Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/22/21 in all areas

  1. You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish. The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech. And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society. If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist. When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money. You guys need to give your collective heads a shake !
    7 points
  2. If we go back to the topic of C-16, it seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong, his objection is that by disallowing discrimination of people based on gender identity or expression, that would prevent him from refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun, thus limiting his free speech. 1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 2) Based on 1), how would he know an individual's sex at birth, or current physiological state? If someone says they are he/her/they, how is he to know the phenotypic or neurological reality of that? Even if it changes mid semester? If you tell me you're a Christian, and I deliberately call you a Muslim and presume you follow the tenets of Islam - that would currently be discrimination and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. It would appear that applying it to gender identity is cherry picking. 3) No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin.
    5 points
  3. I appreciate the sentient, but your words leave me wondering where accountability, personal responsibility, and progress fall in all of this. “Stop being so sensitive. All I did was refer to her as sugar-tits. She’s got a great bosom… it’s a compliment!” ”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a commie. It’s a joke… live a little.” ”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a kraut. He is from Germany, after all.” ”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call that blackie a nigger. It’s just a word… sticks and stones and whatnot.” What is deemed acceptable to a civilized society rightly evolves with time. We must each ask ourselves if our own ambiguous connection to words from history is somehow more worthy or important than the very real connection others have with cultural acceptance and belonging. After all… Perhaps the world would be a better place for all of us if more people were just a little bit more sensitive. Food for thought.
    4 points
  4. Oh sure, you say that now, you gorgeous bastard! Then we let you move in, you force us to clean chicken without bleach, make us give up our cookies for biscuits, and before you know it we're all sleeping together on the wrong side of the road! OTOH, if we get British television series standards, I vote LEAVE. It's the rare US show I like, while it's rare for me to find a British show I don't like. You seem to look for actors who can act rather than actors with no physical flaws, and your writers write the way people talk.
    4 points
  5. I think you put too much emphasis on labels, and trying to characterize people according to those labels. People don't live their lives according to one specific philosophy, rather, they pick and choose differing philosophies to apply to different aspects of their lives.
    3 points
  6. I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. Human communities don't have pack leaders who maintain dominance of a harem through threat of force, generally speaking. Our leaders tend to be the best negotiators and diplomats - people who can generate cooperation and influence/convince people. Emotional intelligence, active listening and generating likeability are going to place you at the center of a social dynamic, rather than dominance, in most cases. The analogies are simply too simplistic as to be wrong.
    3 points
  7. I'm a pantheist, which means I believe in stealing trousers! (pant + heist = pantheist)
    3 points
  8. I think one should not see philosophy too much as a separate subject, but looking in a special way to a subject. When a physicist is trying to find a particle at CERN he is doing physics. When a physicist is trying to find a new theory he is doing physics. Both activities are about physical reality. However, when it e.g. turns out that a conceptual framework does not work anymore (e.g. rise of quantum theory in the 1920s), when there are questions about the validity of certain methods, or about a demarcation criterion for science (e.g. string theory, multiverse) then one is doing philosophy. And one does not necessarily need a philosophical education for that: the interest in conceptual clarity and the intellectual capacity to do so, are enough. Latter should not be a real problem for physicists. First of course is really a question of what one is interested in. It's not everybody's thing. So not philosophers should push scientists to philosophical questions, so to speak from another discipline; the need for doing philosophy should arise in themselves because e.g. methodological or conceptual problems. Philosophers might be helpful in methodological and conceptual discussion, they are well trained in such discussions.
