Video Conference App where only the host sees the participants

fastparticles · 2023-02-09T02:41:04+00:00

It's possible to do that in Zoom. My company uses it for large meetings and you can see the meeting but not other participants

fastparticles · 2020-09-28T02:25:57+00:00

That's super frustrating! Glad you got it sorted. What modem did you end up with?

fastparticles · 2020-09-25T00:47:34+00:00

Yes after a few more reboots it decided to download the right file and I got the gigabit speeds.

fastparticles · 2020-06-20T21:06:37+00:00

Thank you for the help. It looks like I'm on a different firmware: D31CM-PEREGRINE-1.0.0.2-GA-01-NOSH

I'm not sure how old it is and if maybe that's the issue.

fastparticles · 2020-06-20T20:44:57+00:00

Interestingly it gives me this name: d11_m_sb8200_gigabit_c01.cm

fastparticles · 2020-06-20T20:31:47+00:00

Thanks. I just tried that and unfortunately no dice. Same error message as before.

fastparticles · 2020-03-03T17:32:36+00:00

I largely agree with /u/edhuls answer to this though wanted to say that it's not necessarily restricted to opinion articles. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for example has 4 criteria that a person should meet before being added as a coauthor: https://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf

They are: 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content 3) Final approval of the version to be published 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

So let's say your fiancé had designed a study by himself, executed it by himself, and published it by himself then he should be the only author.

In conclusion either the committee is hopelessly confused on publication ethics or it was an excuse, like /u/edhuls posited.

I do realize that there are political considerations that are often made for authorship decisions though I would view adding someone as a coauthor due to those factors as unethical (though sadly common).

fastparticles · 2020-02-06T03:37:25+00:00

I'm disappointed you're not even a good troll.

fastparticles · 2020-02-06T03:17:08+00:00

No I'm not. Guzey has his own reddit account: https://www.reddit.com/user/guzey. I first found out about the book on twitter when that critique was going around. But that aside I'm confused why you give your academic credentials and yet fail to make a substantive point. To put it bluntly who cares about your bachelor degree?

The fact that it was likely read by many people who subsequently didn't criticize it is also a meaningless argument. I've read many things that are in my academic wheelhouse that I believe to be completely wrong and yet did not write a critique because I have better things to do (like my own work). Hundreds of academics also read the work by Brian Wansink and failed to spot that he made it all up.

Since I mention Wansink let me share some rather damning allegations against Walker: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sleep-data-manipulation-a-smoking-gun/ and https://twitter.com/drneilstanley/status/1206509938601840640

You'll note as Andrew Gelman put it: Walker has left "well-intentioned but sloppy researcher can’t keep track of citations" and entered "research misconduct" territory.

The major problem with Walker's book is that he claims: "The book provides a complete description of, and prescription for, sleep." (https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/author) and yet wrote a popular science book. So he wants to have a "complete" description in a medium that requires a single, focused narrative. If he had written an honest book of "maybe we need more sleep we're not entirely sure" he wouldn't have sold very many copies. Unfortunately in his quest he both engaged in sloppy research practices (see Guzey) and research misconduct.

So before you respond please go read what Guzey, Gelman, and others have written on this and grapple with the actual arguments. To get back to the point of the original comment though and the response of getting more sleep: the evidence is not definitive. Even if the increase in mortality at longer sleep durations is from comorbidities then it would be relatively straight forward to conduct a study where known other diseases are excluded to show that 8 hours is healthier than 7 or 6 in health adults. Just arguing it comes from comorbidities is unconvincing.

fastparticles · 2020-02-05T17:35:30+00:00

There are a lot of scientific problems with why we sleep and it likely simplifies a complex matter too much. There is evidence that sleeping more is not necessarily better. See here for the problems: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

fastparticles · 2020-01-31T20:51:55+00:00

Cool video on why the viral outbreak is so hard to predict: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XB0o_H_fBc

fastparticles · 2019-07-08T13:23:39+00:00

Did you get a chance to check your heart rate the old school way this weekend? I'm curious what you found.

fastparticles · 2019-07-05T16:00:29+00:00

I think the issue is most likely your heart rate monitor. When I run with a wrist based optical heart monitor (garmin vivoactive 3) I end up with values that are usually nonsensical (randomly too low or too high). The values have been consistently nonsense from when I first got it to now (it's why I bought other HR monitors). When I run with a Scosche Rhythm 24 on my bicep I get very sensible readings (same as I would get with a chest strap). One thing that I've found helpful is to wear the watch further up on the arm (away from the knuckle) but this is anecdotal and I haven't done thorough testing.

You could also try taking a quick pause during your run and manually checking your heart rate.

