So what I want to talk about today are health measures that we use in household survey data that we use to make assessments about the need for care and that we base health inequalities on. And I want to talk about how our perceptions of health affect the reported health measures. I'm going to specifically speak about the differences in reporting behaviour between the poor and the non-poor, and I'm going to focus on South Africa. And just to give recognition to my co-author, Professor Adifan Duerslaw from the Timbergen Institute in Rotterdam. So I turn to South Africa, especially because I'm from South Africa, but secondly also because of the large income inequalities in South Africa and also unequal access to basic services. And this translates into difference in health outcomes between the poor and the non-poor, where the poor are severely disadvantaged. While a large port of 16% of the population is actually covered by medical schemes, this membership is largely concentrated amongst the affluent and leaving the poor having to rely on public health care, which is often undercapacitated and underresourced. So given the poor quality of public health care, a lot of the poor have to access out-of-pocket payments to access private health care in South Africa. So this is a stat from an article by Berger and her colleagues where they found that a fifth of health care utilization by the persons in the poorest quintile is from private providers. So if we're going to make assumptions about reporting behaviour in household surveys and the data that's usually used in household surveys is self-reported health measures. So they're usually not measured by medical professionals unless you're using anthropometric measures. These self-reported health measures can be anything from asking somebody to give an overall analysis of the health, so asking somebody to rate their health on a scale from one to five, where one is really good and five is really terrible. There can also be a question asking people to rate their ability to do certain daily activities, so the ADL index. And sometimes you also use self-reported chronic conditions such as hypertension or strokes. And especially amongst the poor, these can also go undiagnosed if you don't have access to good quality of health care, so they can also be underreported. So I'll be looking at the overall self-assist health question where there's sort of evaluating a health on a scale from one to five question. And when you're asking somebody to evaluate their health on a scale from one to five, people are going to use different reporting skills when analysing their own health. So saying that your health is excellent might mean one thing for one subgroup and something for another subgroup. And when one subgroup systematically over-estimate or under-estimates their health or systematically uses a different reporting skill, this can bias your health measures. So, and this is often referred to as reporting heterogeneity in certain papers. So one sort of often cited example of reporting heterogeneity is of the Aborigines in Australia where they found that when looking at self-reported health measures, the Aborigines reported having the best health in Australia, but when you looked at something more objective such as mortality rates, they performed the worst. And when you're looking at reporting behaviours, there's sort of this predictive pattern that you usually find that vulnerable subgroups are likely to have a different reporting skill, but also that they're likely to underreport their ill health. And this has been found for across provinces, income groups and different education levels. So why would we expect the vulnerable subgroups to under-estimate their ill health? The first reason, I mean there are a range of reasons, but one possible reason are differences in comparison groups. So when you take for instance the poor as a subgroup, they're comparing themselves to their peers and their environment. They're comparing themselves to sort of their neighbours and their family. And when you're comparing yourself to a group who starts off with a relatively low level of health, you might see yourself as better off than when you compare yourself to sort of somebody from a more affluent subgroup. So that's one possible reason. I mean another reason which is quite an interesting theory is that people sort of suppress or ignore their illnesses due to their inability to cope with the economic costs involved with being ill. So it's a coping strategy. When I'm speaking about economic costs, I'm not only talking about the healthcare costs, but also about the opportunity costs of not being able to work while you're ill. So Joachim Saabon and his colleagues differentiate between two types of coping strategies. The one is managing strategies. So once the costs are incurred, what do you do to cope with your health costs? So this would be something like taking an extra loan to deal with the health costs. The second one and the one that I'm sort of posing in this paper is the preventative strategy where you modify your illness perception or ignore your disease due to your inability to cope with the illness. So there's sort of this cognitive shift in what you think your health state is. And this is also a table from another table from Burger and her colleagues that show the reported health across income groups across years. And what you can see is that from the poorest quintiles, people report much lower illnesses than people from the higher quintiles. But also that once they do admit that they're all ill, they're also less likely to seek care. So if the poor and the non-poor use different reporting skills and the poor as a vulnerable subgroup underestimate their ill health, then there's lots of implications for estimating health disparities because you're underestimating the gap in the health outcomes between the poor and the non-poor. So yeah, I'll be focusing on reporting behavior according to wealth status where wealth is measured using the asset index and you're classified as poor when you fall within the bottom two wealth quintiles and non-poor if you're in the top three wealth quintiles. So establishing the possibility of health reporting, different health reporting behavior affecting health disparities. I take a two-step procedure. Firstly, I'll estimate whether or not the poor and the non-poor use different reporting skills. So do they have different reporting behavior? And often you establish this in what direction is this bias? So if the poor do use a different reporting skill, are they over-reporting or under-reporting their ill health? So do they think that they're better or worse than they actually are? The data I'll be using is the WHO Study on Global Aging and Adult Health, or SAGE, which was created in 2008. It consists about 3,200 observations and unfortunately it only focuses on the adult population. So it only looks at persons aged 50 years and older. The data, the self-reported data that I'll be using in the dataset is the self-assessed rating of your health in specific health domains. So here I've put an example of one of these questions. Participant is asked, over all in the last three days, how much difficulty did you have with moving around? Where one is none and five is extreme. So a higher value is a worse health state. And you have this question for the various domains. So mobility, appearance, anxiety, pain, vision, sleeping and energy, stuff like that. And then what I'm also using, which also in this dataset, and that's why I'm using this SAGE, is our anchoring venets. And our anchoring venet is this hypothetical person or this hypothetical scenario that a person, which the respondent is asked to evaluate the health of. So just to give an example, I've written this down, Alan is able to walk a distance of up to 200 meters without any trouble, but gets tired after taking a flight of stairs or walking for one kilometer. And then the respondent is asked to rate Alan's mobility on a scale from one to five. And what makes the anchoring venets great are that they represent a fixed health state. So the health state doesn't vary across individuals, rather the way that the individual evaluates the health of the venet varies. So any sort of variation in the evaluation of the venet's health can be appropriated to reporting heterogeneity. So within each domain, there are five different venets ranging in different fixed health states, from good to average to poor health state. And then unfortunately, because it's such a sort of a data-hungry exercise, it's only asked for a subset of individuals. So you