    3 points
  9. When I bought a new digital watt-meter *) approximately ~7 years ago, and started checking every device one by one in the apartment, I identified several such devices in my home.. e.g., the computer speakers and cable TV HDMI recorder were consuming ~90-100% of the regular power usage, when they were supposed to be turned off with the button and/or in stand-by mode.. *) Best purchase for everybody who wants to reduce energy usage and worried about global warming.. just 10 euros, its cost paid back within a month of use after checking the all home devices.. You plug it in between device, and socket, and leave it overnight. One device, one 24h day of checking. To see energy consumption in that period. When you use device, and when you don't. Then open spreadsheet in Open Office or Excel and enter data. Extrapolate to entire year and sum the all devices together, calculate percentage of usage -> you see how much you can gain by having it unplugged/disconnected by splitter which have buttons to shut down the all sockets. I have such electric splitter which has one the main button, and buttons for each socket independently. Search net for "Electrical sockets controlled by remote control". https://www.google.com/search?q=Electrical+sockets+controlled+by+remote+control Yet another "best buy" for somebody who wants to be ecological.. (but check it by watt-matter also it has to be in stand-by mode to support remote access)
    3 points
  10. Something that came up in the cryptocurrency thread reminded me of this bit of trivia: In the days of the old west, people used the US dollar and the Spanish 8 Reale coin (they were "pieces of 8") interchangeably because they were basically the same size and made of silver, and that worked because the value was based on the amount of precious metal. They used to chop up the coins when lower denominations weren't readily available. In deference to the Spanish (presumably), it was into 8 bits (1 Reale each) so 25 cents was two bits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_dollar (This makes clear that the Spanish dollar was used by a lot of folks, much like the US dollar is used outside the US today)
    3 points
  11. Agreed, however some have "grown up" more than others and there still remains evolutionary traits that date back thousands of years. Evolution is a long slow process comparatively. So I don't disagree that humans are evolving, of course they are, more civilised for one we could argue. No, you completely mis-interpret and mis-represent what I'm saying. Myself, and I believe Peterson is saying that certain traits/instincts observed in males still exist that date back thousands of years and are likely inherent of the evolution process. No one, not even Peterson is saying that some of this behaviour is acceptable or uncontrollable. He is saying that to aid in controlling these urges/instincts understanding why they exist and what may trigger them is useful. On a recent thread about punishment, folk on here were advocating that rather than punishing criminals they should be either rehabilitated or efforts made towards prevention. Yet here we are slating a Phycologist for suggesting that some unacceptable behaviour is evolutionary, and should not be ignored, so that it can be addressed in a positive manner.
    3 points
  12. You're complaining about the clarity of someone else's posts, and irony meters everywhere burst into flames.
    3 points
  13. It's good that you asked in Linear Algebra And Group Theory, because we're going to need some algebra you likely have never seen (unless you went to college) to answer it. Multiplication isn't one thing. What multiplication is depends on what you're multiplying. Algebra is how we define this. In Algebra, there are a handful of different kinds of structures. Here, we're interested in Groups, Rings, and Fields. Rings and Fields are kind of made of Groups, so we'll start there. Say we have a set (the lay concept of set will work fine for our purposes), and we'll call it S. On this set, we need to define a rule called a "binary relation" that takes any two things in the set and gives some output. We want this set to be closed under this relation, so the relation can only give us things that are already in the set. For this combination of set and relation (for now, we'll use ? to denote the relation) to be a Group, they need to have the following properties: 1) Associativity: for any three things a, b, and c in the set, the relation doesn't care about where the parentheses go. a?