They take a 12 question test, so 12 bits of entropy (asfar as I could see these are indeed yes/o questions) and were able to correlate that to gene code, which has orders of magnitudes more entropy (I assume)?
> For the general factor of neuroticism we identified 1,436 SNPs that were genome wide significant and formed 11 independent loci. [...] Again, these findings were comparable to those from the original study by Smith et al.
> We include them here in order to compare them with the first GWASs of neuroticism factors, which we report
next. Four SNPs, all on chromosome 12, were genome-wide significant for the worry/vulnerability phenotype. These SNPs were located in one locus, spanning 219kb. This region contains the gene PPFIA2, which is known to be part of the postsynaptic density in humans [14,15].
And further
> The largest difference in the pattern of enrichment found was identified when examining which tissues showed enrichment. For each of the three neuroticism phenotypes, significant enrichment was found for the tissues of the central nervous system (general factor fold enrichment = 2.76, P = 1.35 × 10−4, anxiety/tension fold enrichment = 3.13, P = 1.90 × 10−4, worry/vulnerability fold enrichment = 3.57, P = 2.79 × 10−4);
> however, for the anxiety/tension factor significant enrichment was also found for the adrenal/pancreas (fold enrichment = 4.57, P = 6.52 × 10−4), cardiovascular (fold enrichment = 3.76, P = 0.004), and skeletal/muscle tissues
They actually had data quantifying the nervous tissue. Wow!
> The genetic variants associated with an increase in the general factor of neuroticism were also associated with a genetic risk for a lower household income (rg = -0.39, P = 2.67 × 10−16), and living in an area with a higher level of social deprivation (rg = 0.24, P = 6.95 × 10−5). However, both the anxiety/tension, and the worry/vulnerability factors showed significant
genetic correlations in the opposite directions to the general factor of neuroticism for both household income (anxiety/tension rg = 0.25, P = 7.64 × 10−4, worry/vulnerability rg = 0.24, P = 3.57 × 10−4), and living in an area with a higher level of social deprivation (anxiety/tension rg = -0.31, P = 3.87 × 10−5, worry/vulnerability rg = -0.31, P = 5.02 × 10−5).
Amazing, but association is not cause. I can imagine living in a terrible neighbourhood can leave a person, well, terrified, not to say neurotic. One question of an older test they used was removed from the revised test ("do you lock the door at night"), because it didn't fit their P values. Whatever that means, the test seems like a very rough measure to arrive at any statement at all.
And the fact that two traits are inversely related means to me without giving it further due thought, that headline is largely misleading.
Because that's cheating! I'm half kidding but you are arguing about price, mainly. Not why the cheaper (free?) content is lacking. You could also just afford a personal teacher and taken to the extreme, a personal translator so you wouldn't need to learn the language at all, which would be cheating. Except that you might have a personal desire to speak the language. What's the problem with Chinese that free offerings are inferior?
It is just chaotic is all I could infer from a first look. I mean English can be pretty messy already and maybe a specific Chinese dialect will be more regular than the bigger picture of the whole language. It's not that your coeds were being cheap, perhaps, it could just be disappointment for something as basic to cost anything at all, and relieve that it's not their personal shortcoming, but just an externalized advantage. You seem to say not even $20 was low enough, have I got that right at least?
> Maybe a specific Chinese dialect will be more regular than the bigger picture of the whole language.
Standard written Chinese is based on the grammar of spoken Mandarin. If someone mentions a Chinese dictionary without mentioning a particular dialect, they're almost certainly referring to Standard Written Chinese (essentially Mandarin).
Also, Chinese is less a single language than the Romance languages are a single language. The more far-flung dialects share less in common than, say Italian and Spanish. If Portugal were a province of Spain, Portuguese would probably be considered a dialect of Spanish. As my Linguistics professor used to say, "A language is a dialect with an army." One rarely deals with "the whole Chinese language", if by that you mean the union of all of the dialects. That would be like dealing simultaneously with Romanian, Portuguese, Romansh, French, Italian and Spanish as a single entity.
> It's not that your coeds were being cheap, perhaps, it could just be disappointment for something as basic to cost anything at all
Dictionaries are not basic in the slightest. I'm constantly frustrated that the state of the art in Chinese/English dictionaries is still not very good.
Here's an example. The Mandarin word for "protect" is 保护 bǎohù. As a matter of semantics, protecting involves three roles: (1) the protector; (2) the beneficiary; (3) a danger to be warded off. In English, (1) is marked by being the subject of the verb protect, (2) is marked by being the object, and (3) is optionally marked by being the object of a complementary prepositional phrase headed by from: in
1E. I will protect her from going hungry.
role (1) is "I", role (2) is "her", and role (3) is "going hungry".
