Minor irritation

Earlier this afternoon, I needed to be reminded about the difference between a fixed effects model and a random effects model in a meta-analysis and Bing turned up what looked to be a helpful article, with lots of medical examples, in the BMJ. Which I thought to read online, rather than attempting to download it. 

This proved to be a mistake, as the advertisement right danced up and down for around a half a minute, during which time I found it impossible to read the article left. Now Macmillan are a respectable charity - although I believe they are drifting towards a paid service provision model - but this will not encourage me to put my hand in my pocket.

Further down the Bing hit list we had reference 2, with Google turning up a free, downloadable copy and for the moment I am going with that. 

PS: I remembered later about another irritation. In connection with tracking my progress through 'Clarissa' (of reference 3), I have discovered that Microsoft Excel does not do dates from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with 'Clarissa' being very much eighteenth. There is plenty about this on geek media and there must be lots of other people out there for whom this is a pain, so one can only assume that the date machinery is buried far too deep inside the product for Microsoft to contemplate changing it. Far too troublesome, far too risky. But an irritation nonetheless.

Reference 1: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d549.

Reference 2: A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis - Michael Borenstein, Larry V Hedges, Julian P T Higgins, Hannah R Rothstein – 2010.

Reference 3: https://psmv4.blogspot.com/2021/04/pre-possession.html. An early post on the subject. Presently aiming to finish the first pass in time for my birthday in September. With a deluxe edition as a birthday prize?