Band & Olufsen
Bang & Olufsen’s Beoremote Halo is beautiful & expensive, but it’s not totally clear why it’s necessary, or what it actually... is. Here’s what we do know: It costs $900, and is a round device with a rectangular touch screen that lets you control the Bang & Olufsen music system you obviously have in your home. And of course it looks sexy as hell because B&O doesn’t do ugly.
Bang & Olufsen
Why do I need this?
Bang & Olufsen says the Halo “gives you all the convenience of a simple user interface,” lights up when you get close, and offers a one-button press to select your music. So it’s a speaker? A radio? “There is no need to use your mobile device or to pull anything out of your pocket and fiddle around trying...
The school district suffered a ransomware attack during its first week of online classes and said law enforcement was investigating.
The judge's decision came just a few hours before the ban on the TikTok app in the US was supposed to go into full effect.
Amazon Luna has a decent shot at success, but it needs to do things differently.
(Louisiana State University) Gravitational wave detectors opened a new window to the universe by measuring the ripples in spacetime produced by colliding black holes and neutron stars, but they are ultimately limited by quantum fluctuations induced by light reflecting off of mirrors. LSU Ph.D. physics alumnus Jonathan Cripe and his team of LSU researchers have conducted a new experiment with scientists from Caltech and Thorlabs to explore a way to cancel this quantum backaction and improve detector sensitivity.
Downing Street has been forced to clarify the defence secretary’s claim that the UK has previously fought “illegal wars”, in an apparent reference to Iraq.Prime minister Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson said Ben Wallace was expressing a “personal view” when he accused Labour of presiding over “illegal wars” when in government.The spokesperson added: “Neither the government nor the Chilcot inquiry has expressed a view as to whether the UK’s participation in the war was legal.”It bore resemblance to when Nick Clegg was forced to clarify his claim that the Iraq war was illegal when he was deputy prime minister in 2010, amid fears it could aid charges against the government in international courts.It is the second embarrassment for Wallace this month, having been forced to apologise for breaking social distancing rules by shaking a man’s hand on his way to a cabinet meeting.He made his “illegal wars” comments during a heated Commons debate on laws to limit prosecutions against troops for actions taken in operations overseas. At one stage, Wallace told Labour shadow defence secretary John Healey: “Much of the mess we are having to come and clean up today is because of your illegal wars, your events in the past, and the way you have run the safety for our forces.” Healey hit back: “That is not worthy of the office of the secretary of state for defence”.Tony Blair’s Labour government has long faced widespread criticism for pushing UK forces into wars into Iraq and Afghanistan.In 2004, United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan said the US-led invasion of Iraq a year prior was “illegal” because it contravened the UN charter.The Chilcot inquiry found in 2016 that the UK decided to take military action in Iraq before all other peaceful options had been carried out and undermined the UN Security Council in the run up to the invasion, in which more than 150,000 Iraqis died, and a million more were displaced.Related...