have these venet ratings for about 500 individuals, while you have the overall rating for all the respondents. So this is just a summary of the covariates that I'm including in the analysis, and it differentiates between the poor and the non-poor. The sample is about 55% female and 62 years of age. Persons in the non-poor group are more likely to be married and have higher levels of more years of education than the poor. The poor group is almost 80% African black, while the Asian Indian and the white population group's form is completely in the non-poor. Then if you look at the sort of hot apple cider colour picture at the bottom, this is just an illustration of what a venet rating would look like. So this is a venet rating in the dim health domain of mobility moving around, and this is a health venet with a sort of an average health state. So the column on the left-hand side is for the non-poor, and on the right-hand side is for the poor, and the non-poor are more likely to say that the venet has an extremely poor health state, and are less likely to say that it has no or mild health difficulty. So if you look at this, just as an example, but this is just one of many, then it looks like the non-poor or more pessimistic in the analysis of the venet's health. So for estimation, I'm using the hierarchical ordered probate model, which is a sort of two-part estimation model where in the first part of the model called the reporting behavior equation, what you do is you use the sample that have the venet ratings, and your dependent variable is the venet rating on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the worst health set, and you regress this onto your various individual characteristics where one of the individual characteristics is your wealth variable, which is equal to 1 if you're poor and 0 if you're not poor, and also it also includes a constant which is equal to 0 for your first venet. And so this is basically like a generalized ordered probate because you allow the cut points of the ordinal variable to shift with the individual characteristics. What you do is you use the cut points that you estimate from this equation and you apply it to the next part of the model, which is the health equation. And then the second part of the model, you use the entire sample and you use a person's evaluation of their own health in a specific health domain, and you take the cut points that you estimated from the previous regression, you fix it onto this regression and you regress your overall self-assessed health onto once again the individual characteristic. And what you basically end up with is a type of almost like an interval regression, which is an ordered probate, but with known cut points. And you estimate these jointly. So what you end up with at the end from the second equation is basically a self-assessed health variable that has been purged of differences in reporting behavior. So since the cut points are dependent on wealth status and the other individual characteristics you remove reporting heterogeneity from your variable. To test for reporting heterogeneity, you use the reporting behavior equation. So you use this equation and then you test for the joint significance of the poor variable across the cut points of this equation. And what I report here are the results from this test for reporting heterogeneity. I now see that the font looks okay when you're working on it at home, but when it's big on screen, you see that you make font errors. Okay, so these are the p-values from this test of joint significance. And in all the health domains that I tested it for, reporting homogeneity is rejected. So there's evidence of the poor using different reporting scales than the non-poor. So there is reporting heterogeneity, but it's not clear whether the poor are underestimating or over-estimating their health. And that's the next step. So what you can do is you take the results from the second part of the model from the hope of estimation and you compare it to... you compare it to the purge figures and you compare it to the ordered probate results. And by doing this you can see how the purge figures compare to the non-purge figures. So in the ordered probate, the poor... So just to say that... just to remember that the health variable ranging from one to five or five indicates a worse health state and a one indicates a better health state. That means a high probability of reporting poor health. And in the ordered probate, the results were... the coefficients were mostly negative. So the poor were more likely to report a better health state. And of the control for reporting heterogeneity, some of the... or most of the coefficients become positive. And you... so the poor are more likely to report a poor health state. So the direction of the change is the same for all variables, but unfortunately the variables... the coefficients aren't statistically significant. But I think you can draw some sort of conclusion of the direction of the bias, but not necessarily of the magnitude. Yeah, so just to conclude... a bit early, but... So like I said, there's indication that using self-reported health measures and drawing conclusions about the need for care and health inequalities could be biased when you're doing this across income group. But it's not... and it's likely that the poor are underestimating their health state or underestimating their ill health. But apart from that, apart from sort of the measurement implications, it's also important to note that if the poor are underestimating their ill health, there is a sort of suppression of health needs that are going unrealized. And what has happened in a lot of countries, the countries that have implemented universal health coverage has been a large increase in health care utilization especially amongst poor. And a large part of this can be attributed to... obviously tomorrow has it, but a lot of it can also be attributed to unmet health needs. And if this is true for South Africa, then we need to think of ways to remove the access barriers, supply access barriers to improve the access to good quality public health care. So improving possibly home-based care or maybe better quality mobile health plans, or even the national health insurance as a start which aims at the first step to improve basic care. Primary basic care could be a move in the right direction.


The long-awaited Samsung Galaxy S8 has arrived at Appalachian Wireless. Get yours for the introductory price of just $149.99 with a two-year service agreement. Better service, bigger savings. That's today's Appalachian Wireless, an East Kentucky network company. Minor flooding caused problems in numerous areas earlier today and even left several families wondering where they'll sleep tonight. Heavy rains settled in on the area this morning and continued over several hours. Small stream flooding and stopped up drains caused some headaches and travel difficulties, such as this and Pikeville in many areas. Our drainage systems work pretty good. It's just when we get a heavy hitter, when we get a lot of rain at one time, that tends to push the debris down. And when I say debris, it could be tree limbs, leaves, different things. Anything that could stop up a drain. According to the National Weather Service, between two and four inches of rain fell this morning and this afternoon in some areas of the region. A major damage was reported in the county of Pike, but a mudslide on Kentucky Avenue in the city of Pikeville flooded several apartments. One resident said she lost everything in the downstairs portion of her apartment. I was actually in the house and I just heard stuff falling and I just ran outside to see and was like, oh, there's a slide. And then came back out here and the pop was all clogged up and I got flooded again. Everything is going on the bottom. Washer, dryer, computer, toys, TVs, everything. At Cowpen, a single vehicle accident nearly had a tragic ending when an SUV ran off the road and nearly into a swollen creek. A passerby helped the driver out of the vehicle and kept her vehicle from going into the creek before emergency crews arrived. The area's minor floodwaters receded as the rains diminished as the afternoon progressed, but weather-related concerns including slides like the one in Pikeville remain. Hopefully we can get this thing stabilized quick, get these displaced families back home. That's our main goal. With the forecast over the next three or four days, the possibilities are still there. We could experience some more mudslides or even more flash flooding later on. From Pikeville, Chris Anderson, EKB News.