(b?c)=(a?b)?c 2) Identity: there is a special thing in the set (traditionally denoted by e when talking abstractly) where, for any other thing a in the set, a?e=e?a=a 3) Invertability: for any thing a in the set, there is another thing in the set a* where a?a*=e=a* That's enough to be a Group. But we want a special kind of Group, called an Abelian Group. That's just a regular Group that has an extra property: 4) Commutativity: for any two things a and b in the set, a?b=b?a Tradition dictates that for Abelian Groups, + is used in place of ? and 0 is used in place of e and -a in place of a*. If a Group is not Abelian, we often use × (or nothing at all) in place of ? and 1 in place of e and 1/a in place of a*. If S is the set, we write (S, +) or (S, ×) for the group, but we often just write S if it is clear from the context that we're talking about a group. This is enough to let us build a Ring. With Rings, we still have a set S, but we have two relations. (S, +) is an Abelian Group, but × is a bit more lax. × only has to satisfy two properties: 1) Identity, and 2) Distributivity: for any three things a, b, and c in S, a×(b+c)=(a×b)+(a×c) Like how (S, ?) is a Group, (S, +, ×) is a Ring. If a Ring is commutative and has inverses for each relation, then the Ring is called a Field. There are four particularly important facts mentioned above that are important to why a negative times a negative is a positive: 1) a+(-a)=0, 2) a+0=a, 3) a×0=0 (not mentioned above, but still important), and 4) a×(b+c)=(a×b)+(a×c) Proof -a×-b = a×b: Let a and b be positive numbers in our field (S, +, ×). 0=b+(-b)=a(b+(-b)) -a×-b = (-a×-b) + a(b+(-b)) = -a×-b + a×b + a×-b = -a×-b + a×-b + a×b = -b×a + -b×-a +a×b = -b(a+(-a)) + a×b = a×b TL;DR: It's because Fields are commutative, have identities, and are distributive
    3 points
  14. NIH: Statement on Misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 Origins Unfortunately, in the absence of a definitive answer, misinformation and disinformation are filling the void, which does more harm than good. NIH wants to set the record straight on NIH-supported research to understand naturally occurring bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded through a subaward from NIH grantee EcoHealth Alliance. Analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Full statement: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-misinformation-about-sars-cov-2-origins
    2 points
  15. So, imagine I'm a professor teaching a class. I refer to students by their preferred first names. Plenty of people go by things different from what's on their birth certificates. Some are kind of odd, but generally I do my best to pronounce people's names the way they ask, and not mix up people's names. I make the odd mistake, but generally that's how it goes. Except for the African American kid. I call him "boy" because that's what we call black folks where I'm from. He repeatedly tells me his name is Paul, but I insist on calling him "boy" whilst using everyone else in the classes preferred name. Paul complains to the University office for the Prevention of Discrimination and Harrassment, who determine that I have violated both institutional policy and federal employment laws by discriminating based on race. I have to face a disciplinary hearing and might get fired. Now replace "name" with "pronoun" and "African American" with "transgender". Explain why it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender identity.
    2 points
  16. No one has said you are not wanted. But I certainly find your attitude unattractive, and I expect others do as well. You asked a question and were answered with a simple technical example You were offered also some help with the workings of this website, that you have not bothered to acknowledge. So my advice is to ask your questions, contribuute where you can, and loose the attitude.
    2 points
  17. No it is not subject specific and my answer is not subject specific either. Self study is wonderful and the higher the level you go the more you have to study that way rahter than a course structured by others. However in my view the real difference between school and self study is that school (should) offers marked work or work guidance. That is the opportunity to get soemthing wrong and then to discuss with your teacher how and why you got it wrong and then to correct it. Or even just the simple yeah you did those well 10/10. With self study most people cannot do this for themselves. Coming to a forum such as this one is a great way to extend the base you are gaining from schoolwork by discussion with others here. If you are lucky you can also have great discussions with your classmates. It is often said that you can learn almost as much from your classmates as your teachers, I certainly did and was lucky that way. So get the best you can out of school and extend it outside.
    2 points
  18. Zapatos, poor sod, has never witnessed the passion of earthworms mating and the forbidden love between a toad and a cat, the love that dare not speak its name. From the humble paramecium and its many paramours, to the literate and steamy sonnets of the witty dolphin, the biome is drenched in love!
