|
|
Very good! Always good to hear that there are now ways to repair an injury that was untreatable before. But:
Quote: The experimental procedure did not guarantee any restoration to Kris’s paralysis, but to him, the risk was worth taking.
What risk? It can't possibly get even worse.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: What risk? It can't possibly get even worse.
Exactly, the first thing I thought after reading that.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it could have potentially disrupted his autonomic nervous system leading to possible organ disruption or failure with death being a distinct possibility. If I were in a similar state, death wouldn't seem like much of a risk to regain some facet of control over my life.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
They're using embryonic stem cells, so a different genome which AFAIK puts it on par with a direct organ transplant in terms of needing immunosuppressors for life, and with them mixed in with the rest of his spine cthulu knows what a rejection would look like.
In similar circumstances it's a risk I'd probably take; but it could have failed to give any benefit and end up killing him faster than doing nothing would have.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: end up killing him faster than doing nothing would have
I am not sure that the time possibly gained by doing nothing is a mercy, nor that the time lost by possible complications would be a loss.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Reeve ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif) contributed to stem cell research and there are some rather moving stories in the wiki article[^], the one about Robin Williams being particularly funny.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
First paralysed human treated with stem cells has now regained his upper body movement
I'm pretty sure the first paralyzed human died thousands of years ago, why would they dig him up to treat him with stem cells?
After all this time, the fact that he's now moving at all is pretty impressive, paralyzed or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, they did this on rats many years back, surprised it took them this long to do it on a person.
However the source of the stem cells is a little delicate: "AST-OPC1 cells come from donated eggs that are fertilized in vitro (ie. in a petri dish"
Undeveloped babies. THat is a difficult topic!
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Undeveloped babies. THat is a difficult topic!
No worse than eating chicken's eggs? 
|
|
|
|
|
Did you know you can't run through a campsite? You can only ran, because it's past tents.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
As forest I can tell, it's lucky you didn't stake your reputation on that post.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ran Forrest, ran!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
But who will play the direct object than?
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
Can't wait til tomorrow, so we can have s'more of these puns.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
huh? what is your in tent? it's way past reason.
Installing Signature...
Do not switch off your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
the best time to make love is when camping.
It's in tents.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Fishing can be good too if you bring Annette.
i can see Carly now Lorraine is gone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
My gawd! Time travel!
Have I really been doing this for over two years? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Does that mean he has to change is name to un-OriginalGriff?
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
What if the tents were a gift from a Bernie Sanders supporter? Wouldn't that make them present progressive tents?
An if they were given to a dedicated outdoorsman, wouldn't that make them present perfect tents?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently this is a popular shuffling algorithm. Unfortunately it has a couple of problems with it.
First, OrderBy is not a linear time operation, while shuffling should be. That is already sufficient reason to stop using it to shuffle, especially on big lists, but there is more.
Less obviously, it does not choose a permutation with uniform probability across all possible permutations. This will be clear if we intentionally make it worse first and work from there. Consider
list.OrderBy(x => random.Next() & 1)
Now every element only gets a random bit. Assume we shuffle a list with 2 elements A and B, there are only 2 outcomes, AB and BA. BA happens when the first element gets a 1 and the second element gets a 0. AB happens in all other cases, because in the case of a draw they are left in their original order.
This is obviously bad. One outcome is chosen with probability 0.25, and the other with probability 0.75. With more random bits both probabilities get closer and closer to 0.5, but they never quite make it all the way there.
Larger lists are worse. The probability of two elements being assigned the same random number gets large enough to worry about really quickly, which you have heard about as the birthday paradox. Any time a group of elements is assigned the same random number, those elements will not be reordered. Of course it is OK to not reorder elements, but the probability of that happening is larger than it should be. This is especially noticeable for lists larger than the space from which random numbers are drawn.
Consider what would have happened if the snippet above was used to sort a list of 3 elements, A B and C. At least 2 of them must get the same random value, because there are only two different values to randomly draw. That means that at least 2 elements remain in their original order, so it is impossible to generate CBA. For the full number of random bits this problem only happens for lists with over 2 billion elements, but for shorter lists it is still the case that permutations with many inversions are generated with a probability that is too low.
Here's an other way to look at it. Clearly it would work if all elements were assigned a unique random number. That is equivalent to applying a permutation with a key-value sort, which is a common (though inefficient) technique. It doesn't even need to be a permutation on the numbers 0 to N-1, it's OK if there are "gaps", that's just a relabeling. So as long as only unique random numbers are generated, it's fine. What is the probability that that does not happen? If I got the formula right then that means that for a list of length 10000 there is already a probability of 2% that you're in a "bad case" (with some duplicate), quickly growing to 90% for size 100000. In practice that would still be really hard to notice since those "bad cases" don't create an immediate problem, they're just subtly skewing the probability distribution, but it is still wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh! A lecture! 
You forgot only two very important elements of a lecture:
1) Somewhere in the middle you must say this, best after you have confused most of the audience:
"Obviously (something obscure) is (some even more obscure property).
2) At the end you must mention that these only were the essentials and say something like this:
"I leave (some terribly complicated case) as an exercise for you."
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
Well then how about this: I'll leave the calculation of the actual probability distribution as an exercise.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