Keratinous wastes such as hair, feathers and nails are produced in large quantities every day, posing a serious threat to the environment due to their non-biodegradability. Despite some attempts to recycle or reuse them, most keratinous wastes remain unused and are instead discarded into the environment, causing air, water and soil pollution. To address this issue, keratinous wastes can be converted into useful products through biotechnology methods such as enzymatic hydrolysis. Enzyme producing microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria can be used to degrade keratinous wastes into simpler compounds which can then be further processed into various products. These products include cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, food additives and even energy sources. Additionally, keratinous wastes can be used as media supplements for the growth of keratinolytic microorganisms, allowing for the recovery of precious metals such as silver from used x-ray films and photographic films. This article was authored by Mohammed Said Ambizor. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. Chips thing, I tell you, with Taiwan, so pressing on everybody's mind and the idea of a potential invasion from China, or at the very least a disruption of the chips that are produced in Taiwan from making it out to the rest of the world. It's got the United States lawmakers thinking about, well, why don't we make those things here? So they're putting aside a bunch of money to do that, and it's one of these government things. I mean, for a libertarian, how much should government be involved in funding things like this? Obviously, most libertarians, I think, who are not anarcho-libertarians are at the very least okay with government having an army to defend us. Does this sort of fall in that? I mean, if all the chips are coming from some place that might be captured by your enemies, should we be doing something about it? And if we do do it, is that still going to result in chips that are worth a day on this? You know, government is behind them, or is it just going to result in a lot of mismanagement of things? And one other point on that as well, reason had something out as well that said, hey, even if you fund this chips act, you may not have the talent here to work on that because of our immigration restrictions on some of the people who are actually the knowledgeable people we might want here working on that. Anyways, what do you guys think about this whole chips act? Tim, ready to go, yes. Okay. Yeah, outside of a couple of articles, I don't like it from just the whole idea of the government being involved in any of this kind of ridiculous stuff, like, you know, this whole innovation thing of we're already so far behind in chip making technology. It's ludicrous to think throwing money at it's going to make it all of a sudden, you know, just, you know, chips are going to rain down from heaven like Nana. And so it's, first of all, you have that issue, then, you know, just the whole, I mean, they're just, I don't know where to begin. They're taking money to throw at innovation, the innovating and high tech cutting edge products. And if somewhere else in the world, they're better at doing that than we are, then, sorry, that's just the way it goes. I mean, it's not, not any different than many other things. And so, and okay, so what if you're so the big bad boogeyman China, they get they capture Taiwan and then also what are they going to do horde the chips. Okay. That was that what they're going to do that we're afraid of. Okay, then start start over then you're starting over now. I mean, at least you might get some refugees out of Taiwan to to put into, you know, if you would allow them to come into the country. I know they're not from Mexico. So it's like they're, they're, they're not, you know, migrant farm workers. So maybe you would have an issue with that. But now I'm just kidding. But yeah, you've got to be able to let those people in and from other countries to if you're looking for talent. And so, but, you know, that's just freedom, that's just looking at freedom, but this whole throwing money away that's not freedom that's opposite of freedom that's taking money from other people. You're not supposed to the federal government is not in the chip making business, not in the Constitution. They're not in the chip making business. So they don't have that power. And so, and I don't put this under security. You know, if that's just nonsense. Yeah, yeah, we need, we need to have the best chips around to, to, you know, to guide our guided missiles to their, you know, appointed target but, you know, we're just going to have to look, look for other ways. I'm sorry. So, so, so, I mean, I think, I think most of us, all of us, Liberty minded libertarians, whatever, will agree that we need an army to defend us, to defend our sovereignty. I think everybody would agree with that. Right, Tim. I had, okay, I'm worried about standing armies and I'm siding with the original framers with that worry. The big, huge standing army is not a good thing. Navy's okay. Marine Corps part of the Navy. This whole Air Force thing too, it's kind of land based stuff. And so, for the most part, so I'm not. I'm a little bit worried about the Air Force too. So, you know, I, I, if you want to have an army, it doesn't have to be so big like ours is, I don't think. Okay, let me, let me, let me, let me ask you a question then. So you agree, though, that some configuration, whatever it is, whatever the size, some configuration of a military, we need to defend us. You agree with that? Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, within limitations set forth by the Constitution. So if not, if the chips, if the chips, the nanotechnology, yes, is not available to us or whatever it is, or we don't have enough of it or we're not making enough of it. Yes. If that is not available, is that not a national security threat? Yeah, it is from, from that standpoint, but that doesn't say that's not saying that you can take money. Basically, they're going to print the money. We know that. Let's stop. Yeah, we know that. That doesn't mean that you can indent future Americans to pay for it, because that's not your, your, your power is to find the chips somewhere else. You know, if you've got to buy them and to make them here. No. Okay, unless the government, which is not empowered to do is going to be in the chip making business. They're just, they're all, it's always the same thing. They take money out of the economy and then pay private enterprise to make stuff for them. And what if it's asphalt for the, for the freeway system, if it's a mailbox for the mailbox system, it's some private entity being paid with money from other. So the government's moving the money from another entity, one American and giving it to another. And that's essentially what this is. They're moving money from one American, giving it to another, and I don't think they have that power. They can buy the chips. They just move it here made somewhere else. That's fine. And that's what they've been doing, but they, they, but to be in the business of causing the chips to be manufactured. And, well, I guess, okay, I guess you can say well what about the bullets and the bombs and the planes and then the submarines what about those.  I was just gonna, I was just gonna ask you about that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And you can make a big, I guess you could make a good point about that. I guess I made my own counterpoint. Yeah, you did. You did. Yeah. In general, in general, I agree with you. I agree with you about the government being part of this innovation of chips and all that kind of stuff. All the nanotechnology that's involved. I mean, the government is not innovated at doing nothing. Okay. The only, they're not even good at taking money from one group of citizens and giving it to another. They do a lousy job at even doing that. But, but if there is a national security threat with these issues about the chips, what should we do about it? Yes, on one hand, we have liberty and freedoms and all that kind of stuff and what the government is entitled or what does the constitutional law the government to do on one hand we have those things. And on the other hand, we have the national security threat, which the federal government is certainly entitled to take care of. They're authorized. They're authorized. They're authorized to do that. So where do those two things come together? All right. Okay, let's assume that that's correct that they are authorized to, like you said, to use your words to take care of that. So what role are they playing when they come to the, to that issue of taking care of it? Are they some government entity kind of coming up with these new ideas or, I mean, where are the new ideas for these chips coming? Well, I think most likely what's happening is they're just subsidizing the industry. So they're essentially giving free money to incentivize them to build the stuff here. I think that's most likely what's happening. That's the intent. No, that's exactly the intent. Well, it's not free money. It's not free money.  