Personally I don't know better source with information about different supplements than examine.com, more how they are working here: https://examine.com/about/
If you know better source point it to me, please. This university page you provided is short and old.
Just one question: what's wrong with using dotcom domain?
If examine.com's metaanalsyses are based on legitimate research papers -- and you've read some of the papers yourself and find that they indeed provide support for the article citing them -- then i'd say yeah, use the site.
i guess to respond to your question: most biomedical research today is eminating from universities and university-affiliated entites. page for page, i generally wouldn't expect a .com web site -- the majority of which are probably just attempting to generate advertising revenue -- to be on par in terms of accuracy etc with a .edu site. generally, I've found one of the best ways to improve the signal-to-noise ratio is to filter to a specific set of domains (e.g., ,edu, .gov) when searching online.
" If this were any other manufacturer, they would be burnt at the stake."
Nah. Look at Samsung: you can make a TV that spies on you, a washing machine that explodes, and a smartphone that spontaneously catches on fire. And then go take a look at how their stock is doing this year.
We've reached the pavlovian phase of western consumer culture: we'll just keep on buying and buying and buying, no matter what.
I think the difference is that these problems are magnified in the press but are still rather rare. It is first hand experience that breaks the pavlovian cycle.
Americans started buying Japanese cars because so many of them had direct poor experiences with American quality in the 70's to 90's.
I don't think that has necessarily happened with Samsung, yet.
in employment negotations, the only time you should start signing anything is when you have a job offer letter in hand with the salary you want, and the name of your manager, both in writing on that letter.
(rare exception: sometimes you might get asked to sign an NDA prior to being brought in for an onsite interview. even then, I would think very very carefully about signing it.)
My two cents: don't put companies on a pedestal -- we are certainly nothing special to them, after all. don't do anything you're not 100% comfortable about.
"This course material is only available in the iTunes U app on iPhone or iPad."
That's lame. For years, iTunes U materials used to be available in iTunes store, accessible via macOS and Windows. Now Apple wants me to buy an iPad? Hell no.
Yeah, I've noticed that apple is increasingly locking down their ecosystem as they strive to meet investor expectations. People need to move away from the apple ecosystem.
The proper way to improve education in a community is to get involved with the existing school systems -- the schools are already there. Be wary of ideologues possessing way too much money combined with an impoverished sense of ethics (e.g., Zuckerberg) who shun existing civic institutions and go off to start their own for-profit/corporate 'schools' instead.
Note that this is an Op-Ed, not a news article. The claim that the problem with that effort was bureaucratic waste that was no fault of Zuckerberg is some heavy editorializing. Such a claim would indeed support Zuck starting his own school where he has even more control.
Other reporting tells a different story: while rising-star politicians loved seeing their names in headlines next to big numbers, the effort was catastrophically disconnected from the local community. Unlike public money, private money needed no public review, so the effort was launched like a surprise attack on the local teacher's union; the million-dollar community-engagement campaign's centerpiece public forums drew hundreds of residents who volunteered to help their local schools, who never heard back; the superintendent appointed to carry out the effort was an outsider from California who at one point got a unanimous vote of no confidence by the school advisory board (with no effect because "advisory"); that superintendent spent $3 million on an international consulting firm to develop a plan to redistribute students in the school system so that the neediest students don't end up in the worst schools like they usually do, but then couldn't answer basic questions from parents when the plan was finally revealed. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/19/schooled
Such a narrative would instead suggest that Zuckerberg should focus on more community engagement, rather than on consolidating more control over schools he wants to be better.
Having unaccountable billionaires with no knowledge of the field dump piles of money down (along with dictating how it should be spent) in a splashy PR stunt is a horrible way to improve public institutions.
Instead we should properly tax the billionaires, and then elect public officials who value public education, so they can figure out how to improve schools with the advice and help of all of the local stakeholders.
But a lot of the rich folks’ education initiatives (including Zuckerberg’s, probably) turn out to be more about gaming the tax code and sometimes immigration laws (with a bonus of good PR) than really helping the schools out. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/...
As an added bonus (more relevant to the Koch brothers than Zuckerberg perhaps), charter schools help break teachers’ unions and destroy the public education system, which has a big knock-on political benefit for Republicans who want to undercut a major base of Democratic party support.
>Instead we should properly tax the billionaires, and then elect public officials who value public education, so they can figure out how to improve schools with the advice and help of all of the local stakeholders.
So you're saying that Zuckerberg should run for president? I understand that what you are suggesting will be effective, I just don't see how that translates into something that Zuckerburg should do.
Assuming Zuckerberg is honest in his intention on his education initiatives, Fixing the tax code would be noble for someone like him, but would pit him against other billionaires and would likely be a decades long detour on his immediate goal. Secondly, I don't see how he could suddenly influence general voting populace to suddenly care about education (save for propaganda delivered via facebook (maybe unethical), or going into politics (who wants Zuck to be POTUS))?
