好的肛肠科山西山西痔疮恢复多久,太原大便出血是怎么回事啊,山西什么叫便血,山西哪里可以治痔疮,太原得了痣疮怎么办,太原大便出血有粘稠物,太原有哪些肛肠病医院

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The people of El Paso, Texas, are resilient. Living in the middle of the harsh Chihuahuan Desert, the city has no other choice. On average, 15 days every year spike over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The city gets little relief with annual rainfall of just about 9 inches. It's one of the hottest cities in the country.One of its prime sources of water is the Rio Grande. Typically the river can supply as much as half of the city's water needs. But climate change is making that increasingly difficult and is pushing the city to look for new sources of water. Now, El Paso is on track to become the first large city in the United States to treat its sewage water and send it directly back into its taps.Increasing temperatures will make the dry region even more vulnerable to drought, according to the federal government's most recent national climate assessment. Already challenged with balancing the demands of about 700,000 thirsty El Pasoans along with agriculture and industry needs, El Paso must also face the fact that climate change is literally drying up one of its major sources of water.Analyzing tree ring records, scientists have been able to reconstruct the climate history of the region as far as the late 1500s and have found that as temperatures have risen, the amount of snow melting and feeding the Rio Grande has dropped."We're getting less runoff now than we would have gotten as recently as the '80s or '90s," said J. Phillip King, a professor of civil engineering at the University of New Mexico. King has tracked the river's water levels for the past 27 years as an adviser to the Elephant Butte Irrigation District. The district manages the water distribution of some 90,000 acres of farmland along the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and Texas.King told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta that there is simply less snowmelt coming from northern New Mexico and southern Colorado to feed the river. Since 1958, the amount of early April snowmelt going into the Rio Grande has dropped 25% due to less snowpack and evaporation.What's happening in the Rio Grande is not unique. It's a phenomenon happening throughout the Western United States.King called the Rio Grande a harbinger of what's to come. "You know we've already gotten critically low here, and you can think of the Colorado as a few years away from a similar fate," he said.Drought isn't anything new for the 1,800-mile long river. The Rio Grande has survived severe and sustained droughts, King said. But an increase in temperature is pushing both a warmer and dryer climate. And that means not only potentially less snowfall but a greater chance for water to evaporate.The federal government projects that temperatures could rise an additional 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the region by 2100.The dwindling reserves are apparent at Elephant Butte Reservoir, just outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The reservoir there sits right on the Rio Grande and forms the largest recreational lake in the state. It holds water for farmers from north of El Paso up to Colorado. It has a capacity of about 2 million acre feet, King said. Currently, it's hovering around 3% to 4% of its full capacity. Buildings that were built as offices during the dam's construction in the early part of the 20th century were previously submerged in the 1980s. Now, they serve as lookout points to a nearly empty basin. 3399

The Hinsdale County Museum's Alferd Packer display includes a fragment of a skull suspected to have belonged to one of the men cannibalized. 149

The IRS added a new question to the top of the 1040 tax form, aimed at identifying people who make money on cryptocurrency transactions. Cryptocurrency, or virtual currency, includes things like Bitcoin and is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, according to the IRS.The question asks: “At any time during 2020, did you receive, sell, send, exchange, or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?” The only options to answer are yes or no.The question is similar to one that was added to the form for 2019 tax filings. At the time the question was on a section used to report certain additional income or adjustments, called Schedule 1. However, not a lot of people file Schedule 1 forms with their return. In 2014, the IRS issued a notice that virtual currency should be treated as property for tax purposes. Tax experts say the move, putting the question on the main form, may signal that the IRS is serious about going after virtual currency investors who under-report their holdings.“In my view, the IRS is treating omitted virtual currency transactions in the same manner it pursues foreign bank accounts of U.S. taxpayers,” Lewis Taub, a certified public accountant and director of tax services at Berkowitz Pollack Brant Advisors + CPAs told Yahoo Finance. “By asking the question on the top of the first page of the return, the IRS is making it clear that any income from gains or losses from virtual currency must be reported on the return.”The question will appear at the top of the 1040 form, right below a person’s name and address.The IRS has increased their investigations into cryptocurrency investments, getting digital currency exchanges to release information about investors activity.Among recent high-profile cases was software mogul John McAfee, who was accused of tax evasion using cryptocurrency in October, according to FOX News. 1922

The pandemic has turned even more people into gamers. About one in three people worldwide play video games, according to the Entertainment Software Association.But it’s more than just fun.“And we've been able to make sure that we were producing things that not only brought people together in ways that made them enjoy the games, but connected them to each other because today 65% of people in America who play games play with other people,” said Stanley Pierre-Louis, President and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association.Video game popularity was already on the rise before COVID-19, supporting more than 425,000 jobs directly and indirectly related to the industry last year.It generated more than 90 billion in economic output, according to the Entertainment Software Association impact report.It includes jobs in engineering, coding, video game design, storyline and even professional players.“What that's meant is that within schools, you now have esports scholarships and in fact there are over 200 varsity sports programs around the nation, creating new opportunities for people to play professionally,” said Pierre-Louis.Education and jobs related to gaming can also lead to other opportunities outside the industry. The graphic design and visual elements that go into video games are as in demand in other fields.“So, if you learn video game design, you're able to also help with airlines simulations and so it's creating opportunities across many sectors,” said Pierre-Louis.Advancements rooted in the video game industry have found their way into other areas, including medical imaging and robotics, military training and simulation, and education.Those directly employed by the video game industry make on average 1,000 a year. 1757