    2 points
  19. OK, so as someone on the other side I can tell you that while we do all that, it is a burden on us and one that many of us feel unnecessary. Why should we be required to do the extra work just to earn the same level of respect that others get for free? I mean, of course it is a waste of time since every time you resolved an issue, another pops up. And if you address it too frequently, your are considered the one being disruptive. So we keep our heads down, don't complain too much if folks keep misspelling our name just to remain in folks' good graces. That being said, as it turns out that this attitude can hurt you in positions with higher visibility. For example, I did not mind too much about misspelling my name or that folks for some reasons keep forgetting to put my PhD to my name (but interestingly remembered for everyone else). However it resulted in folks thinking that a fresh postdoc was the project lead, for example or that my name ended up not appearing in press releases in time. I mean, especially in hindsight it is very clear why that happened, but in the past, who would dare to voice it? The way folks reacted when asking folks to do simple things like check spelling before sending things out (or give me a copy so that I could check) was almost asking them for a kidney or two. It was a bit refreshing that in countries USA or Canada folks actually apologized for misspelling your name, so I actually liked that blast of PC (which, again to me is just a basic level of mutual respect). Sure, you can characterize that as whining, if you want, but to me it is not having yet to deal with another thing on my plate. There is now a growing body of literature showing that the cumulation of this small things are adding to measurable levels of stress on the molecular level, so it is not just performance, it is something with an actual health impact. Now going back to sexual minorities, that effect has been found to be rather profound and one good summary can be found here: https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/minority-stress
    2 points
  20. Unless the person in question prefers it. You never know if anyone from the Addams Family is online.
    2 points
  21. snip Project West Ford, the artificial ring, was lot more outrageous IMO. In terms of numbers US and Russia have both contributed considerably more junk in general.
    2 points
  22. And that's really all that's being requested here yet, for reasons which IMO don't need saying, MANY people find even that too onerous a burden. In my mind, it's the equivalent of refusing to stop calling someone the N-word or continuing to refer to people as retarded, and suggesting that people who request you do so are simply being too sensitive and ridiculous. They're not. They're on the receiving end of this and are being targeted by these words and subtle rejections every single day they exist... often for months, years, and decades at a time. It's not your place to tell others that these words aren't hurtful to them when misused, and it's not your place to continue hurting them through continued use or out of laziness or sheer refusal to move beyond historical tradition. Language evolves. Misuse of these words has fallen out of favor and their adjusted use now represents acceptable parlance in society for good reason. In much the same way you don't refer to a woman as sugar-tits, you no longer refer to a trans person who identifies as HE by calling them SHE... and thankfully those individuals who continue refusing to take the simple step of respecting pronouns of the trans community are ALSO falling out of favor culturally. You can either get onboard or get out of the way... you can either be a partner in improving society or attempt to stand in its way as an obstacle... but society will continue changing whether one likes it or not. Again here, the arrogance and lack of empathy is astonishing. Nobody is saying you can't or won't slip up... That's fine and WILL happen, but yet again here you dismiss acceptable, polite, and entirely valid requests to stop calling someone SALLY when they identify as JAMES with disparaging language like "whining" and suggesting it's no "big deal." Well, sure... Maybe it's no big deal for YOU, a cis-gendered male who's never had to battle daily slights and discrimination just for being who you are... but you're not the only person living in this world, nor are you the sole arbiter of what is considered important to millions of humans. This is about acceptance and authenticity. People are being shunned simply for being true to themselves. They are being targeted and ostracized, being brutalized and facing violence at unacceptable rates, and fighting daily battles against a culture who still too often treats them as subhuman. Maybe adjusting our own views and being just a bit more sensitive ourselves to their very real plight will help extinguish these disturbing trends.
    2 points
  23. Actually no, I asked you to provide evidence there is ample evidence of folks being prosecuted based on Bil C-16 or because of pronouns. So let's the question again before we claim moving the goalpost, shall we? And that was prompted by So after all this outrage all you can come up with is one, and as the links indicated not because of pronouns or offending someone, but because contempt of the court? I mean, if that was such a big deal one would expect to come up with at least a couple of cases where someone was "charged" because someone did not "use their preferred pronoun?" If someone has stretch so much to find one case that is at best tangentially related, why spend so much energy on being offended by the situation? In contrast to clearly documented violence and discrimination against transgender folks this seems rather excessive.
    2 points
  24. Because I like to argue, and get under people's skin ... No seriously, you go through life and you see things in a certain, limited perspective. Sometimes you become 'blinded' to other perspectives, so it's a good idea to open up to differing points of view, and maybe open others eyes as to your point of view. We don't know what we're missing until it is pointed out to us. But mostly, it is because I like science, and learning in general. I have learned quite a bit here, and I like to think I've also disseminated some knowledge.
    2 points
  25. You literally quoted me saying genetically intersex individuals, then cited statistics pertaining to gender dysphoria in the same post.
