Links 10/20/13

Links for you. Science:

18-foot-long sea creature found off Calif. coast
A good time to ditch contact precautions? (no)
CDC Director: In the Shutdown, ‘We Are Juggling Chainsaws’
For lab rats, Oreos are just as addictive as cocaine (or maybe rice cakes just suck)
In praise of exploratory statistics


I Hate Centrism
Here’s Why Your Asthma Inhaler Costs So Damn Much
Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry
What This Cruel War Was Over: It is not so much the behavior of the lone idiot that matters, but the tenor of the crowd around him.
Where Even the Middle Class Can’t Afford to Live Any More
Saltz on the Trouble With Mega-Galleries
Robert Shiller: ‘When I look around I see a lot of foolishness, and I can’t believe it’s not important economically’
The Insidious Power of Not-Quite-Harassment: There wasn’t any touching or overt sex talk. But it was still harassment—just harder to talk about.
It’s easy to not harass women
Sinking the ship in order to save it
You Get Who You Vote For
Silence and Friendship
The Perpetual Budget Crises Have Already Cost 900,000 Jobs
Word of the Day: Brinkmanship
Tea Partiers’ grave fear: Why they disdain young people — even their own! Sociologist Theda Skocpol tells Salon what drives the angry right — and what comes after the government shutdown
An army of robot baristas could mean the end of Starbucks as we know it

This entry was posted in Lotsa Links. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Links 10/20/13

  1. hipparchia says:

    “p-values are evil”


    alas for bora. he’s done a lot to advance science blogging, and i’ve enjoyed reading him. one of the many joys [read: trials and tribulations] of living in a patriarchal society is finding out that people you appreciate in one venue turn out to be real dickheads when it comes to sex.

  2. Min says:

    Am I the only one who is tearing his hair out about the Oreo-cocaine study? The headline comparison between the two was, in fact, the only comparison that was not made in the study. Instead, each was compared with the “control” food, rice cakes. How hard would it have been to do the comparison that the researchers were actually interested in? A poorly designed, poorly controlled study, despite using a “control”. {sigh}

    • onkelbob says:

      It’s a small school, I don’t believe the NIH funded the study (it may fall under NSF funding as training) and most of the researchers were undergraduates. Obviously, this was just a publicity stunt, so there’s no reason to take is seriously. I mean it isn’t as if it’s a paper in a top tier journal and overturns a fundamental paradigm, it’s about cookies. And rice cakes are baaaaaad. Soak them in Jack Daniels and they are still bad, and that’s bad.

  3. Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says:

    Robert Shiller: ‘When I look around I see a lot of foolishness, and I can’t believe it’s not important economically’:

    I’m writing another book with George Akerlof. It’s about manipulation and deception in economics.

    That could be a very lengthy book.

Comments are closed.