bones are known to sequester the heavy metal lead, contamination with which is widespread throughout the modern environment. Such sequestered lead can then be mobilised from the bones … broth made from skin and cartilage [of already cooked chicken] and chicken-bone broth, were both found to have markedly high lead concentrations, of 9.5 and 7.01 μg L−1via
Lidstone et al (2010) took some patients with Parkinson’s Disease, which is associated with low levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Then they told them they mightgive them medications that would raise their dopamine. In fact, they told the patients that they had a 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of receiving this medication; otherwise they would receive a placebo. In fact this was all a total lie; everyone got the placebo. Then they pumped everyone’s blood full of radioactive chemicals and stuck them into a PET scanner, which measured the amount of dopamine released in their brains. They found that the higher the probability of receiving real medication, the higher the amount of dopamine released (trend did not reach significance) except in the 100% case, where dopamine was lowest of all. These are pretty weird results.
Performance improved more after viewing cute images (15.7±2.2% improvement) than after viewing less cute images (1.4±2.1% improvement). Viewing images of pleasant foods was ineffective in improving performance (1.2±2.1%). In the third experiment, participants performed a global–local letter task after viewing images of baby animals, adult animals, and neutral objects. In general, global features were processed faster than local features. However, this global precedence effect was reduced after viewing cute images.
- (working?) lines of code written per time is the same for high and low level languages
- 25% increase in size of program description = doubling of program size (interactions?)
- code review is worth doing; almost all the benefit comes from the first review. (Cohen 2006)
- most people don’t find anything useful when continuing to read code past the first hour. (Cohen 2006).
- (post-compile?) 60-90% of bugs can be found before first execution by reading code. this beats writing unit tests (although those can be re-run to detect future regressions, at least)
- the rate of review that finds bugs in that hour (maximum) is a few hundred lines max
- telling people that programming ability is mostly talent/genetic based vs. telling them it relies on practice: both men and women do worse - not trying as hard when they hit an obstacle?
- physical distance: being near or cross-country (or even +9 hours) doesn’t impact (released) bug rate
- distance in org chart: collaboration between programmers far apart in org tree means higher bug rate (I don’t think this implies that if you give two groups of people an identical task starting from scratch, then a different org chart will change things much; rather, I guess that the tasks that rope together different-domain software teams’ expertise and/or systems are inherently harder)
- no code metric as of 2001 predicts bugs; all the benefit comes from code size of a program (more code -> more bugs)
- anchoring (or perhaps the subservient desire to not disappoint by seeming incompetent) applies strongly to implementation time estimates no matter how experienced the programmer or low-authority (“I know nothing about software but I think this should take about … 3 weeks … 20 weeks”)
- bugs that are fixed later in development are more expensive (by what measure?) than those caught earlier (because the cheap ones are easy to spot?)
A 2011 study from Norway, based on 500,000 person-years of observation, found drastically different results. For both men and women, the lowest levels of total cholesterol (below 5.0 mmol/L) were associated with the most death. For men, the best level was intermediate — what the Mayo Clinic calls “borderline high”. For women, the safest levels were the highest.
If high cholesterol causes heart disease, as we are so often told, the pattern for women makes no sense. For a long time, experts have told us to limit egg consumption because eggs are high in cholesterol. However, a new study shows that egg consumption has no association with heart disease risk.