Talk:2652: Proxy Variable

Maybe Randall is commenting on this recent article Nature Computational Science: Automated discovery of fundamental variables hidden in experimental data? 02:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC) suggested by a proxy editor

Might be tangentially related to the alleged Alzheimer's disease drug Aduhelm, the anti-amyloid therapy, that did show some success in proxy variable (biomarker), but no success at all in curing the disease or its symptoms (no efficacy), but which got accepted with a huge amount of controversy by NDA (which disregarded its advisory committee’s recommendation against approving Aduhelm). --JakubNarebski (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:

Proxy variables are of interest to non-scientists as they provide a scientific way to indirectly monitor or improve the complex systems that affect their lives. For example, blood pressure is a causative factor for cardiovascular disease so it can be used as a proxy variable for healthy lifestyle. However, people need to remember that it isn't necessarily the proxy variable alone that is of concern. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the only gas released by humanity with global warming potential and other factors affect climate change; and it is not carbon dioxide but the impact of climate change that will cause major social, economic, cultural damage to the future of the planet.

because I want to discuss it. The first sentence needs a source, the second and third sentences claim blood pressure is used by non-scientists as a proxy for living a healthy lifestyle, which I'm not sure about on multiple levels, and the fourth and fifth sentences seem like PR for fossil fuel companies. #notallgreenhousegases Nevertheless, I feel as if there are likely one or two good ideas hidden in it. 172.70.206.95 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the author doesn't know the work climate scientists go to to avoid using greenhouse gas concentration as a proxy for global warming (all the models of atmospheric water and its forms.) For blood pressure, it's easier to see what was attempted to be gotten at. 172.70.211.90 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes: the ones who dangerously simplify the climate change to "we must stop produce carbon dioxide" are not scientists but politicians. -- Hkmaly (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. We don't even KNOW all factors affecting climate change. Still, the link between rising carbon dioxide and temperature looks much more solid that the link between money spent on fighting climate change and levels of carbon dioxide. ... Wait, you didn't wanted to talk about climate did you? :-) (For record, I always though there are much better reasons to stop using fossil fuels than fighting global warming. Recently, for example, the energetic security from geopolitically problematic regions came under lot of attention.) -- Hkmaly (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to talk about climate. Do you think we will be able to transition to carbon neutral and negative technologies in time to avoid the Jevons paradox? 172.70.214.185 17:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Jevons Paradox exists if the only forces affecting the consumption of a resource are supply and demand. If you're asking about carbon-neutral/negative technological process making sustainable technologies profitable faster than fossil fuel profits grow, then no, there's no hope even before the Jevons Paradox is considered. But if other options are considered, the Jevons Paradox doesn't really apply. (To take an extreme example: It doesn't matter how fuel-efficient internal combustion engines get, they'll never be the preferred choice if their manufacture is banned.) GreatWyrmGold (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Everyone thinks this is about pharmacology, and maybe it is. But I've been taking economics courses this semester, so that's what I think of. "We can't measure this factor directly, so we made up a formula that should let us calculate it (if we've measured all relevant factors correctly and all our other assumptions and theories are valid)" is a pretty common thing in that field. GreatWyrmGold (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

this dude keeps spamming

Sorry for the mild crassness, especially as a new user, but some Nazi f*ck is vandalizing the page. May someone please ban them? 172.71.26.59 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Nah, they're using multiple IPs. Someone could semi-protect it or something but there ain't any mods doing their job it seems. 172.70.147.47 (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Where are the mods, anyways? 172.71.82.65 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

You can't always count on volunteer authorities. Even us lowly IP address editors can revert vandalism. 172.69.33.199 04:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah nah, we need it semi-protected 162.158.162.199 (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Funny if that were the goal of the vandalism. 172.70.206.95 16:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

One reason that I don't think it should be the go-to counter-vandalism approach being used. But not for me to say. Whilstsoever I'm capable of intervening at least as much as any vandal tries to, I support the mod actions (they are there, doing things, BTW).

Without actually tolerating the vandal, we easily outnumber the person concerned (and the very few other spammers/bots that sneak through the clearly effective existing speedbumps) and this means that such nuisance edits are heavily mitigated. If you see the damaged bits then you're either a regular or a very unlucky occasional visitor.

(This morning, I went to revert an ad-spam that I noted had been written over a page-redirect, to be told that someone else had just gotten there before me!)

I've been on far more abused online resources, both web (early days, long before CAPTCHA technology) and elsewhere (having seen how Usenet was both before and after The Eternal September) and the interference here is extraordinarily given the generally open nature of the submission process.

PS. Please do sign your posts ( with ~~~~ ), if only for the timestamp that makes the to and fro of conversations more understandable... 162.158.34.221 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The rant gets replaced within two minutes of each revert. Presumably it's done by bot. We need a mod to take action. 172.70.130.217 05:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Article has been restored but some idiots keep spamming the page with random things. pls do something mods 172.70.147.47 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2022 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

it's not "some idiots" it's all one person using different ips. he posted the exact same covid rant several times. i think he's schizophrenic or something and just really wants to be heard --172.69.69.40 04:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

But why here? Like, this is such a weird place to try and be heard, I'm sure even Reddit posts would have more visibility than edits to a webcomic wiki. NErDysprosium (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the importance of the can't-get-jokes demographic for PSYOP recruitment. The invasion of Panama might not even have occurred if it weren't for people distracted by cartoons. 172.69.33.185 17:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)