    2 points
  26. As per my first post in the thread: 1) A significant proportion of humans are born either intersexed or phenotypically gender fluid. Gender dysphoria has physiological basis. Gender/sex is not binary - that's a biological reality. 2) You have no way to determine if an individual is "biologically capable of bearing children" based on physical appearance. 3) You're demanding everyone else conforms to your delusional misunderstanding of biology, even at the expense of real harm to others. I therefore have no sympathy for your, or Peterson's asinine position.
    2 points
  27. Nice condescending style. I always forget to avoid issues of racism and feminism here. It always ends the same. Sorry guys, I'll stay out.
    2 points
  28. Asking someone if they believe in God seems way more than a yes or no question. For example, if I had responded "pantheist" in a more serious vein, that would not exactly be a yes or a no, and take further clarification. I am, BTW, agnostic, due to what I see as uncertainty inherent in any metaphysical knowledge. Especially where a universal consciousness is concerned. Questioning the form of a question is fair play, IMO.
    2 points
  29. I’m shocked… Shocked! I tells ya… that someone with a username like “king of trolls” is here simply trolling. I really did NOT see that one coming. I mean… Wow… Mind = Blown
    2 points
  30. It’s literally the situation without immigration skewing the numbers. Immigration is a zero-sum game. You’re talking about the what happens after immigration. But you can’t claim country X is doing a great job because its population is going down, when all that’s happening is that people are leaving in droves. Those people will still impact the environment. It’s just happening somewhere else. My fellow Americans will be relieved to know they have no more of a climate change impact than anyone else in the world. We were being told different.
    2 points
  31. You can call them whatever you want. But they might not answer you.
    2 points
  32. I have a introductory Calculus book called 'Thomas' Calculus 14th edition'. I want to learn classical/undergrad physics through the book "University Physics with Modern Physics 15th edition". Based on the contents of Thomas' Calculus, how much of it do I need to know to understand the Physics textbook I have? 1. Functions 2. Limits and Continuity 3. Derivatives 4. Applications of Derivatives 5. Integrals 6. Applications of Definite Integrals 7. Transcendental Functions 8. Techniques of Integration 9. First-Order Differential Equations 10. Infinite Sequences and Series 11. Parametric Equations and Polar Coordinates 12. Vectors and the Geometry of Space 13. Vector-valued functions and motion in space 14. Partial derivatives 15. Multiple integrals 16. Integrals and vector fields Contents of "University Physics with Modern Physics 15th edition": 1. Mechanics 2. Waves/Acoustics 3. Thermodynamics 4. Electromagnetism 5. Optics 6. Modern Physics
    2 points
  33. It has an easy answer: consciousness has no influence for a given setting of the experiment. Consciousness might decide what kind of experiment you are doing (e.g. a 'which way' experiment, or a 'phase' experiment), but once chosen the experimental setup, consciousness has no influence whatsoever. The only 'real problem' I see is the problem of QM at large: the measurement problem. (± collapse of the wave function). Right. Physics present basically 2 options: classical determinism or quantum probability. Both do not work together with the idea of libertarian free will. Whatever free will 'really is', that your actions are random does not belong to any reasonable concept of free will. So QM is no help here. But one can define free will pretty clearly. One of the reasons however that these discussions are so difficult is that people often refuse to stick to a single definition. Above I mentioned one kind, libertarian free will, but there are other definitions. Just to clarify Incompatibilism: determinism and free will are incompatible a. Hard determinism: determinism is true. therefore we have no free will b. Libertarian free will: determinism cannot be completely true, because we have a direct experience of free will Compatibilism: there is no contradiction between determinism and free will a. Conceptual compatibilism: mind, motivations, beliefs, actions, etc are a complete different way to look at our human world than looking with a physical (chemical, biological, neurological) eye to humans. Both are valid in their domains, and you shouldn't mix them up. b. 'Hard compatibilism' (I never found a real name for this): Determinism is a necessary condition for free will. This means for 'real free will' that the world must be 'sufficient determinism'; with other words too much randomness will make our character and with that our actions to chaos. 1b is inconsistent (we would need non-physical causes: what would those be? The soul?) 2a might hide an inconsistency. But 1a and 2b seem consistent to me. But both must be explained in much more detail before one can start a fruitful discussion. But predictability has nothing to do with free will. Free will means just that I am able to act according my motivations and beliefs (to the latter belong justified true beliefs, i.e. knowledge). You mean "Where does that leave libertarian free will?" Yep, nowhere. But there is no contradiction with the compatibilist concept of free will. And btw, I think libertarian free will would be worse than wrong from a none-dualistic viewpoint.
