dondelelcaro

First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to "does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?"

The argument I'm making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?

If that's the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.

The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn't ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn't have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.

For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.

To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)

Not consenting to a police search doesn't stop the search, and that's ok.

What it does is make the fruits of that search inadmissable, and may also enable you to sue them if the search was unreasonable or excessive, or the pretext violated your rights.

Even if you know you don't have anything in your car, verbally and clearly say that you don't consent to the search, and would like them to note that fact, but otherwise comply. Lots of people have been caught up by police planting evidence, and you don't want to be one of them.

Depends heavily on the kind (and intensity) of radiation. Beta (electron/positron) and gamma (photon) generally won't, but neutron and alpha can. Many of the atoms that become radioactive will rapidly decay, and that's one of the mechanisms behind the impact to structural integrity.

That didn't work out so well.

Figuring out the Parkinson's linkage is challenging too, because glyphosate is just one of many chemicals used in agricultural settings. It wouldn't be surprising for the correlation to be caused by another chemical with strong evidence of casual linkage to Parkinson's that itself is correlated with glyphosate, like Parquat. (Since Parquat is a herbicide, places that used it may also use (or have switched to) glyphosate.) Totally worth continued scientific study.

Usually that's just for their version. Arxiv the version before it was accepted.

Exactly.

The general approach is to use interpretable models where you can understand how the model works and what features it uses to discriminate, but that doesn't work for all ML approaches (and even when it does our understanding is incomplete.)

Maybe not the hardest, but still challenging. Unknown biases in training data are a challenge in any experimental design. Opaque ML frequently makes them more challenging to discover.

There's even an instructables on how to do it.