lose-lose situation wrt insurance(s)-best practices-community concerns.
Maybe the patient’s insurance requires certain conditions to be met. Depending on the drug even expressing you’d be ok paying out of pocket can be dicey.
Maybe their malpractice insurance has some conditions based on actions of this doctor or not even this doctor but their insurance pool.
Maybe the hospital, state, school they are at or went to has procedures that just weren’t met for whatever reason. If you are dead set on getting or trying a particular treatment I have found it useful to know what these are. This can backfire spectacularly though if they suspect they’re being played. (Which is an additional related meta game).
And then there are societal/community issues. We aren’t in the time of just using antibiotics whenever something comes up as suspect. We are running out of effective antibiotics for some strains. Having had a resistant bacterial infection I wish people had had more restraint.
Learning to play the medical game or even realizing there is one is extremely upsetting. Doubly so when dealing with sudden life altering conditions. I got mad at it too. But that also didn’t help me, until I realized it’s just a big system like any other.
reply