As I understand it, you seem to be arguing that the problems are not Zuck's to solve, and therefore he shouldn't try (or his piles of money will cause more harm than good).
Good god no. Zuckerberg would be a terrible president (less narcissistic and less stupid than the current one, but perhaps just as dangerous), without the appropriate qualifications, experience, vision, talent, or track record (other than a boatload of money, which I guess in this post-Citizens-United world can substitute for anything else). The concept of having a cabal of CEO billionaires with no political or policymaking experience explicitly in charge of the US government not only leads to terrible outcomes in practice, but is un-American in principle.
Zuckerberg should focus his attention on running his business in an ethical and civically minded way (a lot of low hanging fruit here if he wants to critically examine and do something about Facebook’s sometimes negative effects on people’s lives, news media, and on civic institutions in general), and should not try to single-handedly decide the future form of public institutions.
If Zuckerberg wants to put his money to good use as a private citizen, he should donate it to a charity with a successful track record and expert leadership instead of trying to exert personal control in a field he knows nothing about or turn everything into a personal PR stunt, or he should spend his effort on lobbying against unlimited anonymous spending in political campaigns, probably the most civically corrosive recent trend in American politics.
A simple question for you. Do you think the way up the current US political ladder is more about merit or more about quid quo pro? I think there's this sort of cognitive dissonance many of us are suffering. Are you happy with your professional politicians in Washington? Do you think they're doing a good job? It seems to me that many people want change in Washington, and don't appreciate that the 'political experience' rhetoric is being pushed by DC insiders in an effort to try to strengthen their own grasp on power. 'Outsiders' pose a far greater risk to establishment politics in DC than ever before thanks almost entirely to the internet.
It's a similar story with education. Education in the US is deteriorating rapidly. And so why exactly would you want to rely on people who are experts in this system? We tend to ignore that a system is little more than the individuals that make it up. The reason US education is failing is because the individuals who we currently consider have assigned 'expert' status to, clearly do not know what they're doing.
Experience is something that should be valued, but not all experience is created equally. I have a rather worse than negative view of Zuckerberg, but I would vote for him before almost any establishment politician. Einstein referred to insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. And by that account, I think we have a national epidemic of insanity.
Yes, many professional politicians in Washington are dedicated public servants doing their best under difficult pressures. They additionally are supported by a large staff of career professionals who are largely there because they believe in the mission. Unfortunately leadership of one of the two major political parties has been working to trash basic democratic norms and public institutions, with members of that party under duress from some of their reprehensible donors.
US education is deteriorating rapidly in places where undermining it and breaking it down has been prioritized by a handful of billionaire political donors, for example recently in Kansas and Wisconsin.
The most important first step toward fixing such problems is to pull the unaccountable, unlimited, anonymous money out of politics, and replace it with proper campaign finance regulations. Next we can try to guarantee every citizen the franchise, make our voting process saner and more auditable, and work on reducing computer-driven gerrymandering.
Do you think the way up the current US political ladder is more about merit or more about quid quo pro? I think there's this sort of cognitive dissonance many of us are suffering. Are you happy with your professional politicians in Washington? Do you think they're doing a good job? It seems to me that many people want change in Washington, and don't appreciate that the 'political experience' rhetoric is being pushed by DC insiders in an effort to try to strengthen their own grasp on power.
That's the conventional argument of course. But it's pretty clear the one party wants to govern, and one wants to "strangle the beast" (that is literally the policy).
It seems to me that people want government to govern, but not waste money, and they are fine with politicians who aren't captured by interest groups.
Most all US politicians are inherently captured by special interest groups. One of the few things that works as an accurate predictor of who wins an election is money. And that money comes in the form of "donations" which leaves politicians to do the bidding of those that donate to them. They need it to get into office and then literally the first day they get into office they begin fund raising for the next run.
Neither party really wants to do anything except further their own power. Maybe one of the most clear examples of this is the TPP. It was going to be one of the biggest corporate handouts in American history, and it was being spearheaded by a democratic president who ran on a platform of trying to remove k-street influence (special interest/big donors) from politics. And while the democratic party put token opposition up, when it came time to for congress to vote away their right to amendment or debate of the TPP - they lined up and made sure he got the votes. It's all a charade.
Finally, a functional government would actually be dysfunctional. Our entire political system is built on checks and balances that means even a small voice in congress has the ability to stop actions from being carried out. The problem is we don't actually have a dysfunctional government. They are doing exactly what they're intending to do - carry out corporate and special interests with 0 hesitation, and then mostly flub about the rest of the time.
Most all US politicians are inherently captured by special interest groups. One of the few things that works as an accurate predictor of who wins an election is money. And that money comes in the form of "donations" which leaves politicians to do the bidding of those that donate to them. They need it to get into office and then literally the first day they get into office they begin fund raising for the next run
Right, though I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion? The issue was on the inherent conflict of interest for individuals who make their way to the top of politics through the system - through the experience that's supposed to be valued. In many ways the product is tainted before it even 'ripens.'
