sfzombie13

sfzombie13 t1_iu0c7jx wrote

the only thing i added was what i heard from a person who worked on the thing they're talking about, and i not only think i can add them, i think it is irresponsible not to add them. had the reporting been more responsible i would not be adding them, just commenting on them, but that is out of my control. and he didn't tell me anything that wasn't common knowledge, or at least available on the internet, so it's not really something i'm making up and can't back up. it's just not a debate class or peer reviewed paper so forgive me for not adding references.

1

sfzombie13 t1_itzrv9g wrote

you're reading way too much into this. what it says is that it targets ads. if the ads didn't work, they would use others. that's what the metrics are for. yes, humans introduce bias, and it could affect the actions to some extent and introduce the bias and become self fulfilling, but only to a limited degree. enjoy the day.

edit: one of the assumptions they started with was that sex sells. to men. the tweaking part is now that young women sell things to old white men. other groups may have different influences.

2

sfzombie13 t1_itza0uz wrote

it is, after years of tweaking to find out what works. surely you've heard about all of those tests facebook ran on users, right? you think they haven't been testing and revising this for years? it's also a well known fact that folks prefer to be in the company of those more like themselves, so the targeted ads make a lot of sense, and money.

−2

sfzombie13 t1_itz9nl0 wrote

the only problem with your theory is that nobody THOUGHT about anything, they tried all sorts of things over the years of tweaking the algorithm, and this is what it ended up like based on the results of that tweaking. they didn't start out with many assumptions, based on what i've heard from a former employee. they're pretty efficient at advertising and they got that way with lots of practice, stuff you don't know about and most likely wouldn't believe.

6

sfzombie13 t1_itier6c wrote

except what would it screw up to get that effect? like how we have crohn's disease now and a few others due to a genetic change that made us more resistant to the plague. it's all a trade off, i'll take my ptsd.

3

sfzombie13 t1_itiegsp wrote

no, but they're using people. that's where the genes come from, and with only 39 of them, and all of them vets with ptsd, how do they know they have enough of a diverse sample to make any meaningful connections that can't be explained by chance?

−1

sfzombie13 t1_ithfzix wrote

no, i'm suggesting they rephrase the statement, as 39 is not a large number of people for ANY type of study. i would think thousands would suffice for large, not under 50. semantics mostly, but sure, now that you've mentioned it, it needs to be at least in the hundreds to be accurate i'd think, or else they'd be getting at most three people per group selected for. it's hard to get a very diverse group of anything with only 39 members, especially with the differences in people.

there could be more than 10 different geographical influences across the us, and then throw in ethnic groups, gender, and economic class and you've got like one representative from each. not much of a diverse study at all that way.

0

sfzombie13 t1_itg7fa3 wrote

from the article - “As this was the first study using stem cell models of PTSD, it was important to study a large number of individuals,” said Daniel Paull, PhD, NYSCF Senior Vice President, Discovery & Platform Development, and co-leader of the study. “ it sure seems to me that 39 people is far from a large number of people, but i don't work in nueroscience, so it may be. anyone care to venture an informed opinion?

13

sfzombie13 t1_is7q4wf wrote

they missed a bunch of them in wv, pfas and worse. i know some places where they were driving stakes in the ground to nail concrete form supports to and they caught on fire. they had to bring in concrete barriers to nail to. not sure what that was but it can't be good.

2