<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for marchdown</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/marchdown/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/marchdown/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:45:10 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Personal experimentation: not shared?</title><link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/01/personal-experimentation-not-shared.html#comment-782361707</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you. This is not immediately actionable upon, but nevertheless is so much better than raw search results, or what I could come up with within couple of hours. Have you considered reformatting this appendix into a standalone essay?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">marchdown</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:45:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Personal experimentation: not shared?</title><link>http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/01/personal-experimentation-not-shared.html#comment-780668159</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; We are all familiar with the literature on meta-analyses, replication, randomization, and blinding, yes?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I'm familiar with general ideas, and I feel that I understand why the best practices are the way they are, but when I'm trying to think of specific sources where they are rigorously backed, I'm drawing blanks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't mean to impose, but I would appreciate a few pointers. Yes, I've stopped and used google scholar before asking.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">marchdown</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:03:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: http://chipotle.tumblr.com/post/5207966724</title><link>http://chipotle.tumblr.com/post/5207966724#comment-199504137</link><description>&lt;p&gt;C-q A-3 would do what you want. C-q tells emacs to insert following character literally, instead of treating is as a command.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You also probably don't want to repeat anything manually, if at all possible. There's a powerful facility of keyboard macros:&lt;br&gt;C-(    start recording macro&lt;br&gt;M-m    jump-to-indentation&lt;br&gt;    #    self-insert&lt;br&gt;    C-n    go to next line&lt;br&gt;C-)    stop recording macro&lt;br&gt;C-e    repeat macro once&lt;br&gt;e    repeat macro again&lt;br&gt;e    and again&lt;br&gt;C-u 10 e    and ten more times.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">marchdown</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2011 20:34:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: tumbblogr</title><link>http://tumbblogr.com/post/37316492#comment-605208</link><description>&lt;p&gt;No.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">marchdown</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:53:37 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>