    2 points
  34. The site is not allowing me to quote for some reason. On the O.P, I think its less a dialogue between Conservative Vs Liberalism than objective Vs Subjective values, which we tend to apply arbitrarily (dependent on the subject) and not confined to either a liberal or conservative mindset but more closely to the bell curve model. For this reason I think its presumptuous to assume political affiliation based on how those values are applied to specific subjects. ie If he doesn't agree we are on the right path he must be other than we. Objective to we. On the subject of Hierarchies being natural, It seems they are essential to selection and evolution, if there is to be selection. Otherwise what are we selecting from or for? A universal state of being, or universal direction? I.M.O Competence is what J.P is arguing most strenuously for, to avoid conflict. Most here seem to have lead lives of 'privilege' where real bodily threat has not been a common issue. Where you realize you are about to be hurt, is it going to be fight, flight or surrender? Competence to make the choice and live with the result. In my experience when flight is not an option, even the illusion of competence can be what diffuses the situation to avoid violence if you can make clear you can stand, without surrender. I may not agree with all J.P has to say, that doesn't mean I think he he has nothing of value to contribute or that its value is lessened because I don't objectively share a box with him.
    2 points
  35. Peterson is making a statement, a claim, an observation, he’s not modelling a model. You on the other hand seem to be doing the very thing which you are accusing him of - taking an observation made by Peterson and implying that he’s making a model. Plus hes not claiming that male interactions are fundamentally a posturing where we asses the level of violence, we do it as only a part of our personality. Please elaborate on this, my English might be becoming a little rusty and I’m seeing you saying that if I was hitting on your wife/partner at a party you would call the cops?
    2 points
  36. My opinion is that your biases are showing. He says that when dealing with 'crazy' men or women, once civil discourse has come to an end, the next step is physical. And that can be done with 'crazy' men, but obviously not with 'crazy' women. Don't hear or see what isn't in the video. Well that explains things. I've never read his self-help book. ( being the Clint Eastwood type, I've never needed help ) And I hope I wasn't too rude when I asked about your area of expertse. It was rhetorical; I know full well what your expertise is. But I have to ask, if you wrote a book on genetic sequencing, meant for the general public, would you include some sensationalist elements to make it more 'interesting' for the lay-person ? Might you include a chapter on how similar human genetic structure is to a lobster ? And does that one specific similarity make us and lobsters the same ? Do you think a pop-sci book is equivalent to J P's actual research and expertise ? Do you also dismiss all of Michio Kaku, Brian Green, Stephen Hawking, and other's work, because they have written pop-sci books ? Again, don't get your information from pop sci books, or, snippets of interviews on YouTube, taken out of context.
    2 points
  37. If you haven't got anything substantive to say, don't post it. Conversing and reading with you is like trying to catch smoke.
