Audience loves CQC, that's a fact.
About the state of the game... eu... yes!
Let's stay on-topic, just in case...
State of the Game
- Thread starter Fuglydog53
- Start date
Audience loves CQC, that's a fact.
About the state of the game... eu... yes!
Let's stay on-topic, just in case...
Bit too keen to volunteer there old chap...
Should've listened to my friend, shouldn't I?Bit too keen to volunteer there old chap...
We should all up our behaviorism game. An open source source might help (it's so fitting):
It assumes that behavior is either a reflex evoked by the pairing of certain antecedent stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual's history, including especially reinforcement and punishment contingencies, together with the individual's current motivational state and controlling stimuli.
The roles are clearly assigned.
@MishaTX will opt for the "punishment contingencies" before retiring to his bunk...
That would be an excellent name for a rock band, now that I think about it.
Edit: Or a ship. I guess I'll be building that Fer de Lance after all!
One true and horrifying story about bad science.
In investigating treatments for ME/CFS a trial (the 'PACE trial') reported that two particular treatments, known as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET), were effective. They cited 641 test subjects and claimed that 60 (yes sixty) percent showed improvement, if not cure. The result was that these approaches formed the basis of medical treatment and insurance companies response to ME/CFS.
However, their findings did not ring true to sufferers of the condition nor experts in the field.
After a very lengthy and combative process the underlying data was finally released for review, and "...analysis showed that... only 4.4 percent of the exercise patients and 6.8 percent of the cognitive behavior therapy patients would have qualified as having recovered, along with 3.1 percent of patients in a trial arm that received neither therapy." So not quite 60%.
It was also found that the definition of “recovery” used was so loose that patients could get worse over the course of the trial on both fatigue and physical function and still be considered “recovered.” and that the threshold for physical function was so low that an average 80-year-old would exceed it. Additionally "The study used such a broad definition of the disease that it likely included many patients who didn’t truly have ME/CFS at all."
In my conversation with a very senior ME/CFS specialist, he was blunter, saying that of the 641 test subjects, 0 showed any significant improvement.
But along the way, how many people had been harmed and made to feel that they were wrong about their own bodies? I find it obscene that this now thoroughly discredited study has never been retracted.
Sorry to vary the tone. Cat meme coming shortly.
Have I missed any spoons since yesterday?
Nope, there is still no spoon.
Anyone interested in a great overview of bad science and quackery I recommend "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre if you haven't read it...
Which, coincidentally, was also the title of one of my chemistry papers back in school.
Small world!
OK, so not the title. More a note added by the professor, but that's sort of a title, isn't it?
Still not a Kale fan but everyone their own. The anteater doesn't look too happy about it either...
Sees the 879423th Odyssey thread by same non-Odyssey owner trying really hard to justify to themselves and to "the community" why they're absolutely going to buy it despite ranting about it since beta and explaining to everyone how every other game does it better.
Today's possible moral justification for purchasing Odyssey? "Can I uninstall it?"
Posts, then waits for 879424th thread.
Today's possible moral justification for purchasing Odyssey? "Can I uninstall it?"
Posts, then waits for 879424th thread.
Well, this was hardly a science, more of a con.
What I meant is even science done "the right way" has some (low) "failure rate".
For whatever obvious reasons, that I feel to lazy to add here, because they, as mentioned, obvious...
what about a fabergè spoon?
-spoon.jpg)
or even better a collections of fabergè spoons?
.jpg)
or even better a collections of fabergè spoons?