pull down to refresh
@Undisciplined
7,264,402 sats stacked
stacking since: #88718longest cowboy streak: 670npub1t49ke...rm3srw4jj5
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 3h \ parent \ on: 2026 NBA Prediction Contest: July Picks Stacker_Sports
I think it's smart to stick. If nothing else, the Nuggets have less room for error.
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 4h \ parent \ on: NBA Redraft 4/21: 2006 (Take 2) Stacker_Sports
Got it
I've seen this idea mentioned as though it were common knowledge, but I've never seen a description of how it would work.
It's no even remotely easy to start up a bank.
I recall from my history of money reading that goldsmiths were amongst the earliest bankers. The reasoning here might be somewhat similar. They were the ones who were accustomed to handling large amounts of gold and storing it securely, so people started paying them to use their storage facilities. Then, they started (over)issuing redemption notes, which circulated far more broadly than the physical gold would have.
Yeah, there was a clever design to measure the harms of smoking while pregnant.
Obviously, you can't just assign one group of women to a treatment group and have them smoke two packs a day.
What you can use in these situations is an "intent to treat" strategy. In that study, one group of women received some extra literature and counseling about the harms of smoking. That group of women, who previously reported the same smoking rates as the control group, smoked less during their pregnancies. By attributing the reduction in smoking to the intervention (and assuming there was no other channel by which that intervention impacted health) you can treat the difference smoking as though it's exogenous.
In other words, it's almost empirically equivalent to actually assigning one group to smoke more, without being morally equivalent.
I have no dog in this fight, but this is yet another observational study.
It's very disingenuous for experts to say this should put the matter to rest, when the skeptics have specifically been complaining about a lack of clinical trials.
There are established methodologies that can be used without denying control group kids vaccines, which is the usual objection.
Considering the severity of the Replication Crisis, I imagine a full audit will be disastrous for trust in science (really it should just be disastrous for trust in those scientists, but people aren't very nuanced).