More and more of all this hippy-dippy green energy bullshit we’re saddled with is turning out to be a collection of Really Bad Ideas:
The only upside I see is that some of our more obnoxious greeny hipsters will tool around town on their BikeShare bikes and get clocked by some drunk in an SUV.
My students repeatedly ask about setting the critical values or interpreting p-values in statistical hypothesis testing. My stock answer is they should do their tests at the 5% level, since this is the most common and accepted practice in the biomedical community (my translation: it’s what all the KooL KiDz do.)
But now some upstart Bayesian Aggie (who’s only published 122 papers) has taken a closer look at p-values and significance levels, and claims the critical values are too loose, and need tightening up. Good-bye 5%, hello 0.5% (for slackers) or 0.1% (for “real” researchers). I suspect this would eliminate entire forests of bullshit journal articles with p-values of 0.05 minus epsilon, and otherwise wreak havoc in academia.
My only grumble is that I need bigger samples for many of my teaching examples. I just wrote up a neat demo of the Breusch-Pagan test for homoskedasticity, which rejected with a p-value of 0.0308. That ain’t gonna cut it in the New World of Your-Evidence-Ain’t-Good-Enough World Order. #@$*&++@#!, twice.
Tip from Briggsy, the Bayesian Bomb-Thrower.
What he said. Read the whole thing,
I especially enjoyed the discussion of evolutionary biology. Personally, I think the field is pure bunk. My favorite question for eBiologists is “What were the evolutionary pressures that modified dogs so that they all enjoy riding in cars with their heads out the window? Does it go back to Dino riding around with Fred Flintstone?”
Tip from William M. Briggs, Statistician to the Stars.
This is just mean, but it couldn’t happen to a more deserving band of grifters.
Tip from the Instapundit, who says APPLY NOW.
This graph needs to become the National Elephant in the Room:
Instead, we get fed a constant stream of circumlocutions and wonk porn like this:
Tip from the Instapundit.
Looks like the implementation of the Affordable* Care Act is on its way to being all things to all people.
The Obamacare exchange website is complicated to use and has seen more than a few glitches since it officially opened on October 1st, but the MacIver Institute has found that once you get through the application process, the website asks individuals to register to vote.
Given all the glitches in the websites and the widespread increases in insurance rates, can it be long before the ACA websites are accused of voter suppression?
Tip from the Instapundit.