If you shuffle it like how you would with eg. a bridge, then yeah it isn't truly random. But if you were to do something more random--say, you throw them in a wind tunnel and pick them up off the floor--then it will be random, and this will likely be a permutation that no one has seem before.

Digesting food is a big one. You essentially have enough blood (ability to distribute oxygen and calories) to run two of three between your stomach, your brain, and your muscles. One of the reasons working out while on a full stomach causes vomiting is because the stomach is upset about the lack of resources available for it to do its job, so it gives up to protect you from harm.

Alternatively, eating after a long day of work puts you straight to sleep because your muscles need to heal and clean, and your stomach needs to digest dinner. You can't run your whole body at once, and sleep is what we call it when your brain and muscles are turned off to let cleaning, healing, maintaining, ad digesting to happen.

Science isn't a perfect process; it is done by people, and people make mistakes. Things go wrong, people miss things, or they just get really unlucky.

Replication helps control for that.

You get a different set of people to do the same experiment in the same way, and you should get the same result. If you do, that's a good sign. If not, that's a problem and something that should be looked into.

Ideally then you get a different set of people do the same experiment in a slightly different way. And then a different experiment that measures the same thing, and so on. Lots of replication, all aimed at controlling for things people didn't think about or didn't spot.

Now you could get just one team to do this, over a long period of time, and include it all in a single study, but that is kind of inefficient. Better to do each study separately, then you can publish them individually and other people can have a chance to look at it as well. Plus it is generally a good idea to get a second person or team to work on something.

In a perfect science world you never stop experimenting on something. You never treat it as fully settled, you keep testing your idea until you disprove it, keep trying to find new ways to poke at it and experiment on it.

Dementia is a symptom. It's like fever, or joint pain, though obviously much more serious.

There are many things that can cause fever or joint pain, and several things that can cause dementia. Alzheimer's is the most common cause, but not the only one.

I don’t think I’m quite understanding.
The issue is thinking that one shuffle from an ordered deck is “as random” as one that has been shuffled 1000 times. They’re not. The first one is MUCH more likely to happen than the other (and thus is not truly random)

Suppose you are doing research on jelly beans and their effect on acne.

Suppose also there's actually no effect.

A group of scientists does a study, and finds no effect. Since there's no effect, they don't publish their study.

Around the world, maybe many scientists are doing research on the link (if any) between jelly beans and acne. Maybe it's the color? One group studies purple jelly beans, finds no link, and doesn't publish. Another studies red jelly beans, finds no link, and doesn't publish.

Then one day, just by chance, a group found a relationship that was significant at the 5% level.

This was inevitable, since so many groups of scientists are independently studying the phenomenon, in ignorance of what others are doing.

So now there's a published paper linking green jelly beans to acne.

Even more scientists start doing similar research. What other colours have an effect? Do green jelly worms also "cause" acne?

Since there's a lot of research now, more articles get published - red jelly worms are linked to acne, with a p value of 0.02. Green chiffon cake is linked to acne, with a p-value of 0.03. Nobody publishes the results that show no link.

Eventually, the literature shows a strong relationship between confectionery and acne, especially green, especially with gelatin. Food scientists, dermatologists, regulators rely on this information to provide professional advice and to draft laws. It Science journalists inform the public of this new threat to teen health. Soon "everyone knows" how dangerous green food colouring is...

... But actually no link exists.

If people took the time to replicate the studies, and published the failed replications, this wouldn't happen.

Making the initial paper insist on a stricter level of proof doesn't help, because the whole problem is that negative results aren't being published, and the literature is showing a biased set of results. It would be better to publish the results of every study, so people could see whether that 5% result is something that stands alone, suggesting some real link between two things, or if it's just one of a whole series of similar studies, most of which showed no relationship between the things at all.

Dementia is a symptom of many different diseases. Alzheimer's is just one of the diseases that causes dementia.

When it comes to statistical measurements, the standard accepted error margin for a new result to be considered a legitimate discovery is very small, but it's still possible for the result to be outside that range by sheer chance.

For example, imagine an experiment that examined cancer rates in connection to smoking said that there was only a 1 in 1 million chance that smoking did not increase chances of getting cancer, and all seeming connections were just a coincidence. That's a very, very low chance of it being unrelated, but it's still possible, and 1 in a million chances happen every day.

If a second experiment is done, using an unrelated dataset, and it also finds the same thing at the same chances, it greatly reduces the chance of the first dataset supporting that conclusion by sheer fluke. It's still not completely impossible, but the chances of both experiments being flukes is exponentially lower than just one of them being one.

How do you quantify "x% chance of inaccuracy"? There may be confounding factors that the original research team was unaware of that will only come up when a different research team, working in a different lab with different conditions and similar-but-not-identical equipment tries to replicate the study and finds something different.