Yeah, yeah. But from their perspective, it's free money. They just have to fill out the right government form and it just rains our money down on them. Yeah, exactly. I was just going to say, you know, maybe the one way to think about this first before showering them with our money. Maybe we ought to think about what could we be doing that makes it more attractive just for people to do business here? Because I was just looking at the per capita income, the purchasing power parity that's listed out there. And in Taiwan, it's not that much different than what it is here in the U.S. So why are these things being made in Taiwan and not here in the first place? And I'm guessing it's probably because we have a lot of stupid government rules that if we could just get rid of some of those, these things might be being built here in the first place. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, the chip makers in the United States are the losers. They're the ones, they're way back in the pack as far as technological chip development. So we're getting more money to the losers. Okay. Is that what we're, is that our great idea here? And so I'm worried about, okay, so I'm going to side with Leon and say we've got to do something about this from a national security standpoint. I know the Marine Corps is looking into high technology and changing everything in the Marine Corps in their force design 2030 program. And so that is going, you know, and I'm warming up to that program more and more. And that's all about what Leon's talking about here, about moving forward with high technological solutions to these defensive problems as they come up in the future.   So I don't know how I was throwing money into the companies that are way behind going to bring them up. I don't know.  I totally agree with you on that because that's a very, very stupid idea. The only point is, is that I think the federal government is authorized to defend the whole sovereignty. Okay. Okay, yeah. I'll go with that for sure. All right. So if they authorize to defend our sovereignty and those not, not having chips, not having those chips or that nanotechnology. If that is not, if they don't have that available to them, then I don't know how they will fulfill that constitutional application. I mean, continue. That is, that is my only point. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always.


Welcome to dealing with materials data, in this course we are trying to understand the collection analysis and interpretation of data from material science and engineering. We are in the third module which is on probability distributions and we are going to begin with some discrete probability distributions, specifically we are going to talk about Bernoulli trials and binomial distributions. Let us consider an ideal solution of A and B or random solid solution of A and B. If you pick a random atom is it B if you ask the question then the answer is either S or no. In other words there are only two outcomes and if you are looking for B atoms and if you find a B atom then you can say that the outcome is a success and if you do not find a B atom you can say that the outcome is a failure. So, but success and failure are within quote marks because suppose if your interest is not in B atom but in A atoms then finding B atoms will be considered as a failure and finding A atoms will be considered as a success. Because there are only two outcomes success is complement to failure and failure is complement to success. And what is the probability that the answer is S. So, like I said it is a random solid solution and you pick a random atom what is the probability that it will be a B atom that is basically given by the composition of the alloy. Suppose if it is a 50 atomic percent alloy then the probability of finding the atom to be B will be 50 percent because we have assumed the random solid solution or we have assumed that it is like a ideal mixture. So, any random atom that you pick the probability that it will be of type B will be given by the alloy composition itself. So, X B will be the probability and this probability is the same for any of the trials. In other words implicitly we are assuming either that it is a large number of atoms from which we are picking some and so this process is not going to change the composition or we are assuming that we are just probing and finding that it is either B or not and then we are going to leave that atom there. So, it is not going to change our probabilities. So, any number of times you do this experiment. So, these are the assumptions that have gone in and we are also going to assume that the outcome from different trials are independent that if you have made one measurement it is not like the second measurement is going to be affected by your first measurement. So, under these conditions so that there are only two outcomes and the probability of the success is some P and it remains the same for all trials and different trials are independent. Such a process is known as a Bernoulli trial. You can write the probability mass function for the Bernoulli trial because we have assumed independent then the probability should multiply because X B is the probability of finding B atom and if it is success then it is X B itself. So, if it is failure then 1 minus X B is the success. So, if you say that success and failure are determined by 1 and 0 then X B power K 1 minus X B to the power 1 minus K where K is actually either 0 or 1 describes the result of every Bernoulli trial. If it is X B it is a B atom then the probability is X B and K is 1. So, 1 minus X B will have 1 minus K in the exponent so because K is 1 that is 0 so that will give you 1 so you will get X B. If it is not a B atom then because K is 0 X B to the power 0 will become 1. So, 1 minus X B to the power 1 minus 0 so it will become 1 minus X B so that is the probability of finding a non-B atom in an alloy of composition X B. So, this is a Bernoulli trial based on Bernoulli trial you can now ask the question suppose the alloy was not random it is an ordered alloy say let us say that there are specific sites which are occupied by A atom and there are specific sites which are occupied by B atom. Now will the trials be Bernoulli they will not be because if you do different trials if you pick a random atom depending on where the atom was picked from depending on the site the probability of finding a B atom will be different for different sites. So, this cannot be considered as a Bernoulli trial if it is a random solution or if it is an ideal solution you can consider this as a Bernoulli trial. If you now conduct such Bernoulli trials suppose you conduct N independent Bernoulli trials of which K are successful what does that mean you say try to look at some 100 atoms and you find that about 55 atoms are B. So, the result of such an exercise of conducting N independent Bernoulli trials of which K are successful is known as a binomial distribution and the probability mass function of binomial distribution it depends on K how many successful trials you got and how many total trials you conducted which is N. So, it is N factorial by K factorial minus N minus K factorial XB to the power K and 1 minus XB to the power N minus K you can understand this because we are assuming everything to be independent and one Bernoulli trial had probability and because there are many different ways of getting the other results when you do N times this exercise and K of them are successful. So, the N factorial by K factorial minus into N minus K factorial basically gives you that different combinations and so this is the probability. So, they are all multiplicative so you just multiply and you get the result. The mean value of the binomial distribution is N times XB whatever is the probability that you are assuming and variance of the binomial distribution is N times XB times 1 minus XB. You can notice that the variance is proportional to N because of which if you take