Comment
The app for independent voices
I wrote this for Foreign Policy three years ago. Unfortunately, it is as current today as it was then. The Taliban use “counter terrorism” as cover for killing their enemies, among them former military personnel who fought alongside US & NATO troops until the August, 2021, withdrawal. Read on:
“Jesus said loving in this way is a commandment – as serious a command as the command that we not commit adultery or steal or kill.”
My latest piece is a reflection on the Pedilavium of Holy Thursday.
You made it, you own it
You always own your intellectual property, mailing list, and subscriber payments. With full editorial control and no gatekeepers, you can do the work you most believe in.
feels like I’m just the edges of a hollow, ravaged hole and I hate this fate.
but.
this is a spectacular guy, when he lived and always forevermore. the Clem Burke I knew and loved
Great discussions
Join the most interesting and insightful discussions.
ACM = All Cause Mortality - article updated to show that.
ha! I was really getting a kick at the back and forth of folks asking and others answering and the fact it actually does not show up first on a Google search!
Now I have another one for ya' Wayne!
try to get Steve to be nice to the non-statistically oriented(ie MOST readers) for the significance of scientific notation of the P value.
(For those who read this, really low values are preferred because they show HOW significant the finding is. The closer to zero the better, meaning this fact is TRUE, …
I don't think "true" is an applicable expression when using the p-value statistical method. If I understand en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P… correctly, a lower p-value does not prove a hypothesis - it only allows stronger rejection of the null-hypothesis, ie. in this case the statement that getting the Moderna jab does not result in a higher ACM than getting the Pfizer jab. This is not the same as proving that getting the Moderna jab results in a higher ACM than getting the Pfizer jab.
so, do you really think that such proofing of this term is the most explanatory or ,
just further confuses those statistically-handicapped? <== rhetorical