A quality dictionary will include all of that information if you look up protect. But the state of the art in Chinese/English dictionaries is to note that 保护 is a verb, that it means "protect", and to provide a few example sentences, none of which feature role (3) at all. I had to ask a Chinese person how to indicate the danger involved in protecting, which it turns out is marked by an entire complementary clause:
1Z: 我保护她免挨饿 wǒ bǎohù tā miǎn ái'è
Translating the syntax directly into English, this is something like "I protect her to avoid going hungry". There is no possible way of learning the correct usage of 保护 from a Chinese/English dictionary at the moment, as none of them saw fit to include this information. You're certainly not going to get there by analogy to English.
Your Brain? I know it deteriorates if not used frequently and especially if you can rely on look up tables, but really, there is no replacement. Only supplements. Collections of cards in shoe cartons are used by libraries.
What else do you need? A hypergraph of word-vertexes and relation-edges animated in webgl, layered by categories and streamed from an elastic back end? That's your brain.
There's more to it than the joke, because there's a thing or two to say about the use of articles. The "the" there is not incorrect in one reading, as the quote points out, the y combinator can be seen as a generic noun, like "the dog" as a species, or "the blood" as an organ; On the other hand, "the" is "used before an object considered to be unique, or of which there is only one at a time", e.g. "the Queen". So it's kind of contradictory. Just using an indefinite article or nothing at all, is still valid and shorter. People prefer
shorter. I got into an argument before because "some" isn't a useful qualifier. It's perfectly normal to hold seemingly contradictory thoughts like "people like rambling about syntax" and "people don't like that" at the same time, because the meaning that each pertains to only some is obvious from the context. Yes, I'm rambling, and I clicked the article because I need to learn more, so I'm wondering how the y combinator (there, I said it) can illuminate this confusion I just elaborated.
Also, "the" is used to mark abstract terms, e.g. "I go on monday", but "I go on the next monday" (or just next monday).
Does that show why people care about the articles?
One explanation I found for myself why this is a problem is Normal Forms. A DB table can only have one primary key (definite). All else is secondary, n-ary or arbit-ary. The spoken language should be normalizing, too. Spoken lang... it doesn't make a difference in practice though, noone cares to be precise.
> As on object approaches a black hole, an outside observer will see that object's clock slow down and eventually stopping as it hits the event horizon.
So I had the idea that smaller black holes are at the center of the sun, the earth and so on, being the principle source of gravity and the "movement" that we see is just us falling into different black holes at the same time, which are also falling into each other. So micro black holes must be at the center of massive particles too. The world line of a photon on the other hand is just the intersection of two event horizons as they grow, so you get a wave model. And that's why you have entanglement: circles have two intersections, so if your model is two dimensional, you get two entanglements. But you can have vastly more complicated geometries and thus assembles of entangled particles.
I don't know the "standard model" well enough to take the analogy any further, not to mention string theory and all that jazz.
It's really reaching a lot to assume black holes are the sole source of gravity or time. (If you want to distill it really far, I think it's more right to say they counteract time than that they cause or provide it. You go near a black hole, and you age less and have less time to do things between the times of external events not near the black hole.)
>So micro black holes must be at the center of massive particles too.
If an object has a schwarzschild radius smaller than its own radius, then it isn't a black hole. That literally describes all non-black-hole objects with mass. That's just the standard manifestation of gravity.
>The world line of a photon on the other hand is just the intersection of two event horizons as they grow, so you get a wave model. And that's why you have entanglement: circles have two intersections, so if your model is two dimensional, you get two entanglements.
Is there any connection here besides that an event horizon and the sum of all possible paths of a photon in a given amount of time are both spheres?
If there were a micro-black-hole inside of a particle, its event horizon would have to be within the particle, or else the particle would just be indistinguishable from a black hole. The particle wouldn't be like a normal particle with an invisible spherical event horizon surrounding it and affecting its interactions.
> Seeing the universe around them is comparing clocks with another frame of reference
So, if you don't sense anything, you don't sense time dilation either?
This is slightly more complicated. First of all, you haven't given a frame of reference. If you claim someone were moving at 0.99c then you have already set the frame of reference. And they would have to gain near infinite mass and would die. You seem to assume a restricted frame of reference though, inside the spaceship. So, a point of reference inside the spaceship would see light moving with c inside the spaceship. And would assume his own point of reference as the origin of the inertial frame of reference. So baring any outside measurement, how do you know the spaceship is moving with 0.99c and in which frame of reference?