relative uncertainty that will go as 1 by square root of N because sigma will go as root N and you are dividing by N because that is the number of trials. So, you will get 1 by root N and this is a very nice information to have because this shows you that if you do larger and larger number of experiments your uncertainty goes down your relative uncertainty goes down because your variance is proportional to N. So, this basically gives you the assurance that you can improve your accuracy by doing large number of experiments. This is not surprising because if you take 10 atoms and find that some 3 of them are B and if you conclude that the composition is 0.3 because you had the probability as XB and you did 10 and the mean value that you got is 3. So, 3 divided by 10 will be 0.3 that will be the mean that you will decide but if you do probably 100 maybe you will get 35. So, you can get better accuracy maybe you do 1000 and then you get some 367 or something. So, you can improve the accuracy by doing larger number of experiments. So, that is what this gives this information on variance gives. Suppose if you choose a random alloy and let us say that consists of not two types of atoms but M different types of atoms. Such alloys are known and they are equimolar multi component alloys they are also sometimes known as high entropy alloys. In such cases what happens again you can describe using a similar distribution function which is known as a multinomial distribution function. Binomial is for 2 and multinomial is for more than 2. So, if you have M different types of atoms and sometimes these type of materials are made for example 20 percent of 5 different components you make an alloy. So, in that case you will get the multinomial distribution. Now, binomial distributions are common whenever we have N independent events and each one has 2 outcomes and the success is with probability P and failure is with probability 1 minus P and these events are independent and the probability is also the same for every trial. Whenever this happens you will see that the result will be a binomial distribution. In microstructure analysis and in the case of geometric probabilities for example, these will again be binomial because they are like Bernoulli trials. Suppose you pick random points from a microstructure let us say that consists of 2 phases like the steel that we considered earlier which had phase 1 or phase 2. So, if you pick random points and if those points happen to be either from phase 1 or phase 2 then you can think of the process as I pick a point is it phase 1 or phase 2. So, the answer is S it is phase 1 or no it is not phase 1 in which case it is phase 2 and what would be the relative probability of this that would depend on the area fraction because if phase 2 has larger area fraction and random picking will most of the times end up with phase 2 and if phase 1 has more area fraction you will. So, some amount of quantitative information about the microstructure you can get by doing exercise of this sort. This also happens suppose if you have n components identical components and if you pick and see if it passes quality test for example or if it is in working condition for example. The answer again is S or no and depending on the component that you are choosing and its process or property it might or might not pass with a probability P and if you keep doing n such experiments and each one is independent and the probability does not change as you are doing your experiment for success then that will also be a binomial distribution. So, in many many different cases one comes across binomial distributions and these two are just two cases the random alloy picking and geometric probability in microstructural analysis are just two examples. You might think that the random alloy example is a bit farfetched but we will look at a case and understand that it is not so it is very relevant and we are going to look at one such microscopy technique where this has relevance. In any case so how do we deal with binomial distributions using R? This is a set of common theme that you will see that runs through the rest of this module. There are always four commands in this case it is binomial distribution. So, binom is common and you have D binom which is for probability density, P binom which is for the cumulative distribution function, Q binom which is the quantile function which is the inverse of the cumulative distribution function or binom which is for random variate generation. We have seen some of these commands earlier R norm for example we used to get random variates from a normal distribution R L norm we used to get random variates from a log normal distribution. So, we have seen some of these commands earlier and so we are going to do this. So, it is for binomial so you have D norm P binom Q binom and R binom and similarly for other distributions you will have this D P Q R along with the distribution so that is how these commands work. So, let us now go to R and work with some of these commands what do the probability distribution function and cumulative distribution function the quantile function look like for binomial distribution and how do we generate random variates from the binomial distribution. So, that is what we will do now let us go to R. So, here is the first set of commands to use D binom. So, X is a sequence so let us say that it goes from 1 to 1000 in steps of 1 and we want to plot X and we are going to get the binomial distribution density and so there are 1000 is the n and 0.5 is basically the probability P. So, this is how the distribution function looks of course you can change the probability and you can look at how it changes so you can keep shifting from where the peak is going to be. So, this is the D binom and so we can do the next one which is the P binom again it is the same sequence and so X is from 1 to 1000 in steps of 1 and now we want to plot X with the cumulative distribution function P binom for when the probability of success is 0.5. So, this is how it looks and of course if you shift then the probability distribution or the cumulative distribution function shifts and so this is also expected. Now, we want to get the quantiles but remember for quantiles the value should run from 0 to 1 because it is the inverse for this what is the X is what we are trying to get. So, the X sequence that we should get should go only from 0 to 1, 0 to 1 in 0.01 and so let us call that as Y it should go from 0 to 1 in terms of 0.01 and we want to get Y and this is Q binom Y and let us say for 0.5. So, this is the probability the quantile function which is the inverse of the distribution function and of course you can get it for 2, get it for 4, you can get it for 0.6, for 0.8 and so on. So, this is basically the inverse of the function that you saw earlier. Finally, if you want to generate random variates of course you can use that using our binom and let us do that. So, I am going to make 3 plots and I am going to pick random variates 100 or 1000 or 10000 with 0.5 as the probability value and plot the histograms. So, that is what you see this is the case when I picked 100, this is the case where I picked 1000, this is the case where I picked 10000. So, this is with 0.5 then what happens if I do with 0.2. So, this is what you get for 0.2 what happens for 0.8. So, you can sort of see that for example, 0.8 for small values skews like this and then for 1000 it is like this and when it comes to 10000 that is not making much of a difference. So, probably if you do maybe this as some 50 or something we can clearly see the difference let us see. So, you can see the distribution how it changes with more and more of random variates that you are generating or more and more number of times you are repeating this exercise. So, we will come back to this there is an interesting theorem which we are going to look at later. But this is just to show you how to deal with these distributions and work with them using R. So, we have just looked at binomial and Bernoulli trials. We are going to go through each one of these distributions. So, it is a whole zoo of distributions that we have of which we have chosen only few there are very large number of distributions that are available. And so, we are going to deal with a few of them as we go along which are of importance and relevance along with the information as to where they are useful or where they should be used and why if possible. So, that is what we are going to look at for the rest of this module on dealing with probability distributions using R. Thank you.


