Comments on: Rum Doings Episode 19

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:11:15 +0000

Nick, I too would love a copy of the language application when it’s ready. Really muchly appreciated!

By: Blackberries

Blackberries — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:59:35 +0000

No rush! I really appreciate this.

By: Nick Mailer

Nick Mailer — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:01:52 +0000

Hi Blackberries. I’m just documenting it. It’ll be a few days.

By: Blackberries

Blackberries — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:52:07 +0000

Nick,

If you’d rather not upload the Latin gubbins you can drop me an email at tim dot extraneous at gmail dot com :).

By: Colthor

Colthor — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:55:47 +0000

@Nick:
“Fortunately, most of our listeners will not have a chance to put his bad advice into question for many years to come, whereafter they’ll have forgotten it.”

What’s the average age of a Rum Doings listener?

A quick search with Google suggests the average age of women having their first child is 29/30, and for men 32.
It also suggests the average age of gamers is 28, with PC gamers tending to be older. (All stats for the UK.)

So unless you know otherwise, given that John’s said before how saddened you are at the proportion of gamers who listen, and the large crossover with RPS’s readership, the expected time-to-breeding of your listeners might well be shorter than you hope.

By: EthZee

EthZee — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:17:42 +0000

I always thought we could trust Doctor Spock. Turns out that he must have had it in for us, the Vulcan bastard.

Also, lovely episode. Since you now a facebook page (I will admit to using that), I shall endeavour to badger my mates with invitations.

By: Nick Mailer

Nick Mailer — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:32:28 +0000

The Back to Sleep campaign changed societal opinions strikingly and quickly: Dr Spock had recommended that children be put to sleep on their fronts, and two generations had taken that to heart. Then, within a couple of years, that changed and changed radically. The reduction in SIDS was immediate. Of course, that’s not enough, but statisticians have taken all the other variables into account and have come to the conclusion that back-sleeping is the substantive cause of SIDS reduction.

But don’t take my word for it – check out the Cochrane data or the plenty of other meta-analyses.

So what I said on the podcast was valid, sound and reasonable. John was being a dangerous, gibbering fool. Fortunately, most of our listeners will not have a chance to put his bad advice into question for many years to come, whereafter they’ll have forgotten it.

By: Scotch Mist

Scotch Mist — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:57:39 +0000

Nick,

The fact of whether or not SIDS is related to front-sleeping is irrelevant (I’m sure there is a link). The argument you made in podcast, that a correlation between the reduction of SIDS and the Back To Sleep campaign is proof, or even merely evidence of its efficacy, is nonsense.

You and John are just as bad as each other!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:36:45 +0000

In my experience, anecdotal evidence works just fine.

By: Nick Mailer

Nick Mailer — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:26:42 +0000

Not only is there a very persuasive probabilistic correlation, but there are also many persuasive hypotheses about the mechanism.

John is as dangerous as those idiots who say “ooh, my grandfather smoked and lived to 90″, as if that proves that smoking is fine.