Would like to have seen the dates of the songs being sampled.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/The-ubiquitous-Amen-Break-explained

That's what I was saying... sorry if it wasn't clear. Because the insurance companies wanted a single billing for each test, the labs had to set their rates for each test to include the prep... even when a sample had already been prepared for another test that had been ordered.

They could have billed separately for prep, and for the test. But they hadn't been doing that before, so they didn't change it.

I find that claim a bit hard to swallow. Changing the way tests are -billed- doesn't require any change in way samples are prepped. What I suspect really happened was that the lab saw an opportunity to charge multiple times for work that was only done once.

I worked in a doctors office for awhile... and I asked one of the doctors about the costs. He told me pretty much what they say in this video, but there was another thing. Labs used to run a panel of tests for one set price. But insurance companies wanted each test separated out into their own billing. It made a single test cost something like a dollar less than the panel of tests.

The problem being the majority of the work was in prepping the sample for the tests. Separating it out made it so the labs had to add that prep work cost to each test. Since most doctors usually order several tests, it drove the cost way up.

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.

And now there's this: Sarin used in April Syria attack, chemical weapons watchdog confirms

So now we have two narratives that are mutually incompatible. Splendid, isn't it....

My own confirmation bias favours Hersh. Additionally, the OPCW openly admits they had had access to the site of the attack, and that all of their samples were gathered by third parties, primarily the White Helmets. That's about as tainted as evidence can be.

Either way, nobody has anything of substance in terms of proof, everything's circumstantial. Can't call it.

Here's the study he's talking about in the video: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311889?query=featured_home&#Results=&t=articleBackground

It looks like a legitimate study, but being correlational it should be taken with a grain of salt *snare drum, splash cymbal* As corrolation cannot show causation.

They seem to control for various factors like age, cholesterol level and previous hypertension too, so they don't appear to be fudging any results.

Perhaps I could argue they aren't measuring salt intake, but rather sodium excretion, and estimating intake based on urine samples. So there is potentially a huge difference in diet - a lot of the participants were from Asia, where they don't tend to use table salt (they use soy sauce instead) And even though it's still high in sodium, soy sauce could be going through a different process inside the body. (Similar to how sugar doesn't cause an insulin spike when it's in fruit form, but does when it's refined form). It's possible that the salt from soy could be passing through the body rather than settling in the blood stream. I'm just speculating. Or perhaps they are also eating other foods which are protective against moderate salt intake, allowing more of it to be excreted than absorbed.

Either way it's very interesting to me :-)

What I would like to see is a study on foods, rather than ingredients to get a better picture. Because humans don't usually eat individual minerals, and combinations of minerals seem to act differently in the body.


I guess what it's all saying though is if you are healthy, then 3-6g of salt is fine, but once you are at risk of CVD you need to back off in order to reverse the damage. But CVD is of course not the only disease people need to be careful about (although it is the #1 we should be worrying about), but salt also feeds various cancers etc.

Jimmy Kimmel chimes in (the end bit of the video is the best)
https://youtu.be/HV28_ENzFog

Seems ALL reddit videos are currently United Airlines videos. A sampling.
Dog abuse https://youtu.be/qFfEngL2fj4
Dog death https://youtu.be/4VkyNQkAWh0
Kick off autistic child https://youtu.be/TqEZQxP1azM
United Breaks Guitars https://youtu.be/5YGc4zOqozo

He's a bit out there -- in a good fun way.

A full-on double blind study would be interesting, but fairly prohibitively expensive to get a good sample size. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any practical application beyond satisfying curiosity...

It does sound a bit like Booty Swing, so they could well have based this on it or at least sampled it.

The group is called Nogizaka46, and their usual style seems to be J-Pop.

Jesus, I'm trying to eat. That stool sample comment and picture made me vomit a little -- but it tasted alright, mostly rice and chicken so back down it goes. THANKS.

Umm. By far the biggest reason for the shift is the specialization factor, mainly spurred by NOT playing both sides of the ball (offense and defense). Which to be fair, the video did point out.

The video didn't come right out and directly say that was a bad thing, but heavily implied it. I disagree, and think that it is one of the coolest things about American Football. Different positions require (or at least reward) different skillsets and physical attributes. So at the highest level of play, yes, O linemen are going to be huge and stable on their feet. D linemen are going to be slightly less huge, but faster and more aggressive. D backs and receivers are going to be tall and fast. Running backs can excel by being smallish, elusive, and quick, OR large and resilient. And so on.

That specialization makes the game fascinating -- seeing how teams with different balances of specialists can compete with each other and be more or less effective in different situations or against different teams.

Are NFL linemen going to be more at-risk for conditions like heart disease? Of course -- any sample group made up of people that weigh as much as NFL linemen is going to have greater occurrence of heart disease. But that isn't something unique to football players / the NFL. In fact, if you compared rates of heart disease in current / former NFL linemen to a sample group with the same average weight who were NOT football players, they'd probably have a lower rate, because like the video said, those linemen generally still had to be in very good physical shape -- just heavy.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems weird to insinuate that it is a bad thing for the NFL / football in general to "encourage" health issues directly or indirectly because they select for large / huge players. If you want to point out unique risks of playing in the NFL, there are way more pressing and direct issues -- like RBs having LOTS of mobility problems after they retire due to all the bone / joint damage from getting tackled all the time, or increased risk of chemical dependency in football players in general due to all of the pain and other meds that teams pump into players to keep them going.

Too bad that this is simply an ad and the people are all actors. It's simply not possible to tell from a simple DNA sample without comparison if someone has a German or Danish heritage. Things aren't always as they seem.

The one time he allows for a persons life experience, he gets it wrong.

"My mom is Catholic and she believes in hell" is absolutely NOT a valid response to "Catholics don't believe in hell". For someone who believes in data, that's a terrible response. It's a sample size of one out of over 1 billion. And if you were to dig up the canonical Catholic teaching on hell, that STILL wouldn't be the right data (the argument was "Catholics don't believe in hell", not "Catholicism does not teach the concept of hell". Even if you were to say "actually every Catholic I know believes in hell" that's still not a valid argument, unless you know thousands of Catholics.

I've lost a lot of respect for Sam Harris over the years and this just reinforces that.

Of course, data is important, especially when it comes to things like whether vaccines cause autism (they don't).

But if you're talking about things like how police treat black people or whether women are paid less in the workplace... the life experience of those people are a vital part of the data, especially when the data isn't clear cut.

I'm surprised... I figured there would be more demographic overlap there. Liberal leaning, generally fairly young, interested in government and social issues, etc. etc.

But I guess I'm sorta the opposite of the sample group, because I have a bit of a man-crush on John Oliver but have no idea who Wendy Williams is...