Starmer Admits Sturgeon Has Mandate For Indy Ref 2 If SNP Win Holyrood Elections
EU 'Tells UK It Will Not Block Food Imports' After Brexit Transition
Tories Accused Of 'Carnival Of Incompetence' On Brexit Kent 'Border' Plan
Buying a new, next-generation console is supposed to be an exciting thing. But this generation, pre-orders for the two upcoming consoles, the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X, were more of a time for frustration and disappointment as the preorder periods for both consoles turned into complete fiascos. So what happened? The PlayStation 5 pre-orders were the first to launch — prematurely, apparently. While pre-orders were supposed to start on September 17, they actually went live on September 16 with almost no warning. Within minutes, both versions of the PS5 were sold out everywhere, and even those who thought… This story continues at The Next WebOr just read more coverage about: Xbox
What at first seems like an incredibly alarming statistic has been circulating on social media, promoted by a small and vocal group of journalists – at least 91% of coronavirus tests in the UK are “false positives”.If true, the implications would be staggering – the actual scale of the pandemic in the UK is less than a tenth of what we thought and the government has just announced further lockdown restrictions based on faulty data.This claim has been seized upon by, among others, radio show host Julia Hartley-Brewer...THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: Matt Hancock told me on @talkRADIO that the False Positive Rate of Covid tests in the community is "under 1%". Sounds good, doesn't it? WRONG! An FPR of 0.8% when the virus prevalence is so low means that at least 91% of "Covid cases" are FALSE POSITIVES. https://t.co/f2Z85Lj4cj— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) September 18, 2020Journalist Toby Young, who in an article said health secretary Matt Hancock was “keeping this knowledge from the public for nefarious reasons”...If Whitty and Vallance had taken questions, I hope someone would have asked them what the projected number of cases would be on 13th Oct if you discount the 91% of “cases” that are false positives. I make it 4,410. pic.twitter.com/qyyAFXCj4P— Toby Young (@toadmeister) September 21, 2020And even a Tory MP...The government advisers today need to tell us how they are going to stop false test results distorting the figures. How are they going to calculate an accurate R Number? Data needs improving to improve decisions.— John Redwood (@johnredwood) September 21, 2020But there’s one problem – it’s simply not true.So where did it come from?Back in July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled: “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?”This article explains, in a nutshell, how tests cannot be 100% accurate and therefore there is a certain margin of error in the results.Heneghan is particularly interested in “false positives” – those people who test positive for Covid-19 but actually aren’t infected. Health secretary Matt Hancock has said the false positive rate (FPR) for coronavirus tests is “less than 1%”.But Heneghan has argued that due to a bit of a fluke involving some slightly complicated statistics, this FPR in the UK could be as high as 50%.This theme was then taken up by Dr Michael Yeadon, who in a blog post argued the FPR was actually “around 90%”.It was this blog and the claim therein that was picked up by Hartley-Brewer and Co.Are they right?Yes, but only in a statistical sense. Applied to the real-world, the conclusions don’t stand up and are wildly misleading.How so?Well, forgive us but to explain that we need to outline some of those slightly complicated statistics we mentioned earlier.There are two key terms you need to be familiar with – “test sensitivity” and “test specificity”.Test specificityTest specificity is the proportion of people without coronavirus who have a negative test and is a measure of how good it is at avoiding false positives.The test specificity for coronavirus tests is extremely high and we can work it out from the FPR rate.We don’t know the actual FPR as we simply don’t have all the data required to work it out just yet. But the “under 1%” from Hancock is the figure used by those mentioned above to reach their conclusions and accuse the government of misinterpreting the figures.So if the FPR rate is “under 1%” then the test specificity must be at least 99%.Test sensitivityTest sensitivity is the proportion of people with coronavirus who test positive. Worryingly, current coronavirus tests are thought to only have a sensitivity of 80% meaning one in five people with coronavirus who get tested are told they don’t have it.(This actually means cases are being underreported but that’s not the main concern of this article so we’ll leave it at that.)Pre-test probability (AKA prevalence)The prevalence simply refers to how widespread the infection is in the general population. The latest estimate from the Office for National Statistics suggests even though it is rising, only 0.11% of the population are currently infected with coronavirus based on positive test results.