People habitually underestimate their energy consumption
Environmental asceticism has created a vogue for upgrading light-bulbs and tweaking thermostats. But according to a new piece of research, many of these actions—however virtuous—arise from faulty perceptions of energy savings.
Source: Watts up? | The Economist
RICHARD FEYNMAN, Nobel laureate and physicist extraordinaire, called it a “magic number” and its value “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics”.
Source: Ye cannae change the laws of physics | The Economist
The impact of HDCP’s failure on consumers will probably be minor. … HDCP has been less a security system than a tool for shaping the consumer electronics market, and that is unlikely to change.
Source: Understanding the HDCP Master Key Leak – Freedom to Tinker
From the comments:
End users are not HDCP compliant.
— anonymous
Correctly phrased, experimental data yielding a P value of .05 means that there is only a 5 percent chance of obtaining the observed (or more extreme) result if no real effect exists (that is, if the no-difference hypothesis is correct). But many explanations mangle the subtleties in that definition.
Source: Odds Are, It’s Wrong | Science News
The article takes a valid concern and presents it sensationally / in an exaggerated fashion. However, even when scientists understand p values, that does not mean the research and the statistics behind it are being reported to the public conscientiously and correctly. I would bet most lay people do not know or understand p values, or the difference between “normal” and statistical significance. The article is still a valuable explanation to the general public of how p-values and statistics can be used both constructively in science and deceptively in propaganda.
