Everyone I know in the US either drinks tap water or, if they're picky, just uses Brita or similar filter for tap water.
Fair points. My use of "primary" was a poor choice; I meant something along the lines of "most common among individuals who aren't philosophers, in my experience."
Interesting take! Is lightning conscious, then? The idea of Thor isn't too far off if so, haha.
Not everyone finds it persuasive, yeah. It's an appeal to intuition that many people, though not all, have.
Panpsychism is the idea that everything is conscious to some degree (which, to be clear, isn't what I think). In the past, the common response to the idea was, "So, rocks are conscious?" This argument was meant to illustrate the absurdity of panpsychism.
Now, we have made rocks represent pins and switches, enabling us to use them as computers. We made them complex enough that we developed neural networks and created large language models--the most complex of which have nodes that represent space, time, and the abstraction of truth, according to some papers. So many people are convinced these things are conscious, which has many suggesting that everything may be conscious to some degree.
In other words, the possibility of rocks being conscious is now commonly used to argue in favor of panpsychism, when previously it was used to argue against it.
The online play is garbage. I played in H1 tournaments around the US back when it was good and would love for them to do it better than they did with their remake. The remake actually remade Halo 1 PC, not the Xbox version.
Yep. We find things humorous if they're a benign violation of our expectations. That's also why some folks judge others for their taste in humor; either they see something as not benign (e.g., people getting injured) or not a violation of expectations (e.g.,"stupid," or wholly predictable).
Sorry, but this makes clear that you aren't in science. You should avoid trying to shit on studies if you don't know how to interpret them. Both of the things you mentioned actually support the existence of a true effect.
First, if the treatment has an effect, you would expect a greater rate of relapse after the treatment is removed, provided that it treats a more final pathway rather than the cause: People in the placebo group have already been relapsing at the typical rate, and people receiving treatment--whose disease has been ramping up behind the dam of a medication preventing it from showing--are then expected to relapse at a higher rate after treatment is removed. The second sixth-month period was after cessation of the curcumin or place; it was a follow-up for treatment-as-usual.
Second, people drop out of a study nonrandomly for two main reasons: side effects and perceived lack of treatment efficacy. The placebo doesn't have side effects, so when you have a greater rate of dropout in your placebo group, that implies the perceived treatment efficacy was lower. In other words, the worst placebo participants are likely the extra dropouts in that group, and including them would not only provide more degrees of freedom, it would theoretically strengthen the effect.
This is basic clinical trials research knowledge.
Again, I have no skin in the game here. I don't take curcumin, nor would I ever. I do care about accurate depictions of research. I'm a STEM professor at an R1 with three active federal grants funding my research. The meme is inaccurate.
Why are you completely ignoring the second paper I linked, which doesn't suffer from any of the limitations you mentioned?
The meme says no trial was successful. Any trial with any small difference is a successful trial.
I'm not saying the study is good, just that the meme isn't true.
Also, you can level almost every single one of those criticisms against many studies for SSRIs and they'd hit just as hard. The exception being sample size.
Not true:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714003620
https://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(06)00800-7/fulltext
I found more, too.
Edit: I have no skin in this game. I don't take turmeric and won't ever because of the risk of lead. I'm just pointing out that the meme is inaccurate. The person who replied to me pointed out some flaws in the first study (not the second), but none of the flaws mentioned makes the meme accurate. Even the shitty first study I linked found a significant condition difference in its primary endpoint at 8 weeks. Yeah, it's got flaws (which the second doesn't), but a successful trial with heavy limitations and conflicts of interest is nonetheless a successful trial, making this meme inaccurate. The second study I linked is stronger.
Also, the limitations in the first trial are standard for many clinical trials. For example:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsr.12201
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X14001266
I could list 100 more with the same limitations of the first study I linked above. High dropout, small sample sizes, funding by an industry with a conflict of interest etc. are standard for clinical trial studies.
Ich lebe in Amerika. Ich lerne Deutsche sprechen, aber das kostet Geld. Vielleicht wollen die Migranten Deutsche lernen, haben aber nicht das Geld dafür?
Sorry if the above is poorly worded; I'm still new to the language. My point is that there are lots of reasons that someone might not know a language well, including a lack of money, or a lack of time from needing to work full time to support one's migrant family on a low wage.
Mexican immigrants to the US are wonderful, but their culture is very different from non-Hispanic US culture. I don't expect them to learn English. They work like 60 hours per week to support their families. Like the person you're replying to has said, though, their children learn English and integrate into, but also uniquely contribute to, US culture. Rather than expecting the first-generation immigrants to learn English, I've learned Spanish specifically to speak with them. It's not like there are many more immigrants to Germany than there are immigrants to the US--even discounting the fact that the US has always been a country of immigrants, Hispanic and Latino/a/e Americans (the majority of which are Mexican Americans) are expected to exceed 50% of all Americans within a couple of decades. In some states, they are already the majority.
Diversity is a good thing, and we shouldn't require immigrants to become like us culturally or linguistically before accepting them.
That's not actually the abstract; it's a piece from the discussion that someone pasted nicely with the first page in order to name and shame the authors. I looked at it in depth when I saw this circulate a little while ago.
I was just in a smaller city in Germany and flew back to the US after that. I look German and speak German. When paying with card, Germany felt exactly like the US. At every restaurant, the tip request automatically came up within the thing used to process your card, just like in the US.
It did, actually: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881500Q
That's fascinating, and I agree with you. Why the US hates the idea of high-speed rail is beyond me, especially because they prided themselves so much on the rail system they put together earlier in their development. In any case, the US can't do much of anything with its debt-to-GDP as high as it is right now. They can hardly keep from shutting the government down entirely because they won't even agree to a government budget.
Also, the US is 9.14 million sq. km of land, whereas the EU is 4.29 million sq. km of land
I watched it recently for the first time, and I really don't get why it's so loved. IMDB rates it as the second-best movie of all time, but it seems far worse than that to me. I like most old movies and see their hype, but The Godfather didn't do it for me. What am I missing?