Ground Truth Puns

By disabling the Shadow of Intent, the only remaining Assault Carrier, the Gravemind might have taken out a possible threat, but if he'd just waited a minute longer, Truth, Johnson and the ability to activate the Halo rings would have been a pile of metal slag, then he could have gone about attacking the remaining Elite ships, without having to invest resources allying with the Chief and the Arbiter. No one would have known how to beat the flood as they wouldn't have been in a position to see Installation 08 rising from the Ark's crucible and by the time it rose High enough for them to see it, the Gravemind could have infected and dealt with most of the remaining elites and UNSC forces, without Johnson, there'd be no one to operate the Forward unto Dawn. If the Gravemind was concerned about the Shadow of Intent destroying High Charity, he shouldn't be, if it was capable of doing so, why didn't it do so when it was parked by Installation 05?

If nirvana is samsara, and we already rest in the seat of the ground of the mind, and realizing that is the key, then what of the four noble truths and getting rid of desire to overcome suffering?

Is there a public dataset of EEG readings for different emotional states that was obtained with hardware that costs less than 4,000 USD? Trying to build an ML model that can classify my emotional state based on previous labels

it is very smooth and very effective. very potent but more on the energetic side. quite like a sativa high with a slight bit of a trippier side. a lot like a more psychoactive mdma. its like 5.45$ for like 48 gs which is enough for atleast a couple dosing sessions. good if u dont wanna spend so much on whole ones and going about crushing them. most useful and intuitive way for me is parachuting and just smooshing the chunks. also very rich and clumpy. no nausea if u take a small meal and sip on water thru the whole trip, do not chug but keep ingesting small amounts even if u arent thirsty.

=====================================================

===== Online Fighting Ground for Truth vs Lies ======

=====================================================

===== Problems =====

+ Problem: For every piece of truth, there exists much more lies. It's a strategy to use much lies to cover truth.

End user can now effectively filter out lies with custom resource backed hierachical opinions.

This works better for the end user than plateforms such as Twitter/Facebook.

+ Problem: Free money printing enables political ad campaign based ideological slavery.

You can tell others what to believe but you have to pay for it now.

Whoever creates more value and spends less will have more say in the long run.

==== Game Mechanics ===

+ Adderss1 publishes Message1: "Anarchy is bad."

I'm avoiding Twetch because I'm a "cheapskate". Publishing directly on the BSV blockchain is as cheap as it gets.

+ Address2 publishes Message2: "Anarchy led to the destruction of the Nephites."

+ Address3 publishes Linker1: "Message2 sustains Message1"

+ Address4 publishes

Message3: "Hierachy is bad"

Linker2: "Message 3 objects to Message1"

+ Website1 grabs these messages and presents with a custom {Setting1 - newest first}

~ Thread2 ~

Message3: "Hierachy is bad"

Linker2: "Message 3 objects to Message1

Message1: "Anarchy is bad."

~ Thread1 ~

Message1: "Anarchy is bad."

Linker1: "Message2 sustains Message1"

Message2: "Anarchy led to the destruction of the Nephites."

+ Person1 with 10 BSVs in Address5 votes:

Vote1: "Flag 1 BSV to sustain Message1"

Vote2: "Flag 20% of total BSV to sustain Linker1"

Vote3: "Flag the rest of my BSV to sustain Message2"

+ Website1 updates with custom {Setting2 - most upvoted thread first}

~ Thread1 ~ 10(+10)

Message1: "Anarchy is bad." 1(+1)

Linker1: "Message2 sustains Message1" 2(+2)

Message2: "Anarchy led to the destruction of the Nephites." 8(+8)

~ Thread2 ~

Message3: "Hierachy is bad"

Linker2: "Message 3 objects to Message1

Message1: "Anarchy is bad."

+ Person1 sends 4 BSVs from Address5 to Person2 with Address6 for an expensive bottle of wine. 6 BSV remaining on Address5.

+ Person2 with 4 BSVs on Address6 votes:

vote4: "Object to Message1 with 1 BSV"

vote5: "Sustain Message3 with 3 BSV"

+ Website1 updates with custom {Setting2 - most upvoted thread first}

~ Thread1 ~ 5(+6-1)

Message1: "Anarchy is bad." 0(+1-1)

Linker1: "Message2 sustains M

I am designing a study where two blinded readers will evaluate images and classify lesions as benign or malignant, and then these classifications will be compared to a reference standard to determine the test's specificity and sensitivity.

Ideally, they would just classify every lesion as either benign or malignant but this is not realistic as the imaging test is not perfect, and sometimes they will be unable to determine a classification. Therefore, I thought of using a Likert scale for diagnostic certainty ( 1 – definitely benign, 2 – probably benign, 3 – inconclusive, 4 – probably malignant, 5 – definitely malignant). However, I cannot seem to integrate this approach to the dichotomous ground truth which will eventually become available through other tests (i.e., upon microscopic examination lesions will either be benign or malignant).

My data would look something like this:

How could I classify each rating issued by the readers into true positives, false negatives, and so on using that scale? Is that even possible? Is there another approach that would let me take the readers' uncertainty into account?

I would be glad to hear your perspective on this. Thank you.