ronaldx

7 ms·

1.
by ronaldx 12y ago
It's traditional in text adventures that you infer un-helped verbs from the text (that is, if the verb is clued at all): here the wizard instructs you to 'say' the answer. Text adventures used to be hard!
2.
by ronaldx 12y ago
That your parents and the parent commenter react in this way ("it's obvious") is by design of the author of the piece and the author of House. I can watch an episode of House and anticipate "they obviously have lupus&quo
3.
by ronaldx 12y ago
True in theory, but unlikely to the point of irrelevant. Assuming chromosomes are inhereted whole, the probability that siblings share less than 25% DNA - the equivalent of one further generation away - is 0.00531 (0.5% chance). But chromos
4.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Mitochondrial DNA between twins is expected to be almost identical, but you and I also have extremely similar mitochondria: since it doesn't recombine and rarely mutates. So, you have to get to a much deeper level to identify the diffe
5.
by ronaldx 12y ago
I see no reason why a mitochondrial DNA test would be helpful - your point is that the mitochondria are maternally inherited? 1. Mitochondrial DNA is less apt than regular DNA to accurately identify motherhood since it has a low mutation ra
6.
by ronaldx 12y ago
The ova all come from the germline so IMHO it's overwhelmingly likely they would have the same DNA but it's not exactly guaranteed: it depends if her ovaries are chimeric.
7.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Apologies for editing my point above. Chimerism is well-studied because it's biologically interesting, but most social/medical professionals are not expected to come across human chimerism in their whole career. Chimerism not ofte
8.
by ronaldx 12y ago
It's not uneducated to use Occam's razor: if someone tests as not being the mother, they almost always are not the mother. This is an every day occurrence. Chimerism is a possible explanation but vanishingly unlikely. Two identifi
9.
by ronaldx 12y ago
This article doesn't totally add up. If the mother was chimeric, she would be chimeric with a 'twin' from the same (grand)mother and father. Therefore her 'twin' chimera would share 50% of her DNA, as any regular si
10.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Great, thanks :) It is not exactly clear (on the website) what you mean by 'rejected', so the English text could be improved to make your meaning more explicit. Perhaps 'returned' would be better? Good luck!
11.
by ronaldx 12y ago
So stuff which appears to be spam is bounced, with a return message. On reflection, this does seem like a better system. I had imagined a silent fail as per other popular e-mail hosts.
12.
by ronaldx 12y ago
"A lot of advice says to only accept jobs which are willing to pay the rate you're offering..." IMHO the rule is good, but you don't have to offer the same rate for each job. If there's a job that benefits you, work
13.
by ronaldx 12y ago
> I do not understand the Legal Certainty paragraph. My interpretation is: Spam is deleted in order to give you plausible deniability that you haven't received and read it. i.e. There is no spam folder. But, this seems like it would
14.
by ronaldx 12y ago
You can also pass the test this way by having "generous" judges contributing to the 1/3, which is likely because the judges are not impartial: they are emotionally invested in being part of a positive result. I wonder how Kev
15.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Chances are you don't get to be a (self-made) billionaire without throwing away $5k here and there. If you're spending your time saving easily recoverable $5ks, you might get to be a millionnaire but you will never get to be a b
16.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Suppose you are one of London's 72 resident billionaires, and you're making 5% or so on your income. You can pay for this digger in an hour, by spending that hour sitting on your ass, and it's not that you will be re-spending
17.
by ronaldx 12y ago
> I can't really understand the effort of deleting everything either. I highly doubt Google ever really deletes anything. Once you've sent it to their servers, the cat is out of the bag. There are presumably technical differenc
18.
by ronaldx 12y ago
> The ancient ancestor of the first black widow might not have been some peculiar middle ground between benign and lethal, yet the random mutation of offspring which proliferated merely happened to be highly deadly. This is possible but
19.
by ronaldx 12y ago
> I would have thought nature would stop optimizing once a sting is a good enough deterrent. I believe you are probably right about this: but the spider venom was probably developed in an arms race with some {predator/prey} species.
20.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Worse than that: it's very easy and almost always correct to predict that a startup will fail. But... paying someone to make that prediction (even if you largely trust their authority) is not actually helpful.
21.
by ronaldx 12y ago
Your reputation with this site is essentially no more than internet points. Your work, your experience, and your ability stays with you. The ultimate goal of any agency-type business is to take the maximum amount of money from their clients
22.
by ronaldx 12y ago
I took a chance on signing up even though it was my instinct to run... my reward was the next screen: "We're sorry but something went wrong" That's an immediate double fail on the "simplest way to make a wiki"
23.
by ronaldx 12y ago
I agree with what you say. To correctly compare the variances, the scale should be adjusted according to the square root of the ratio of sample sizes. The author has not done this correctly, but I claim that zeroing the axis would be furthe
24.
by ronaldx 12y ago
1. The fact that you/others expect women to behave in a sexually titillating way for men is not 'cuts both ways' discrimination, except that it degrades everyone. 2. High school students deserve to be respected. Your comment
25.
by ronaldx 12y ago
> I think putting sexy guys having fun on a party invite would make exactly as much sense as this one. Of everything that you've said on this topic, I agree only with this sentence; neither makes any sense. P.S. They've unbutto
26.
by ronaldx 12y ago
> very much illegal in the UK. I question this. Neither I nor Wikipedia should be used for legal advice, but there are exceptions to discrimination law, and the parent's comment seems to precisely meet one of them: https:/&#x2
27.
by ronaldx 12y ago
No answer to my question but you ask your own? IMO you're wilfully avoiding the point about the appropriateness of sexualised imagery in general, but nonetheless I'll answer your question: from the original source. http:/&#x
28.
by ronaldx 12y ago
I believe "1st annual" has a specific meaning which you seem to have missed.
29.
by ronaldx 12y ago
I don't see what good will come of this, but I will try genuinely to help you nonetheless. Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their sh
30.
by ronaldx 12y ago
The author points out in the text that the NFL result is statistically significant and the NBA result is not. A larger random sample ought to fall closer to the line than a smaller sample: it would be statistically highly remarkable if the

More ›