Saints vs Mighty Spurs | FA 4th round Sat 3pm

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Please god don’t let me have to watch the Brazilian deluxe Lennon as a CF any more.
You've been fooled by his fraudulent name and apparent Brazilian heritage, mate. He's not the deluxe foreign version of anyone. His real name is Luke Moore and he's fackin' British as they come.

Of course, if this ITK were ever posted on a publicly accessible forum, he'd end up starting for a solidly mid-table club instead, so keep it quiet. (Unless you want him to go)
 
Actually defence can win 38 points a season which is 2 points less than the 40 points that all relegation contenders try to beat. You need goals to get the other 76 points.
Seems oddly specific. What statistical tests did you run on the data? What was your p-value?
 
I don't think we fully realise the potential harm in these things, bugs me when I see babies in buggies using these things, I struggle with my simple cheapo phone. Serious addiction problems looming, COYS
(Aside: I'm a published neuroscientist and computer scientist with a very active but currently non-professional interest in how the two fields are colliding to cause huge problems. Arguably, my two main fields are in somewhat direct conflict as we move into a post-social media IoT/AI world. The only way I can reconcile them and my expertise in both is that computational neuroscience is going to be a huge part of the future of diagnostics/epidemiology/aetiology/treatment in psychiatry -- and that's my goal in life.)

With all that said, you're not exactly wrong, particularly from a "mainstream" perspective.

We're starting to at least ask the right questions in the literature. And we have, for example, long since established that social media is basically terrible for everyone, especially kids, in all but the smallest of "doses".

One of the problems in that area is that the mainstream media is not exactly desperate to report on problems associated with social media. Compared to other far more sensationalist "health scares" of the kind stereotypically perpetuated by the Daily Mail, reporting for laypeople actually vastly understates the quantity and quality of the data we have on social media use and its correlates. It's like they don't really want to report on the matter (you can speculate as to the reasons; I have my own theories).

As far as I'm aware, we're beginning to assemble a solid base of convincing evidence that giving your young kids smartphones and tablets - quite aside from obnoxiously spoiling them - is not good for their development. Many effects are obviously highly dependent on how they use the devices - limited exposure to some genres of video games has positive effects on abstract thinking, executive function and reaction time with predictable grey matter volume alterations on neuroimaging - but most contexts are negative and there are concerns around things like opthalmologic development under heavy exposure to artificial light (with obvious secondary effects on circadian rhythms). It's not unlikely that almost all of the generation being born right now will need glasses before 30.

My advice on that for anyone who has kids would be to carefully control what they do (games are actually much better than social media) and to limit their overall exposure if you are going to give them such devices (and I know there's mass peer-pressure going on where seemingly all the other parents are being irresponsibly overpermissive). I've been saying for years now - only half joking - that when I have kids, they're not getting on the internet until they write their own TCP/IP stack from scratch.

Academics are just fallible humans at the end of the day and most people I meet in CS and in neuroscience simply don't want to think about the dystopian future we're currently driving towards or the seemingly-distant implications of their own work. And it's easy enough to ignore for the vast majority of people, even in a field like AI. For example, if you're working on an efficient binary image classification algorithm, you're probably not thinking about how part of your idea could one day be used to select targets for drones to auto-kill on sight. Only a handful of people ever get a macroscopic view of putting all these tiny pieces of research together for anything outright nefarious.

Anyway, I'm going on a bit so I'll stop but I hadn't even reached the clusterfuck of controversy that is something like 5G: a whole lot of very powerful people have a vested interest in making sure the roll-out succeeds and there's sort of an unspoken pressure on researchers not to push too hard, which is why we're getting 5G all over the UK when there hasn't yet been a single high-quality long-term trial of human exposure. There are a lot of people trying to quell their nerves and/or conscience right now by repeating the (incorrect) mantra that "non-ionising radiation has no effect on humans".
 
Last edited:
Seems oddly specific. What statistical tests did you run on the data? What was your p-value?
I assume he means you can defend and get 38 0-0 draws to gain 38 points. But if you want more points, you need to score to win.

Seems pretty obvious. So much so, I may well be wrong. And I’ve no idea what a p-value is. No danger of over thinking.
 
(Aside: I'm a published neuroscientist and computer scientist with a very active but currently non-professional interest in how the two fields are colliding to cause huge problems. Arguably, my two main fields are in somewhat direct conflict as we move into a post-social media IoT/AI world. The only way I can reconcile them and my expertise in both is that computational neuroscience is going to be a huge part of the future of diagnostics/epidemiology/aetiology/treatment in psychiatry -- and that's my goal in life.)

With all that said, you're not exactly wrong, particularly from a "mainstream" perspective.