To pull a quote: research on lobbying suggests that lobbyists are not the omnipotent power brokers that voters sometimes imagine them to be. Further, it suggests that insofar as they matter, they matter for reasons that are hard to regulate away.
I think campaign finance is important, but more than that I want to see progressive candidates win.
I don't think the nihilist argument that "politics is broken" is correct. Nor do I think there is anything which implies an inherent conflict of interest in politicians. A pro-NRA candidate will be supported by the NRA, and if they win they will listen to people they already know. The same with a pro-environmental issues candidate.
This isn't simply being beholden to special interests - there is a strong interdependence between the group and the candidate and it runs both ways.
(Also, someone seems to be coming through and downvoting both our posts days after this dropped off the front page. I've upvoted yours, but just be aware it is happening)
Valuing "public education" means you don't value education per se, but you value the part that maintains your party a voting base of education unions and bureaucrats.
Moving my kids from public school to a charter was the second best thing we ever did for them. The difference in the quality of their education was immense.
Breaking public school unions would be the best thing we could do for public schools. There is ZERO justification for tenure at the school teacher level.
You can already see the results in several states. It’s pretty ugly so far, and likely to only get worse. Teachers are trending less qualified and less experienced, move from district to district more, turnover is higher, everyone is more stressed out, parents and students are less satisfied and less successful, schools are still poorly maintained and supplied, more money than ever gets siphoned off by business consulting firms etc. The super-wealthy in those states get a bit of a tax cut, but nobody else really sees any advantage.
The primary way that charter schools juke their stats (to the extent they are able – often their outcomes are just objectively mediocre) is by selecting out a collection of students likely to be successful and kicking out the rest. Of course, there is a spectrum, and some charter schools (just like some regular public schools) are quite successful.
Valuing “public education” means that you value education of the broad citizenry, instead of only valuing education for your own kids and screw everyone else.
There is already an East Palo Alto private prep school (East Side Prep) with a very strong track record at preparing their students for college and employment.
No, it's saying a proper way must work. If you think your approach works, please make the case for that. Keep in mind that the system whereby public school districts are funded by local taxes have a spotty record at best.
Disclaimer: Saying public schools have a spotty record isn't insulting people who work in or love public schools. Objectively, property values correlate with school quality for a reason. And high property values make quality schools more expensive, especially for the poor, but the profits are captured by landlords, not the school system or the general fund of local government. Point being, this isn't a personal, us-versus-them fight.
In that situation it is your place to intervene because the person has his or her willpower and logical mind hijacked by alcoholism. We are creatures of logic but also of passion. Sometime our body will do things that our mind don't want them to. In those situation, help is required. The person can't defend itself so it's your place to help them.
Sure but people still have bodily autonomy. Nobody has the right over anyone's body. You can tell them the risks, you can try to convince them to get rehab, but they ultimately have the right to do what they want with their body. Whether or not you disagree with someone's right is irrelevant, it's still one of their inalienable human rights.
It's really not that simple and you're confusing things. Sure, we have the right not to be molested or have treatment forced on us, but that's completely different from the idea of having the right to self-harm. There is a common fallacy, that we have a moral right to do whatever we wish with out bodies. We don't. This has nothing to do with anybody else having a right over anyone else or the law (we must distinguish between MORAL rights and legal rights, or I could just as easily say that legislation could change the right you believe you have). Even if you were the only person left on the planet, you would not have the moral right to self-harm. Why? Because we do not have the right to moral evil and self-harm is a moral evil.
Moreover, unless those engaged in genetic experimentation sterilize themselves, it also poses risks to population genetics.
I'm not actually confusing anything, and I don't see where your definition of "Moral evil" is coming from.I don't see why the right to self-harm is immoral. Tattoos and piercings are self-mutilation. I agree on the risk of population genetics and think that sterilization should be required before even attempting such a procedure, but that's because you're risking the well being of others, not self.
When you have to threaten someone on your team, you've reached rock-bottom as a manager; all you're really accomplishing is convincing your team to leave for greener pastures.
You know how Mao said power flows from the barrel of a gun? In the office, power flows from the threat of job loss. It's the threat implicit in every executive decision.
Wasn't entirely sure if this was a sincere post, or some sort of unfunny burlesque of some kind. Assuming it's sincere, then the author of this blog post couldn't be more wrong about how to manage a software team. If a manager-type started going full-on micromanagement on me ("add a private var to this class now! rawr!"), bandies about the term 'insubordiation', and generally believes they're entitled to my unthinking obedience, then congrats: you've successfully convinced me to start floating my resume so I can get the hell out of that shitshow. I'm an educated, experienced software engineer with multiple degrees and life's too short to put up with that bullshit.