So, like all of us, Bernie Sanders is growing increasingly frustrated with the Democratic Party's incompetence and unwillingness to fight for the American people. And in an interview with Steven Greenhouse of The Guardian, he kind of laid it all out and said what we were all thinking. And it's really nice to see someone on the inside confirm what those of us on the outside are seeing. He's not really saying anything new, but what he's saying is really important because few people in DC are willing to stand up to the Democratic Party leadership.  But still, for him to call out the Democratic Party and explicitly say they've abandoned the working class and they need to turn things around, that really is significant. It's important. He as a senator can create headlines and put pressure on the Democratic Party. So not only is he calling on them to do better, but he's actually proposing a strategy for them to adopt rather than just doing nothing. In an interview with The Guardian, Sanders called on Joe Biden and the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to push to hold votes on individual bills that would be a boon to working families, citing extending the child tax credit, cutting prescription drug prices and raising the federal hourly minimum wage to $15 an hour. Such votes would be good policy and good politics. The Vermont senator insisted saying they would show the Democrats battling for the working class while highlighting Republican opposition to hugely popular policies. It is no great secret that the Republican Party is winning more and more support from working people, Sanders said. It's not because the Republican Party has anything to say to them. It's because in too many ways, the Democratic Party has turned its back on the working class. He praised Biden for pushing for improved childcare and extending the child tax credit. But he said it would also be good to show working people that you are willing to step up and take on the greed of the ruling class in America right now. He pointed repeatedly to the high prices for prescription drugs as an example of corporate greed. Now, repeatedly throughout this interview, Bernie Sanders also calls on Democrats to stand up to their donors, and they won't do this, but it still needs to be said. And the subtext throughout all of this is a message to President Biden. You have to try at least.  But even if you do the bare minimum and pretend to care, that is more than just doing nothing because currently we're in the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. People are suffering a multitude of crises. The child tax credit has cut child poverty in half and that expired. So as it stands, going into the midterms at the end of this year, Democrats have basically nothing to brag about. The good things that Biden did, such as withdraw from Afghanistan and reduce the drone war, these are things that the media has propagandized. So you can't really brag about this and expect a surge in your approval rating. So they're in a position where they have no choice. They have to fight for Americans if they want to even stand a chance of winning. And Bernie is saying, fight, do something. And here's even a strategy that you might be able to use that could be effective. It probably won't work. But still, if you force people like Kirsten Sotema and Joe Manchin and Republicans, mind you, to put their names on something, to tell the American people explicitly, we don't support an extension of the child tax credit. We don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage that is important. We all saw the way that Kirsten Sotema's national reputation tanked when she gleefully voted down a $15 an hour minimum wage. So what Bernie is saying is, OK, you're not going to get things passed in a giant package like Build Back Better. So let's try to hold individual votes on each of these. And most of them probably won't pass. But if we can get a lot of them through, that's pretty important.  So this will kind of fall on deaf ears. But nonetheless, I do want to read what Bernie Sanders is saying specifically about why he's advocating for the strategy to kind of disaggregate all of these policies within Build Back Better and have individual votes on each of them. Sanders voiced frustration with the lack of progress on Biden's Build Back Better legislation, which the Democrats sought to enact through budget reconciliation, a process that requires only a simple majority to pass. That effort was slowed by lengthy negotiations with centrist senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kirsten Sotema of Arizona. It seems like they have a typo there. They're actually right wing senators and not centrists. And then blocked when Manchin said he opposed the $2 trillion package sparking left wing theory and deep frustration in the White House. We have tried over the last several months, which has been mostly back to our negotiations with a handful of senators. Sanders said it hasn't succeeded on Build Back Better or on voting rights. It has demoralized millions of Americans. Sanders added if I were senator cinema and the vote came up to lower the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs, I think twice if I want to get reelected in Arizona to vote against that. If I were Mr. Manchin and I know that tens of thousands of struggling families in West Virginia benefited from the expansion of the child tax credit, I think long and hard before I voted against it. Sanders also called for legislation on another issue. He has championed having Medicare provide dental vision and hearing benefits. Quote, all these issues, they are just not Bernie Sanders standing up and saying this would be a great thing. He said they are issues that are enormously popular. And on every one of them, the Republicans are in opposition. But a lot of people don't know that because the Republicans haven't been forced to vote on them. So when you see these articles about how the Democratic Party establishment is spooked at the approval rating of Joe Biden and they're worried about losing out on younger voters, this is free advice that Bernie Sanders is giving to them. And I think it's almost inevitable that they are going to reject this advice. But I mean, at least we have something to throw in their faces when they inevitably lose at the end of the year and try to blame the left for pushing the party too far left. I mean, that's a joke at this point because what have they done? Even rhetorically speaking, they aren't saying what we want to hear as voters. They aren't saying anything that would be indicative of a leftward shift. Everything that they do is means tested. It's focus group driven and even the most milk toast policies can't get through. So you have to at least try. But I mean, I think that even though Bernie Sanders is giving them all of this fantastic advice, which I feel like it's common sense, they're still going to reject it. Joe Biden has just he's given up on being president. He's basically given up on trying to contain COVID, fully embracing Donald Trump strategy at this point. Of just letting it wreak havoc on the country and to really demonstrate how clueless he is, he's going to Georgia to campaign for voting rights. And he argues that this is because Georgia is kind of ground zero for voter suppression. But both Democratic senators from Georgia, John Ossoff and Rafael Warnock support voting rights legislation. So what you need to be doing is going to West Virginia, Arizona, to put pressure on the two senators that are standing in your way. Joe Biden, even though I don't think he's that competent, he knows this, he has to know this, but I think that he doesn't actually care about this. So that's