We're starting to at least ask the right questions in the literature. And we have, for example, long since established that social media is basically terrible for everyone, especially kids, in all but the smallest of "doses".

One of the problems in that area is that the mainstream media is not exactly desperate to report on problems associated with social media. Compared to other far more sensationalist "health scares" of the kind stereotypically perpetuated by the Daily Mail, reporting for laypeople actually vastly understates the quantity and quality of the data we have on social media use and its correlates. It's like they don't really want to report on the matter (you can speculate as to the reasons; I have my own theories).

As far as I'm aware, we're beginning to assemble a solid base of convincing evidence that giving your young kids smartphones and tablets - quite aside from obnoxiously spoiling them - is not good for their development. Many effects are obviously highly dependent on how they use the devices - limited exposure to some genres of video games has positive effects on abstract thinking, executive function and reaction time with predictable grey matter volume alterations on neuroimaging - but most contexts are negative and there are concerns around things like opthalmologic development under heavy exposure to artificial light (with obvious secondary effects on circadian rhythms). It's not unlikely that almost all of the generation being born right now will need glasses before 30.

My advice on that for anyone who has kids would be to carefully control what they do (games are actually much better than social media) and to limit their overall exposure if you are going to give them such devices (and I know there's mass peer-pressure going on where seemingly all the other parents are being irresponsibly overpermissive). I've been saying for years now - only half joking - that when I have kids, they're not getting on the internet until they write their own TCP/IP stack from scratch.

Academics are just fallible humans at the end of the day and most people I meet in CS and in neuroscience simply don't want to think about the dystopian future we're currently driving towards or the seemingly-distant implications of their own work. And it's easy enough to ignore for the vast majority of people, even in a field like AI. For example, if you're working on an efficient binary image classification algorithm, you're probably not thinking about how part of your idea could one day be used to select targets for drones to auto-kill on sight. Only a handful of people ever get a macroscopic view of putting all these tiny pieces of research together for anything outright nefarious.

Anyway, I'm going on a bit so I'll stop but I hadn't even reached the clusterfuck of controversy that is something like 5G: a whole lot of very powerful people have a vested interest in making sure the roll-out succeeds and there's sort of an unspoken pressure on researchers not to push too hard, which is why we're getting 5G all over the UK when there hasn't yet been a single high-quality long-term trial of human exposure. There are a lot of people trying to quell their nerves and/or conscience right now by repeating the (incorrect) mantra that "non-ionising radiation has no effect on humans".
I'll give you a free lobotomy if you shut up!
 
Back by popular demand, a Winks celebration photo...

EPI_3WXW4AAHlRF
 
(Aside: I'm a published neuroscientist and computer scientist with a very active but currently non-professional interest in how the two fields are colliding to cause huge problems. Arguably, my two main fields are in somewhat direct conflict as we move into a post-social media IoT/AI world. The only way I can reconcile them and my expertise in both is that computational neuroscience is going to be a huge part of the future of diagnostics/epidemiology/aetiology/treatment in psychiatry -- and that's my goal in life.)

With all that said, you're not exactly wrong, particularly from a "mainstream" perspective.

We're starting to at least ask the right questions in the literature. And we have, for example, long since established that social media is basically terrible for everyone, especially kids, in all but the smallest of "doses".

One of the problems in that area is that the mainstream media is not exactly desperate to report on problems associated with social media. Compared to other far more sensationalist "health scares" of the kind stereotypically perpetuated by the Daily Mail, reporting for laypeople actually vastly understates the quantity and quality of the data we have on social media use and its correlates. It's like they don't really want to report on the matter (you can speculate as to the reasons; I have my own theories).

As far as I'm aware, we're beginning to assemble a solid base of convincing evidence that giving your young kids smartphones and tablets - quite aside from obnoxiously spoiling them - is not good for their development. Many effects are obviously highly dependent on how they use the devices - limited exposure to some genres of video games has positive effects on abstract thinking, executive function and reaction time with predictable grey matter volume alterations on neuroimaging - but most contexts are negative and there are concerns around things like opthalmologic development under heavy exposure to artificial light (with obvious secondary effects on circadian rhythms). It's not unlikely that almost all of the generation being born right now will need glasses before 30.

My advice on that for anyone who has kids would be to carefully control what they do (games are actually much better than social media) and to limit their overall exposure if you are going to give them such devices (and I know there's mass peer-pressure going on where seemingly all the other parents are being irresponsibly overpermissive). I've been saying for years now - only half joking - that when I have kids, they're not getting on the internet until they write their own TCP/IP stack from scratch.

