HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

dbroockman

no profile record

投稿

Effects on Political Views in OpenResearch's Basic Income Study

twitter.com
2 ポイント·投稿者 dbroockman·2 年前·0 コメント

Unconditional Cash Study: first findings available

openresearchlab.org
232 ポイント·投稿者 dbroockman·2 年前·644 コメント

Antithesis – Autonomous Testing

antithesis.com
43 ポイント·投稿者 dbroockman·2 年前·2 コメント

Booster dose of Pfizer vaccine shows 95.6% efficacy in Phase 3 trial

cnn.com
2 ポイント·投稿者 dbroockman·5 年前·1 コメント

Breakthrough Cases May Be a Bigger Problem Than You’ve Been Told

nymag.com
19 ポイント·投稿者 dbroockman·5 年前·58 コメント

コメント

dbroockman
·3 年前·議論
Another one: don’t program your own AB testing framework! Every time I’ve seen engineers try to build this on their own, it fails an AA test (where both versions are the same so there should be no difference). Common reasons are overly complicated randomization schemes (keep it simple!) and differences in load times between test and control.
dbroockman
·3 年前·議論
CA YIMBY has been making a lot of progress on this at the state level. If this stuff makes you mad it’s a good org to donate to: https://cayimby.org/
dbroockman
·4 年前·議論
This is a rewriting of history. Before we ever had results from the COVID vaccine trials, the FDA declared that the primary goal of the trials was to prevent any symptomatic infection in the first place. From June 2020: https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download.
dbroockman
·5 年前·議論
And that’s 95.6% efficacy relative to two shots! Relative to no shots it must be like 97%. Wow.
dbroockman
·5 年前·議論
This paper is intended as a sarcastic critique of the push towards conducting randomized trials in academia/medicine, but it’s an obvious straw man. You could write this sarcastic article for any research method - “see, why do research using method X when we already know the answer from other methods?”

The problem is that there are plenty of research questions where RCTs show us that previous non-RCTs were wrong.