why he's not fighting. He's perfectly comfortable blaming Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sonoma just throwing his hands up and saying, we tried, we just didn't have the votes. He doesn't want to actually fight about it. He doesn't care. So it doesn't matter that they're going to get wiped out in 2022 and all hope of getting anything passed will diminish at that point. But he's just, you know, he's done. He's checked out. He did his part. He gave us $1,400 checks after promising 2000. And he thinks that's enough. They were able to brag for a few months about how the child tax credit cut childhood poverty in half, and now it hasn't been extended. And that really helped out families. But, you know, rather than fighting for that, which is an easy win, he's just he's done. He did his part. OK, I mean, I don't know what to tell you. I think that they know that this is going to lead to their electoral defeat at the end of the year. But I think that Democrats are anticipating this and they're hopeful that that is the case, because when they have a control of all branches of government minus the Supreme Court, a lot of pressure is on them. But when they lose one branch of Congress, when they lose the Senate or the House or maybe both, then all of the pressure diminishes because voters know that, you know, they're not going to get a branch of Congress controlled by Republicans to go along with anything regardless of how centrist that legislation is, because Republicans will purposefully obstruct everything just to make sure that the Democrats aren't even mildly successful. So at least some Democrats know this and they want to lose because it's a lot more easier to say Republicans are blocking our agenda than it is to defend your own party failing when you're in control of Congress and you can actually take action. So what Bernie Sanders here is saying is absolutely correct. And I only wish more people in Congress would speak up and directly criticize the Democratic Party's failures and their corruption by him telling them to stand up to their donors. That actually is really important. It won't matter at the end of the day because the media won't cover what he's saying, but if enough people in Congress say this and they repeat it, then the American people will know, OK, it's corruption. That's the lowest common denominator. That's the thing that's blocking all progress. So I guess this is what we should go after. This is what we should put pressure on Democrats. When when they're when they're doing something, of course, the system blocks a price or a bill that will lower the cost of prescription drugs will look at the donors that she's received from the pharmaceutical industry. But it just nothing will happen. And I expect nothing. And even when my expectations are to the floor, Democrats can't even meet the bare minimum of my expectations.  I like that Bernie Sanders is speaking out here. It's not going to make a difference. At least he's saying what people need to hear.


Herschel Walker is a candidate for the United States Senate and For those of you who don't know he's a former NFL player a long-time Trump friend and ally and he is the father of Christian Walker He is the conservative Viral star I guess like he does political commentary He complains about gas prices and blames Joe Biden. He was on Hassan stream recently I'm not necessarily too familiar with him, but whenever I see Christian Walker I'm I'm very irritated with what he has to say in his demeanor so This is who we have to thank for Christian Walker because Herschel Walker is his father but Herschel Walker is gonna take us back to the Fedora tipping days where I remember myself debating Christians about evolution and he's gonna ask the age old question with regard to evolution See if you all can guess it before even says it but without further ado. Let's let's listen I'll tell you something else. I heard I think about this because at one time the science said man came from apes Did it know? Every time I read or hear that I think to myself you just didn't read the same Bible. I did well what this was it or We didn't read the Bible at all or we read the Bible and realized how ridiculous it is The Bible literally features talking snakes and talking animals in it. So I for one don't take books like that seriously But nonetheless, I love how he's just so confident. Oh, you must have not read the Bible.  Think about it. You know now you're getting too smart for it. No, no, no You're too you're too smart Herschel if evolution is real then why do we still got monkeys? Yes, the age old question that uh creationist Christians has been have been using as a sort of gotcha Against atheists for ever now again. We're right back to the 2010s where we're all tipping our fedoras dunking on these dipshits But you know, this isn't necessarily a gotcha so much as it is a question that he could easily have googled if he was genuinely curious So because I'm a very kind person. I took the liberty to google this for uh Herschel Walker because it is A question that has an answer to it. Why haven't all primates evolved into humans? So this is uh an article from live science. Grant Currin wrote this. It was published on july 14th in 2019 Uh while we were migrating around the globe Inventing agriculture and visiting the moon chimpanzees our closest living relative stayed in the trees Where they ate fruit and hunted monkeys modern chimps have been around for longer than modern humans have Less than one billion years compared to 300 000 for homo sapiens according to the most recent estimates But we've been on separate evolutionary paths for six or seven million years If we think of chimps as our cousins our last common ancestor is like a great great grandmother With only two living descendants But why did one of her evolutionary offspring go on to accomplish so much more than the other? The reason other primates aren't evolving into humans is that they're doing just fine brianna pobiner A paleo anthropologist at the smithsonian institute in washington dc told live science All primates alive today including mountain gorillas in uganda Howler monkeys in the americas and lemurs in madagascar have proven that they can thrive in their natural habitats Evolution isn't a progression said lin isabel a professor of anthropology at the university of california davis It's about how well organisms fit into their current environments in the eyes of scientists who study evolution Humans aren't more evolved than other primates and we certainly haven't won the so-called evolutionary game while extreme Adaptability lets humans manipulate very different environments to our needs That ability isn't enough to put humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder take for instance ants Ants are as or more successful than we are isabel told live science There are so many more ants in the world than humans and they're well adapted to where they're living While ants haven't developed writing through uh, though they did invent agriculture long before we existed Which is an interesting thought by the way, uh, they're enormously successful insects They just aren't obviously excellent at all of the things humans tend to care about which happens to be the things humans excel at We have this idea of the fittest being the strongest or the fastest But all you really have to do uh to win the evolutionary game is survive And reproduce so there's so many misconceptions about evolution And this this comes to the inevitable inevitable conclusion that okay if so many people don't really understand evolution Uh, maybe we should teach it in school so people understand it, but then that reignites that debate I feel like politics in america is cyclical because we're going right back to the days Where creationists are overtly evangelical. They're not hiding their homophobia and their bigotry Not her shall walk her to be fair because he's not homophobic But i'm saying more broadly speaking we see like uh, you know with the g.o.p.  Um, in some ways i'm Irritated by this question by her shall walker But at the same time it's oddly nostalgic for me because it reminds me of an era where Things were just more simple in the united states So even if this is a question that you don't have to ask you could just google it since we all have Phones we all have access to google, right? I mean you could just google the question But still him asking it really invoked That era back in the 2010s when I was so naive I still was a supporter of brock obama I still felt hope for the world and wasn't you know dreading the looming apocalypse It just reminded me of a better time So in a roundabout way, I appreciate this question But don't ask it again because that is a stupid question to her shall so yeah moving on


