Nice thanks for the iOS rec. I've been a big fan of FlowX (https://flowx.io/) on Android which has had a similar graph/visualization with the addition of also having a radar view.
BTW, I'm in the process of porting Flowx to Apple. It's not as complete as the Android version but it's in beta testing if you'd like to join. Just message me and I can send an invite.
I was thinking about this since I read the article. The number you state seems to be 0.5% of total subjects. To my understanding, this is not how "p < 0.005" is employed.
If we take the control group, we have P(Corona)=90/15000.
The likelyhood of getting as an extreme result in the vaccine group is then P(0 cases) + ... + P(5 cases) = [math and statistics] = the actual p-value.
How did you determine the statistical significance in your post?
That’s hugely misleading. Allison was not part of the research team and didn’t have anything to do with this work, he was just quoted in the article. The article says:
“ The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.”
Yeah, plant-based and healthy are not necessarily the same. This at least free of cholesterol vs meat, but I think the main draw is the plant-based aspect rather than healthy.
BART's technology was created by aerospace engineers who wanted to reinvent the railroad and make it "better".
What this resulted in was
- a wider track gauge than any other used in the US
- bespoke rolling stock with different braking, control, coupling systems
- untested ATO that had several early failures
The first two have had lasting impacts; servicing BART equipment is very difficult because no one else has ever made traincars like that, and it makes it difficult to extend BART over existing rail tracks. The expensive of all this "cool" factor is at least a factor of two over standard rail projects, which is why eBART was built as a normal diesel rail line instead of as a BART extension.
Other examples of "cool" transit technologies that ended up aging poorly because of their rarity are monorails and maglevs. With economies of scale it's hard to beat trains, and trains already go to 220+ MPH; there are very few markets where you would need to go significantly faster via land, and where doing so would be a big advantage over air travel, as Hyperloop is proposing.
Blueprint is meant for desktop applications. For example, Electron apps. You'll notice Blueprint tries to give that desktop app feel, versus Antd, which does not.
I believe they meant desktop-feel as opposed to mobile first (mostly because some consider Material to be a mobile-first decision). Additional Note: Blueprint doesn't go out of it's way to degrade nicely for mobile screen sizes for most components and doesn't provide the grid layout or progressive embeds typically associated with mobile-friendly UI libraries.
