• 6 Posts
  • 161 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • The ingredient you might be missing for how common the CLT is applicable is the following: in most complex systems (e.g. biological systems), any variable you measure is likely influenced by a lot of other hidden variables. Because there are so many variables at play, each effect is likely to be small, and the way their effects are compounded is likely somewhat additive (this one comes from things like series expansion). Hence summing up effects between variables must be relatively common and account for the bulk of the variation in a response variable.

    A last bit is this: most statistical methods like the linear model are relatively robust to deviation from the normal distribution. So, you don’t need exactly a normal distribution, you just need close enough. It turns out the CLT often produces “close enough” quite quickly (i.e. with a few variables added together).






  • At first, I wrote “Element/Matrix” and decided to not be too pedantic… But if you want to be complete: the messaging protocol is, of course, Matrix. You could say there is actually no such thing as a Matrix server either, because it’s a protocol. The server must probably be Synapse-based, I guess. But there is an “Element-based server” in the sense that the web interface of Tchap (and phone apps) are very clearly forked from Element, which is what I meant.

    Visio is based on LiveKit, which Element Call is also based on (as far as I understand). It lives outside of Tchap. The DINUM never mentioned it was based on Element Call. Do you have additional information? (Not that the difference matters much I think)







  • flyos@jlai.lutoScience Memes@mander.xyzLamarck moment
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I was merely jesting at the refusal we (the French) had of Darwinian evolution, because we chauvinistically preferred Lamarck. The text on the statue is basically this: the (childish) attempt of French biologists at making Lamarck rather than Darwin the true hero of the story.

    But, yeah if I need to support my take, I don’t think he can be called the “father of the doctrine of evolution”. First, because “evolution” is a term strongly associated with Darwinism, rather than “transformism”. The former is a radical version of the latter, whereby all species come from a common ancestor, which is not at all Larmack’s view. Second, Lamarck wasn’t the first transformist, many other people suggested species could (like Buffon, although he was very careful about it, or… Erasmus Darwin). What he was, certainly, was the first to provide an auto-cohesive transformist theory. The problem was, his theory was most just that, auto-cohesive. Lamarck lacked Darwin drive to anchor his theory firmly into biological facts, and Darwin actually had little consideration for Lamarck’s work because of that. He certainly didn’t “build” on Lamarck, this is has been made quite clear by historians. This would be my third point.

    A last thing is that I see a lot Lamarck associated with inheritance of acquired characteristics, but he’s not. Or, rather, it’s nothing specific to Lamarck. It was a very common thing to assume at the time, and Darwin’s theory of heredity (pangenesis) was compatible with inheritance of acquired characteristics. And Lamarck’s theory bears little with modern epigenetics (or rather this idea of environmentally-induced epigenetic inheritance which we call “neo-lamarckism” for reasons beyond me), because it was not the environment that induces change for Lamarck, but an internal driving force akin to a habit.