You say your contract said "for Pixel Magazine online blog" specifically. So maybe it's not just a question of whether Medium is a blog, but whether that publication was on the "Pixel magazine online blog."
But none of us are lawyers, we can't say. There is no official legal definition of 'a blog' so far as I know.
Statistics are routinely abused in nearly every field of science, alas.
The OP mentions findings about how forcing pre-registration on clicnicaltrials.gov seems to change results. Those are, of course, medical research studies. A discussion of those findings regarding pre-registration was on HN 10 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10080680
I do not think it is conscious 'fraud' exactly. Sloppy statistics have just become routinized in standard scientific research in many fields. And yes, that sloppiness almost always errs in the direction of making it easier to show positive results, of course. But I don't think the researchers realize they are doing something wrong exactly, it's just totally routinized.
I'm not sure you are correct. According to the w3 spec for HTML attributes , html element attribute names must consist of one or more characters other than the space characters, U+0000 NULL, """, "'", ">", "/", "=", the control characters, and any characters that are not defined by Unicode.
Granted, it isn't necessarily what I'd expect to be legal, but it doesn't look illegal either. We may just need to add some logic to HTML colorizing syntax checkers in our IDEs is all.
What there contradicts what I said? I'm aware of innerHTML hacks that make it possible to work around but those are not valid attribute names. I'm not even against the syntax; i like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is invalid html.
User pfooti's comment referenced the specification. You said that a browsers' implementation of the DOM API proves that it is illegal. I then linked to an issue with a detailed discussion of how the DOM API isn't consistent with itself, much less the HTML specification.
All of angular2's template syntax can be replaced by more normal-looking tag properties with "reserved" prefixes that tell Angular what to do with them. The less verbose symbols are probably easier for the eye to parse than the long forms once you're used to them, and either form can be easily analyzed and highlighted by an IDE.
Not really. That's called losing a war. In most cases, when a war is lost, one side agrees to the terms they would probably deem unfavorable before the war had started. That's why we say they 'lost' the war.
I think there are few if any post-WWII wars that works like your idealized model of war. Most of them have been very assymetric from the start, such that one state's population hardly has it's 'conditions' touched at all while another's way of life is completely destroyed -- but that doesn't mean the more powerful actor always 'wins'.
For instance, did the US 'lose' the Vietnam war, because the Vietnamese somehow made conditions in the U.S so horrible that the U.S. had to "agree to terms they would deem unfavorable before the war"? It just doesn't make sense to even try to frame it that way.
How about the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan, did one side 'win' because they made life so miserable for the other side that they were willing to accept conditions they would have seen as 'unfavorable' at the beginning? The question doesn't even make sense, it's got nothing to do with what happened. And indeed, it could be argued that the worse U.S. forces made the lives of Iraqis, the more resistance to U.S. forces there was, it got the U.S. no closer to 'victory' to immiserate Iraqis.
Let alone wars against 'internal enemies', which if you insist on framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a war, it clearly is. Did hostilities between the UK government and the IRA cease because one side made the other so miserable they had to agree to terms they would have considered 'unfavorable' before? Again, it doesn't even make sense to frame it that way. If anything, the reverse, the Irish were no longer nearly as discriminated against or as subject to military occupation as they had been earlier in the conflict, and this in fact was pertinent in cessation of hostilities.
Subsequent conflicts are simply an extension of the same one - one side's unwillingness to accept Israel's existence.
The territories in question are occupied because they were lost in the war of 1967. Had there not been that war (effectively started by the arab states), Israel would not have taken over the Egyptian / Jordanian lands (which never had a Palestinian state there).
And meanwhile, what is it you actually want the actual people living in the occupied territories, 2, 3, 4 generations on, to actually DO? They should acquiesce to living without civil or human rights indefinitely, because some nation-states of the purported same ethnicity as them (which have never treated the Palestinians well either) lost a war 50 years ago? (it's debatable who 'started' that war, but it doesn't really matter)
People living under that kind of repression have always resisted, throughout history. Always will. You probably would too.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the OP really, or HN.
Given that palestinians don't really have a functioning democracy, it's hard to say what the actual people 'can do'.
However - we can look at opinion polls for ideas. Right now majority of palestinians support waging a war with Israel:
"“A majority of 74 percent favors Hamas way of resisting occupation. … Furthermore, 56 percent favor the transfer of Hamas’ armed approach to the West Bank and 40 percent oppose that,” the center noted."
> However, the Prime Minister's Office said the document was a U.S. proposal that Israel had never accepted. "At no point did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree to withdraw to 1967 lines, divide Jerusalem or recognize the Palestinian right of return. That was and remains his position," Netanyahu's office told Yedioth Ahronoth.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.645676
We're getting into the nitty-gritty of he said-she said, leaks, etc. Maybe after a secret proposal is rejected, Israelis can not admit having proposed those things (since in the next round of negotiations, that will be the starting position that must be improved on).
The point is that there are proposals put on the table regularly. They probably do not include all things Palestinians want (Jerusalem, right of return) - but they never will. So all they have is sitting with nothing in relative squalor while waiting for a city upon a hill.
Parent comment asked me what I would do in their shoes - I'd say 'Ok, fuck this, I'll take what I can and build a life out of it - because otherwise my grandchildren will live in the same conditions'.
> It seems that the main issue here is that with pre-registration, study authors have to pick a single measure of primary benefit at the outset, whereas before, they might have made that choice after getting results back
Right. And then you'd have to use proper statistical reasoning for that state of affairs. Which nobody ever does, cause they're not statisticians and it's complicated and it would reduce the chance of 'statistical significance'.
So they just use a standard calculation of statistical significance -- which is based on the assumption that you have picked a single hypothesis in advance and then done your test. So it's completely invalid to use it how everyone typically does.
Imagine you flip a coin 50 times. Then you see, okay, did I ever get 10 heads in a row? Nope? Okay, how about 5 heads followed by 5 tails? Nope. Okay.... try a couple dozen other things, oh, look, I got exactly 3 tails followed by exactly 3 heads followed by exactly 3 tails again! Let's run my test of statistical significance to see if that was just chance, or is likely significant -- oh hey, it's significant, this is likely a magic coin not random at all!
Nope. If you test everything you can think of, _something_ will come up as 'statistically significant', but it's not really, those tests of statistical significance -- which calculate how likely it is the results you got happened by random chance happenstance vs an actual correlation likely to be repeatable -- are no longer valid if you go hunting for significance like that.
We're all going to die eventually. Does it make it worse or better to have lived a 'good' life first? I suppose it doesn't matter either way once you're dead, but all we can do is live life to the fullest, most rewarding, way before we die, right?