山东得了痛风该怎么样治疗(济南痛风治得好么) (今日更新中)

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 investigation into the Uber crash that killed a Phoenix?homeless woman is still in its early stages.  But preliminary reports from Tempe police show the victim, Elaine Herzberg, 49, was jaywalking when the self-driving car hit her on Mill Avenue near Curry Road Sunday night.However, it raises an important question. Who is responsible if there is a law broken by one of these robotic vehicles?Phoenix attorney James Arrowood studies driverless car technology and the law. He also teaches a course on driverless cars to other attorneys in for The State Bar of AZ.He said, unfortunately, this was bound to happen because technology isn't foolproof.  "The good news out of this particular tragedy is we will have more information than we have ever had in an auto accident," Arrowood said. "We'll have sensors and cameras (data)."But when it comes to liability, Arrowood said Governor Doug Ducey's executive order requires driverless cars to follow the same rules of the road as any driver in Arizona, plus more."It specifies that if a company operates an autonomous vehicle, it has to comply with all of the traffic safety laws, in addition to extra parameters for autonomous vehicles," Arrowood said.That means "no driver" does not mean "no fine.""So if one of the (Uber) autonomous vehicles were to be speeding, then Uber would get a ticket for speeding," Arrowood said.Arrowood says where it gets cloudy is the civil liability. Under normal circumstances in a traffic crash, a plaintiff could go after a driver, the carmaker and maybe a company like the tire manufacturer if there was a blowout, for example."You had a limited universe," Arrowood said. "Now with autonomous vehicles, we don't know how deep that universe goes. For instance, could the municipality, could the government have some responsibility for permitting those cars on the road or for not having sensors in place?"Arrowood said although the Tempe crash is a tragedy, the public has to remember the technology isn't perfect or magical, and it's virtually impossible to avoid every collision. The goal is to reduce injuries and death.   2173

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court released new congressional district lines Monday, replacing the old Republican-drawn maps in time for the state's May primary.House Republican and Democratic operatives said Monday afternoon they are still analyzing the partisan makeup of the new districts.But in a swing state where Republicans hold 13 House seats to Democrats' five, the balance appears all but certain to tip in Democrats' direction.The biggest changes come in the Philadelphia suburbs, where three Republican-held seats -- Reps. Ryan Costello, Brian Fitzpatrick and the retiring Pat Meehan -- were already Democratic targets.The new maps appear more compact and suburban than the existing district boundaries and an alternative that state legislative Republicans had submitted -- and one of those districts is now made up of just Montgomery County, a Democratic stronghold that the GOP had proposed dividing heavily.Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature have said they intend to challenge the new maps in federal court. The Supreme Court previously refused to hear a challenge to the state high court's ruling that the previous maps were gerrymandered in a way that violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. 1221

The National Transportation Safety Board is finishing up its initial examination into the deadly Southwest Airlines engine failure Thursday -- but many questions remain unanswered.Investigators can't explain with certainty why the left engine of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 malfunctioned when the plane was reaching over 32,000 feet. It's too soon to determine what happened, said National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Robert Sumwalt."I know people would want answers right away. We would do a very methodical investigation," Sumwalt told reporters Wednesday in Philadelphia. "Right now, we just want to document everything that we can." 656

The Oxford University Press, which oversees various dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary, has updated their definition of “woman” and “man.”"We have expanded the dictionary coverage of 'woman' with more examples and idiomatic phrases which depict women in a positive and active manner," according to a statement from OUP. "We have ensured that offensive synonyms or senses are clearly labelled as such and only included where we have evidence of real world usage."For example, one of the definitions of “woman” now refers to a “person’s wife, girlfriend, or female lover,” and does not include language tying them to a man.In addition, the definition of “man” and “woman” were updated to include gender-neutral terms and references to “sexual attractiveness or activity.”The changes come after a 2019 Change.org petition that called for OUP to remove “sexist” terms for a woman. The petition cited examples from OUP based on the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition: “I told you to be home when I get home, little woman” and also “Ms September will embody the professional, intelligent yet sexy career woman.”The petition also noted there were 25 examples listed for “man” and only 5 listed for “woman.”OUP told CNN their lexicographers are reviewing examples in his dictionaries to make sure they are more representative. Some synonyms were removed, like “wench”, others were kept but have a label added noting the terms are offensive, derogatory or dated.The definition of “housework” was also updated to remove gender; instead of “she still does all the housework,” an example was changed to “I was busy doing housework when the doorbell rang.” 1673

来源：资阳报