So first of all I'd like to give a brief introduction about the A in the data in the FAIR data principles and the A stands for accessible. So the way it's being described and way force 11 described the principles is that metadata so data and the metadata both of them are retrieved by their identifier using a standardized communications protocol. So when retrieved by their identifier that's the identifier we talked about last week so that can be a DOI, a handle, a pearl, something that's persistent and that through by using the DOI, a handle or pearl you should be able to get access to the data or the metadata and the protocol to get there should be open, free and universally implementable. So the thing to think about there is that it's something that is a protocol which is standardized and used by, can be used by anybody, it's not something that is bespoke, not something that's home built or badly documented. The classic example is HTTP, that's the very normal way of using through internet accessing materials and accessing data. It should not require some specialized expensive software. Another point they make in the data principles is that the protocol should allow for an authentication and authorization procedure where necessary. So this is a common misunderstanding is that when people read accessible they think oh that means I have to make my data open. If you actually read the data principles that's not what they're saying. What they're saying is accessible does not actually have to be open or free but you are expected to give exact conditions under which the data are accessible. So even heavenly protected and private data can be made fair. If you implement it properly, implement the fair data principles properly then a human being can see that the data is maybe not openly available but then what steps they need to take to get access to the data and because in the fair data principles they also talk about machine access to data. If a machine goes hunting around and looking for the data the machine should be able to recognize that the data is not open and what steps need to be taken to actually get to the data. I'll talk about that a little further. If the user, so that's either the human or the machine, has been granted access to the data then it should be accessible through some sort of authentication and authorization procedure, some standard procedure. The last point they make under the fair data principles about being accessible is in the case in which data is no longer available at least the metadata should be accessible. So this is of course not ideal but in some cases it is necessary to actually take the data down so that could be if consent for use was only for a limited period of time or maybe there's been a legal takedown notice or something along those lines that really make it impossible to no longer make the data available. In that case it is valuable to still keep up a metadata record describing the data and explaining that the data is no longer available. Now just to reinforce that accessible does not always have to be open. There are clear cases in which data cannot be made openly available. Obvious example is where data refers to human beings and specific characteristics of those human beings like information about their health, their income, religion, attitudes, political persuasion, all that sort of stuff. That's not the sort of information you can make publicly available. Other examples and that's probably worth remembering is that there are other sets of data so for example threat and species. The location of where threat and species can be data which is not some of you want to make openly available because that could mean that the last few of those species are hunted down or collected. Famous example the wall of my pine is the location of that of those specific species need to be protected. So finally another example where data cannot always be made openly available is where there are commercial interests in the data and maybe the metadata can be shared but the data itself is sensitive. Well, there are commercial interests around that and in that case it would not be appropriate for that to be made openly available. When considering making data accessible we do argue to make it as accessible as possible and as openly available as possible. A possible angle there is just to provide the metadata as a starting point. If the rest cannot be made available at least the metadata, slightly more useful perhaps is making it available through mediated access and in that case it's valuable to be clear about how the user can actually get access and that can be through by providing an email address, name, telephone number and if for example the user has to go through an ethics procedure to get access to the data then clearly describe that ethics procedure and what sort of information is required to apply for that ethics procedure. So I was talking about the mediated access and about providing information about who to contact if you want to get access to the data. One thing to keep in mind there is if you list a person or a person within the organization have a think about whether that person is ever going to leave, if that's a researcher, if they're going to another organization have a fall back, have some sort of mechanism to make sure that or maybe a more general email address so that when that data custodian leaves somebody else can at least answer the question and grant access to the data. Another possible angle in making data accessible is creating a de-identified version of the data and making that public as long as it's properly de-identified and that can be useful for certain data users at least have a better view what's in the data set and for some purposes a de-identified version can be enough. Finally, good point to keep in mind is if you do want to make the data accessible plan for this and you can send forms because coming back afterwards and trying to get consent is not easy. Another angle worth keeping in mind and that's something I've invited Jingbo to talk about more is making data accessible can be through various routes and various protocols and in some cases it doesn't make sense to have a large data set available through download, in some cases it can make much more sense to actually have services over the data which allow the users to interrogate parts of the data, pull in parts of the data that are much more specific and answer their requests and that can be for a human being but especially for a machine that can be extremely useful. So one thing to keep in mind there you need some sort of community agreed standards around that.