(There is of course the issue of false negatives here but a high number of these would mean the pandemic is even larger than feared but as this isn’t what people are claiming, we’re going to ignore this as well).It’s this very low figure that is being used to suggest the number of false positives might be out of control as it means that even a tiny number of false positives can vastly skew the data in the way in which Heneghan and Yeadon propose.Every journalist and MP should be asking the PM & Health Secretary: why are we using a Covid-19 test that has 90% false positives? Read this by @MichaelYeadon3: Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics – the Deadly Danger of False Positives. https://t.co/ibNK0Yt7G5— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) September 20, 2020How does it skew the data?At this point we hand over to Sam Watson, senior lecturer at Birmingham University, who told HuffPost UK: “Imagine 1,000 people turn up to the testing centre, and only one person has Covid. That one person has a positive test. “Of the remaining 999 people, if the FPR is 1%, then you’ll get another nine positive tests from these 999“So now you’ve got 10 positive tests, but only one of them has covid, so 90% of the positive tests don’t actually have covid.”The lovely people at The BMJ created this interactive chart where you can see how this works – it only uses a sample size of 100 but if you set the test sensitivity to 80, round up the prevalence rate (pre-test probability) to 1 and the test specificity down to 99, you’ll see for every one true positive you get one false positive.This infographic will display on browsers that support iframes.This gives the 50% FPR figure that Heneghan cites and if we could set the prevalence to 0.11%, we would get the 90% figure cited by Yeadon.The crucial third factorBoth Yeadon and Heneghan, and in turn Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young and John Redwood, make one huge assumption – that the prevalence of coronavirus in the population tested is 0.11% like the ONS has said.But this is not representative of the population that is actually being tested and whose results make up the material presented by the government and scientists of evidence of a second wave.The ONS figure is based on a weekly survey of households representative of the UK as a whole, while the evidence of a second wave is based on tests on people who have sought one out.Watson HuffPost UK: “If you took the UK population as a whole and randomly picked one person out of it, the probability of them having Covid is actually very low at it has a reasonably low prevalence. “But if you turn up to a testing centre you’re already thinking: ‘I might have Covid’ and if you turn up with a cough and a fever then it’s probably quite a high probability that you have Covid.”Let’s return to our interactive chart – like before, set the test sensitivity to 80 and the specificity to 99, but this time play around with the pre-test probability.This infographic will display on browsers that support iframes.As you can see, tiny changes have a massive effect.Even if – as Hancock has said – a lot of people are getting tests without symptoms, if just one in five of those being tested are likely to have coronavirus because they have symptoms, the number of true positives dwarfs the false positives 16 to 1.If just half of them have symptoms, in a sample of 100 people the number of false positives is so small it doesn’t even show up. But this is all irrelevant anyway.Excuse me? Yes, it’s all irrelevant.Erm... why?Because we know rising positive cases aren’t due to false positives for a couple of other reasons.Positive test rates are going up as a percentage of total tests – this is not disputed. But this can’t be because of an increase in false positives as the rate of false positives remains constant unless the actual method of testing changes, which it hasn’t.Additionally, if false positives were causing the spike in numbers, it would be uniform across the UK and it isn’t.I’m still not convincedHospital admissions due to coronavirus are at their highest levels since June. You do not go to hospital with a severe case of the false positives.Why is this important?We’ll hand over to Dr Dominic Pimenta for this one, who told HuffPost UK: “What’s really dangerous here is eroding the trust in the test and trace system, based on supposition, and this is then amplified to negatively effect public behaviour at at time when that is crucially needed to control cases and prevent more deaths and worse restrictions.”And finally – the big questionFinally, there’s the elephant in the room – why exactly would the government actually want a second lockdown that would likely finish off the UK economy and negatively impact millions of people even if they don’t have Covid?Even Hartley-Brewer is stumped...Ok, so many of us accept that the data being used to convince us to go back into some kind of lockdown is dodgy as hell... But WHY, when the data doesn't predict a deadly second wave, would the Government want to pretend that it does? This is the bit I can't work out. 1/— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) September 21, 2020Related...
Stricter Lockdown Measures Needed 'As Fast As Possible', Warns Government Science Adviser
Coronavirus Sceptics And Anti-Vaxxers Told To Disperse Or Face Arrest In Police Clash
This Pro-Trump TV Channel Makes Fox News Look Like CBeebies
We continue our countdown to Person of the Year 2020
The successor to WIRED’s favorite earbuds, these comfortable, affordable wireless headphones are our new top pick.
Walmart will reduce its emissions by using more renewable energy and electric vehicles, and introducing eco-friendly cooling and heating systems.
The letter was posted in Canada. A terrorist motive is doubted, but the investigation is still in its early stages, say officals.
Drizly offers one-hour delivery of your favorite alcohol from local stores near your location.
British shoppers bought 15.9% fewer clothes in August than in February, despite a 2.5% overall rise in retail spending.