When it comes to daily values for vitamins in food, 100% refers to the minimum amount a "normal" human being needs to be optimally healthy, and nothing more. How much over the optimal amount becomes toxic varies widely from vitamin to vitamin, so the DV doesn't really say how much you have to go over the DV value before you start feeling ill effects.

For example, the 100% Daily Value for Vitamin A is 3,000 IU, while the amount needed for it to become toxic is about 300,000 (for a single use) or about 30,000 (if you're doing it every day for an extended period of time), which correspond to 10000% and 1000% of the daily value, respectively.

Fixing a tooth is a minor surgery, not equivalent to just seeing a specialist. I'd compare it more to something like an MRI, which is comparable in price to putting a crown on a tooth.

Their prices are pretty similar after insurance; free to $30 or so for just a visit, and $500-1000 for a minor surgery or using a heavy-duty test.

By that logic, people can force almost anything out of a company by acting in collective, which is true, but the fact of the matter is that they basically never collectively act on the economy to their own immediate personal detriment. The only times things like that happen are when they are legislated, like New Jersey banning people from self-pumping their own gasoline.

You can do that with air too, and much better to boot. Hot tubs go above 100, but saunas can safely go above 150.

When it comes to statistical measurements, the standard accepted error margin for a new result to be considered a legitimate discovery is very small, but it's still possible for the result to be outside that range by sheer chance.

For example, imagine an experiment that examined cancer rates in connection to smoking said that there was only a 1 in 1 million chance that smoking did not increase chances of getting cancer, and all seeming connections were just a coincidence. That's a very, very low chance of it being unrelated, but it's still possible, and 1 in a million chances happen every day.

If a second experiment is done, using an unrelated dataset, and it also finds the same thing at the same chances, it greatly reduces the chance of the first dataset supporting that conclusion by sheer fluke. It's still not completely impossible, but the chances of both experiments being flukes is exponentially lower than just one of them being one.

It's not to improve accuracy (unless the initial experiment was only accurate enough to be suggestive of its result); it's to remove the possibility of procedural errors, unseen factors, fluke events, or even dishonesty from causing the results of the original experiment to not support its claimed conclusions.

No, as there are many world-states that don't correspond to any seeds because not all possible states can be baseline in a seed.

It's more like keeping the title of the story the same, but you also hand them a piece of paper with instructions for them to apply modifications to the story after they finish generating it. "Change John's name to Joe", or "Megan died of influenza instead of pneumonia", for example.

Imposter syndrome is a persistent and powerful feeling or impression that you are weaker, less intelligent, less virtuous, or just in general worth less than others see you or than your status and accomplishments indicate, regardless of whether it's accurate or not.

It's an involuntary feeling, so it is very difficult to shake, even by recounting all your accomplishments and skills or people reassuring you.