Academics are just fallible humans at the end of the day and most people I meet in CS and in neuroscience simply don't want to think about the dystopian future we're currently driving towards or the seemingly-distant implications of their own work. And it's easy enough to ignore for the vast majority of people, even in a field like AI. For example, if you're working on an efficient binary image classification algorithm, you're probably not thinking about how part of your idea could one day be used to select targets for drones to auto-kill on sight. Only a handful of people ever get a macroscopic view of putting all these tiny pieces of research together for anything outright nefarious.

Anyway, I'm going on a bit so I'll stop but I hadn't even reached the clusterfuck of controversy that is something like 5G: a whole lot of very powerful people have a vested interest in making sure the roll-out succeeds and there's sort of an unspoken pressure on researchers not to push too hard, which is why we're getting 5G all over the UK when there hasn't yet been a single high-quality long-term trial of human exposure. There are a lot of people trying to quell their nerves and/or conscience right now by repeating the (incorrect) mantra that "non-ionising radiation has no effect on humans".

Well I’ve read some off the wall match diagnosis / reports in my time but this one takes some beating.

Didn’t even mention who scored or slag off 1 player?!??!

Must do better with the forthcoming replay match report.
Overall A very poor 1/10.

Gave you a Mark for mentioning auto-kill drones. 1 tactic I think mourinho should embrace against City.

They won’t see that one coming.
 
Yes aurier did badly to lose the ball there but there was a hell of a lot of defending to do after it. Ball was passed out wide we let the cross come in and everyone was ball watching and let the runner go. The goal summed up our ENTIRE defence. Mistakes and basic movement and passing by the opposition and we get done. It happened time and time again in every game we play. Rather then focus on one goal focus on the root cause of the goals.
 
(Aside: I'm a published neuroscientist and computer scientist with a very active but currently non-professional interest in how the two fields are colliding to cause huge problems. Arguably, my two main fields are in somewhat direct conflict as we move into a post-social media IoT/AI world. The only way I can reconcile them and my expertise in both is that computational neuroscience is going to be a huge part of the future of diagnostics/epidemiology/aetiology/treatment in psychiatry -- and that's my goal in life.)

With all that said, you're not exactly wrong, particularly from a "mainstream" perspective.

We're starting to at least ask the right questions in the literature. And we have, for example, long since established that social media is basically terrible for everyone, especially kids, in all but the smallest of "doses".

One of the problems in that area is that the mainstream media is not exactly desperate to report on problems associated with social media. Compared to other far more sensationalist "health scares" of the kind stereotypically perpetuated by the Daily Mail, reporting for laypeople actually vastly understates the quantity and quality of the data we have on social media use and its correlates. It's like they don't really want to report on the matter (you can speculate as to the reasons; I have my own theories).

As far as I'm aware, we're beginning to assemble a solid base of convincing evidence that giving your young kids smartphones and tablets - quite aside from obnoxiously spoiling them - is not good for their development. Many effects are obviously highly dependent on how they use the devices - limited exposure to some genres of video games has positive effects on abstract thinking, executive function and reaction time with predictable grey matter volume alterations on neuroimaging - but most contexts are negative and there are concerns around things like opthalmologic development under heavy exposure to artificial light (with obvious secondary effects on circadian rhythms). It's not unlikely that almost all of the generation being born right now will need glasses before 30.

My advice on that for anyone who has kids would be to carefully control what they do (games are actually much better than social media) and to limit their overall exposure if you are going to give them such devices (and I know there's mass peer-pressure going on where seemingly all the other parents are being irresponsibly overpermissive). I've been saying for years now - only half joking - that when I have kids, they're not getting on the internet until they write their own TCP/IP stack from scratch.

Academics are just fallible humans at the end of the day and most people I meet in CS and in neuroscience simply don't want to think about the dystopian future we're currently driving towards or the seemingly-distant implications of their own work. And it's easy enough to ignore for the vast majority of people, even in a field like AI. For example, if you're working on an efficient binary image classification algorithm, you're probably not thinking about how part of your idea could one day be used to select targets for drones to auto-kill on sight. Only a handful of people ever get a macroscopic view of putting all these tiny pieces of research together for anything outright nefarious.

Anyway, I'm going on a bit so I'll stop but I hadn't even reached the clusterfuck of controversy that is something like 5G: a whole lot of very powerful people have a vested interest in making sure the roll-out succeeds and there's sort of an unspoken pressure on researchers not to push too hard, which is why we're getting 5G all over the UK when there hasn't yet been a single high-quality long-term trial of human exposure. There are a lot of people trying to quell their nerves and/or conscience right now by repeating the (incorrect) mantra that "non-ionising radiation has no effect on humans".

Fuck me!
 
Back
Top Bottom