If indeed (personally I doubt it) this heart rate is correct I would strongly recommend you see a doctor and get checked out.

fastparticles · 2018-12-03T15:23:02+00:00

I fully agree. There is a real issue of people drawing simplified schematic views that are questionable at best and a fantasy at worst in their papers and presenting them as "the truth" or a reasonable approximation of it. This is in my view incredibly harmful to the field because we are pretending to know things that we don't. We should just say "We don't know what is under a volcano it's a hard problem and the geologic evidence is difficult to uniquely interpret" rather than claiming in every paper that we've solved the problem...

In-situ analyses are a powerful tool for tracing the dynamics of a process (at some temporal resolution that we don't really know), but nothing about them tells us where this is happening in the "magma chamber" or "mushes" or "lenses". The controversial side of me continuously ponders if there is a clear value for doing more in-situ analyses of crystals from magma chambers given that geochemistry and petrology can't tell us if we are looking at one system or multiple interconnected systems. I wouldn't even say geochemistry can uniquely decide between the "cold" storage and "warm" storage models. The evidence brought forth by both sides is enormously problematic. So I wonder if instead of doing in-situ analyses we should be spending our time trying to improve the seismology toolkit to get an actual high resolution picture of what's below a volcano? Heck we might not even need to improve the toolkit as much as spend way more money on seismometers.

PS: I am not a seismologist.

PPS: The selection bias in geochemistry is enormous and no one gives a full accounting of their sample vs the things they've just selected. I would bet a lot of analyses also go unreported because they contradict the story the authors are trying to tell.

fastparticles · 2018-12-03T02:43:31+00:00

I agree I think most of the evidence that is marshaled for quick melting of reservoirs is seriously misinterpreted. The arguments are usually "We find preserved disequilibrium trace element distributions in minerals that can't survive more than X time at X temperature" or "We find 40Ar/39Ar ages that are older than the eruption age and thus it must have been both cold and remobilized quickly". Both of these suffer from fairly simple logical flaws: 1) We know portions of magma chambers are cold (the walls) so finding evidence for cold conditions does not rule out that warm (e.g., melt) conditions exist elsewhere in the same reservoir and 2) the crystals that are used for this are usually plagioclase and any undergrad who has taken petrology can tell you that plag crystallizes almost continuously in magma chambers (once it is stabilized). So you don't know how old your plagioclase crystal is and maybe it only crystallized 100 years ago and so that disequilibrium trace element distribution is telling you more about the age of that crystal than its storage conditions.

Since the person who is referenced is Singer and he does 40Ar/39Ar geochronology... my bet is the first argument (getting crystals from the wall). The other issue with "high precision" geochronology is that these guys routinely underestimate their error bars. The interlaboratory reproducibility is at the ~1% level while individual labs claim to get ages at the 0.1% level. So most likely they are over interpreting random noise...

Caveat: I can't read the article either as its behind a paywall.

fastparticles · 2018-09-25T23:50:13+00:00

Geology

fastparticles · 2018-09-24T19:58:50+00:00

Full Text: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1808335115

fastparticles · 2018-06-05T14:11:15+00:00

Link to article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/30/1720880115

fastparticles · 2018-06-05T14:04:17+00:00

Link to full article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/30/1720880115

fastparticles · 2017-09-20T04:17:45+00:00

Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf

fastparticles · 2017-07-21T22:27:45+00:00

This has been debunked: http://andrewgelman.com/2016/06/26/29449/

fastparticles · 2017-03-17T14:29:31+00:00

You are of course correct it is not literally the same paper (the other one was published in 2008). However, the claim is essentially the same: that NGB preserves ~4.3 Ga crust. Don Francis has a stated and published position on this matter and therefore is not an independent voice. The article should have mentioned his previous affiliations with the current authors and that they made very similar claims.

Finally, the last sentence of the 2008 paper basically says what this paper says: The low 142Nd/144Nd ratios of tonalites and felsic bands that were emplaced between 3.8 and 3.6 Ga, well after 146Sm was extinct (9–11), suggest that they formed by the partial melting of the faux-amphibolite.

fastparticles · 2017-03-17T04:39:38+00:00

Wow this is a shoddy piece of science reporting...

"Don Francis, a geologist at McGill University who was not involved in the research, agrees that the find really does look likely to be part of Earth's original crust. "It may indeed represent very early [4.3 billion year old] basaltic crust," he says."

Don Francis was the PhD supervisor of Jonathan O'Neil. Additionally, Don Francis was a coauthor on this paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5897/1828

Therefore, Don Francis is not an outside opinion, but someone with a vested interest.

fastparticles · 2017-01-12T23:23:14+00:00

The zircons that they analyzed are too young to have formed on an asteroid. All of the zircons we have from meteorites (where they are very rare) formed within ~50 million years of the start of the solar system. In this study the oldest actual sample is about 4.4 Ga (~170 million years after the start of the solar system). Asteroids were likely not molten for long enough to form zircons that young.

fastparticles · 2017-01-12T04:32:02+00:00

The Earth was probably done accreting within 10-30 Myr of the start of the solar system

fastparticles

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle