I feel like even a human would also fail if given all data results but those for x and then get tested on x just as the function results differ from previously observed behavior.
Is it not more interesting to observe how the model(human or not) incorporates the new data to better match reality in the case of distribution shift or other irregular distributions and others
Yeah I'd believe a stronger sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor in the waste line stagnation if the diet is not the same.
They did not have omnipresent smartphones in 1970.
Another 10% was low % 5yrs bonds which they had to sell early with penalties to cover the run on the bank which incurred considerable losses.
I would think a VC bank knows that some of its VC investments would not outperform.
My understanding is that if the run does not happen, it's business as usual, nothing like '08 when borrowers started failing to pay en mass on internationally overrated loans in AAApackages.
I do believe that culture might even have started before ww2 when engineers produced too long lasting ladies stockings for the management and were asked to go back to the drawing board with stockings that did last forever (I do not have a source for that story but I've heard it multiple times from different groups of friends).
From what I understand it is saying that ivermectin is useful and efficient at blocking the tool (protein scissors; protease) that the virus needs in order to spread a protein out of the cell.
The new Pfizer COVID drug is supposed to do that too but ivermectin is 0.06$ vs new Pfizer drug with a 20year patent lots of cash for a good lobbying company :)