A quick and easy one to think of is water quality. The amount of dissolved minerals in the local tap or well water will vary a lot all over the world. Doing the same benchtop, chemistry 101 experiments using tap water from various places will have slightly different results. Of course, labs nowadays have purified water systems, so water quality itself isn't a concern, but there could be other factors like this that can play a role.

No really, more often than not, the same deck is used many times, most homes have a deck or two they use until they can’t, so after a single game, just putting the deck back together would possibly make it novel, then shuffling on top of that. The chance of shuffling a deck which has existed before, is less likely.

Wouldn't the part that has been shuffled still be part of the possible permutations? Like shuffling 10cards out of the bunch would still be 10! *1?

Thank you for you answer. I don’t understand fluke events tho, my question still stands regarding fluke events from a purely mathematical perspective. The other reasons I get

It's not to improve accuracy (unless the initial experiment was only accurate enough to be suggestive of its result); it's to remove the possibility of procedural errors, unseen factors, fluke events, or even dishonesty from causing the results of the original experiment to not support its claimed conclusions.

Fair. It worked.

I'll take my $3 worth of repairs over $600 any day (that didn't include labor btw). But you do you.

Well, yes and no. You're definition of shuffle is much different than their definition of shuffle. You're thinking a shuffle could mean a small reorganization of some cards from a given starting point. A true shuffle will implement pseudo random number generation algorithm to sort a deck of cards. This is done by casinos. Otherwise a deck of cards that isn't reorganized between games of play and has seen substantial play would likely achieve similar results.

I wouldn’t say BS. Just maybe a little misleading.

• This one specifies “randomly”
• This one says “completely at random”
• This specific the shuffles as “random”
• And this one is really clear, saying that “Card games tend to order decks in common ways, so you need to shuffle really well (about seven times using the "riffle" method) before you’re holding any deck which is truly one-of-a-kind. ”

The formation also allows the trailing birds to use less and less energy to remain aloft. This is why there is a regular change in the lead bird.

Depression, in many ways, is a situation in which the brain becomes untethered from its positive reward systems. It's not just absence of happiness or the presence of unhappiness, it's largely a loss of the desire be happy.

In this situation, the brain function in "low power mode". How much effort your brain expends on processing information is proportional to a variety of complex brain systems that measure how worthwhile what you're doing is. Doing something worthwhile results in positive reward.

No positive reward systems, no ability to detect the worthwhilness of activities, no proportional increase in effort expended.

Turns out, remembering, reading, understanding, doing math, general normal function, requires a lot of effort. If you're sufficiently depressed, it can be more ffort than the brain is calibrated to expend.

Keep in mind, there is a lot more to depression than I explained. For example, the serotonin system is just one of many system that calibrates threat sensitivity, mood stability, and as a result partially mediates systems like aggression and exploratory behavior. But that's not the whole picture. The important thing to understand is that the brain more or less shuts down

Right. So these “interesting facts” you see online that claim that when you shuffle a deck of cards it’s never been like that before - are bullshit

Thank people and get rid of it later somehow seems to be the best way. If you hate it there is no reason to cover it up with candy and drink it.

Important to note that when you say bitter, that could be coffee, but it might be more specific. Strip mall parking lot businesses like Dunkin Donuts serve a very specific form of coffee. The taste is more a product of roasting coffee to the point that the outside burns black and the oils in the beans start leaking out to the surface, oxidizing and being lost. This bitterness is the burned nature of it, like charred wood, and the oils that make each coffee have a specific taste are lost from this process. This is on purpose. Burning it all for quality control.

People somewhat into coffee call this "dark roast" or "gross."

People really into coffee respect it and that it has an important place in history and coffee technology, as a storable land transportable version of coffee from another time before air freight. Cowboy coffee. Diner coffee. Coffee that can take the paint off your 1974 Chevelle.

It's horrible stuff really. But it's important to love it for what it is... and then pour it out when nobody is looking.

Part of the pathology of depression is not just in the connectivity and function of the ‘emotional’ parts of the brain, but also in regions responsible for the basic cognitive functions involved in reading. E.g. the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is implicated in depression because of lacking regulation of the amygdala (which at this eli5 level is responsible for mood). But, that dysfunction of the PFC is also responsible for impairments in things like decision making, thinking, or, in your question, reading.

Takes away some of the bitterness and adds richness.

The tips here can apply to any cooking, including adjusting the flavour of a coffee:

https://www.saltfatacidheat.com

Yeah i need caffeine and all I've got available is coffee.

Plus, I never really learned about coffee. I wasn't allowed it until I was living on my own and you're expected to already know what you like

Microvast has fire proof batteries now!

You’re not quite envisioning the setup right. These machines use buckets/barrels of ink at a time. You pour the ink in.

And you don’t have one for each Pantone, but you can have a few tanks that you basically set up per run. So in the example where the guy is talking DHL, you might load it with black, pms 2035c and pms 116c. (I assume those are the official colors). When you’re done printing out the million envelops, you dump out any extra ink, and clean the Pantone ink out of the press, and load it with the correct colors for the next job.