If anyone is wondering where 2.08 comes from like me. First we consider the case with no GST, where the gross-up multiplier is x1.8868 ($1887). This is the pre-tax earnings at 47% required to get a post-tax benefit of $1000. i.e. $1887 x (1-47%) = $1000. With some algebra and setting the top marginal tax rate to R, and the Gross-up to G: G=1/(1-R). The idea is the Government gets its cut either way, there is no tax benefit (for employees in the highest bracket, and actually a net loss for employees not in that bracket).
If the employer can claim back GST (currently 10%) on the original purchase, the formula for G becomes G=1/(1-R)+(1/11)/R. To account for the extra 10%/110% that the employer can claim back.
I'd argue that the steelman position might be: "Understand the treatment dynamics". Treating a linear-response in the vitamin deficiency case with a binary threshold, and treating the bifurcation point in exponential battles (infection, cancer) as linear are the same class of error (just in opposite directions).
Still as another response noted, almost all of the examples are success stories of medical science, so I don't know if there is a wider point of "medical science/practice is slow to notice these nuances" or if it is just a collection of cool examples of "hey: sometimes doing a single treatment MOAR/multiple treatments simultaneously has a counter-intuative result, isn't that neat."
I've heard "pixels" used generically to refer to the bundle of tracking code from a particular vendor in the marketing department at work. e.g. "Have you enabled the Facebook pixel?" means have you embedded the JavaScript snippet (usually with a fallback 1x1 pixel) that Facebook provides for tracking.
This doesn't match with my experience. I have a single catchall *@my-domain.com address that will receive anything sent to the domain (without setting up separate accounts ahead of time).
You can also send from any address, but I agree that the UI is a bit hidden. You first choose from the from-address dropdown "*@my-domain.com", and then a new textbox appears where you can type what address to send from. As another commenter pointed out, if you are replying to an email it will automatically fill in the custom from-address, but you can overrule it.
I've used IronCAD, Solidworks, pro/e and AutoDesk Inventor. If you're approaching 3D modelling as a draftsperson, IronCAD was much more productive. Want to change this part, just do it. Want to specify a relationship, you can but it's entirely optional. It's hard to describe how much faster it becomes. This was particularly noticeable in the hands of our 2D drafties who converted.
But I have also had the joy of trying to program IronCAD. The parametric solver is not as good as the other programs (who live and die by it). I suspect, though cannot prove, that the little automation system we used to create a base design would have been a lot more stable running on a different system. But it was too much work to completely re-implement (and convert all the old designs etc.). So I had the joy of fixing changes between versions by e.g. swapping the direction of a constraint, or hard-coding an initial offset so that you approach a solution from a particular direction.
Also, adding 2D annotations to create a production drawing were painfully slow and finicky in IronCAD.
I think I agree with the author that history-based editing caused the whole industry to go down a less-efficient path, but I also think it's too late to change the past now.
I think something like the Games Workshop/Warhammer 40k approach would work well here [1]. Lego has enough settings/worlds to hand off to different studios, and you have all the high-profile partnerships (like Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel) that you can hand to the successful teams.
Lego Star Wars is fun, but is exactly the same game as all the other Lego tie-in games.
For more information, the parent PDF describes a similar process using reflection discovered in China.
If you cast and polish a bronze mirror with raised letters/shapes on the back, the very slight deformations caused by polishing over the different thicknesses will create an image in the reflected caustics, despite the fact that the mirror appears smooth when using it as a mirror.
I'll try to give my perspective, though it's mostly expanding on em500's [1] 3rd paragraph. I think you're asking the wrong question about prophet - most users don't care "how good is it?" but instead "is it good enough?", and then "how easy is it to use?"
Prophet solves a broad class of easy problems that a lot of ordinary businesses have: you have several years of basically regular data (sales or page views or store foot traffic) that you know has yearly/weekly/daily (if you have sub-daily data) cycles, and you want to give a reasonable prediction to the business so they can plan for the upcoming week/month/year. And you want to remove the periodic effects so you can see the underlying trends.
Imagine someone, lets call them Bill, who might be called a data scientist, or business analyst or just assistant operations manager, for a medium-large business. Bill has the last 5 years of sales/views/traffic data in the database (anything before that is in a bunch of excel spreadsheets on the share drive), and knows just enough python to be dangerous. Bill can probably explain an R-squared value but is not an expert at statistics by any measure. He wants to fit the data, but has several problems:
1) the weekly trend does not line up with the yearly data, as the year starts on a different weekday.
2) Those damn public holidays, some of them occur on a specific date, some of them on the "first Monday of the month", and some of them seem to change almost randomly year-to-year.
3) The reporting system was down for a couple of weeks in June and Feb last year, and the numbers for the first few years were copied from excel, so sometimes are missing the first or last day of the month.
Prophet comes by default with yearly/weekly seasonality. Prophet comes out-of-the-box with a simple way to import holidays, and even a way to specify your own. Prophet doesn't require any cleaning, or special procedures to deal with missing data. And it is quick and easy to use, and get nice-looking, broadly reasonable graphs out (with the above mentioned, consistent data). And that solves the business problem.
And Bill's probably heard of it because it is (a) popular already, and (b) has Facebook's name attached.
That's my take as to why, even if it is not even close to the most accurate method, Prophet is so broadly popular.
I agree and I hear these anecdotal success stories. What I'd be more than happy to do is add some time series which are considered to be in Prophet's strong suit, to see where they end up on leaderboards like
https://www.microprediction.org/stream_dashboard.html?stream...
However the skeptic in me thinks that prophet might be performing a bit of a trick (not in any evil way) on the user ... convincing them visually that something is being done when really, the generative model means you have to get really lucky for it to add value. Happy to be convinced otherwise!
There is a little more information in this hackaday article [1]. Both propellers have swashplates like a helicopter which allows them to control the pitch of each rotor.
If the employer can claim back GST (currently 10%) on the original purchase, the formula for G becomes G=1/(1-R)+(1/11)/R. To account for the extra 10%/110% that the employer can claim back.