    2 points
  38. ...that the world was slightly saner today for about four hours when FB, instagram and whatsapp all went down. (bet someone tried to reconfigure a DNS server and it crashed)
    2 points
  39. There are two kinds of people: those who understand the strengths and weakbesses of dichotomies and those who don't. Something as complex as politics and government requires, in a democracy, to be simplified to the point where the majority of the electorate can understand the issues. In an adversarial form of government, such as that in the UK, the simplification falls naturally into identifying two sides. Left and right, conservative and liberal, for and against. The limitations of this approach are often apparent. I see little evidence that the "ultimate destination" lies any further ahead (for the most part) than the date of the next election. On the plus side, we may reflect on Churchill's words: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The pendulum, representing the swing from left to right then back again, seems a pictorial way of reflecting the change of heart of a portion of the electorate when they realise the change didn't work out as they expected. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    2 points
  40. The relevant bit here is that most of the description in OP suggest that something does not work the way it should (or at least the way it works in most folks). While most researchers would think that perhaps there is something wrong (anesthesia resistance can be a big issue in some folks and in addition to drug abuse has been associated with certain neurological conditions). Now there is some interest in finding out why that is the case (IIRC one mutation in a gene coding for a channel protein was implicated in local anesthetic resistance). However, the fun bit is that OP seems to think that these are desirable things. In most cases you want to similar to most others simply because then treatments and medication are more likely to work on you. That is in fact quite a bit of a problem as folks with rare conditions may be at higher risk as physicians may simply not be aware of these conditions and how they affect treatment. Somewhat related, a similar issue is there because many study cohorts have been historically white and male. Which is why there has been a push in having more diversity in study cohorts, if possible. There is no general term for these types of studies, it really depends on the specific question. For example, assuming that you have tolerance to a certain drug and this trait is found within your family, one might be interested in exome sequencing to see if there is a genetic component. If you have a certain condition that might result in some physiological alterations, one might be interested if those traits are also found in folks suffering from similar conditions and so on. I.e. you design your study around a highly specific question. That is actually a typical effect of caffeine withdrawal, which in turn suggest that you are in fact reacting to caffeine. My guess there is that the acid is not sufficiently concentrated to do immediate burn damage. However, please do not test that out. It is not worth it for an internet discussion.
    2 points
  41. One could make the argument that a politician's most important job is to get elected, otherwise they are useless. re are many ways to get elected. Your dad, the bootlegger', and the 'mob' could buy your election. You could be vice-President when the President gets assassinated. You could wiretap your opponnts offices in the Watergate building complex. You could be vice-President when the President quits to avoid impeachment. You could tell 'folksy' tales to connect with common folks, even though you were a rich ex-Hollywood actor. You could promise "Read my lips, no new taxes", in order to get elected, then raise taxes You could argue about what the definition of 'sex' is, in order to get re-elected. You could take advantage of a dispicable terror attack, and call yourself a 'war President' in order to get re-elected. Etc.. Heck, you could even incite a bunch of idiots to attempt the overturning of an election that you lost ... You want me to do Canadian PMs next, Peterkin ?
    2 points
  42. New data about how deeply police killings in the US have been undercounted for decades. Source here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01609-3/fulltext Summary: A core message here: “Currently, the same government responsible for this violence is also responsible for reporting on it,” and that's an obvious conflict of interest which results in needless problems like these.
    2 points
  43. I hated that at the time, iirc. Nice slimy, strawman pivot from "higher moral plain (sic)" to "lies about jobs". It's the whole "I'm going to grope and disrespect you and then I'm going to claim I'm only human after all" attitude that makes this kind of male behavior sustainable. I'm not asking for perfection (another strawman from the perspective). I'm asking that our male leaders don't get a pass on toxic, gender-based behavior. I'm fairly sick of the crappy point of view that boys will be boys. It's men who can't handle the power of the office and are abusing much more than that.
    2 points
  44. Yes, this is basically the problem, along with his clarification "By the phrase "exotic matter" I mean matter that has negative energy and therefore anti-gravitates, i.e. repels." First of all, the Casimir force is attractive, not repulsive. The plates get pushed together. It also has nothing to do with gravity - the derivation of the force relies on the electric and magnetic field boundary conditions applied to the conducting plates; it's purely an electromagnetic phenomenon. You eliminate photon standing wave modes (of one polarization) because the field needs to go to zero at the boundary. The QM solution says for the vacuum, each state has an energy of hv, so there are fewer photon modes inside the plates than outside. The energy density imbalance means there is a pressure that pushes them together. In short, if the plates are a micron apart, then no photon states of 2 microns or longer can exist in between the plates (plus more that wouldn't form standing waves) but they do exist outside the plates. There's no gravity involved, and no matter identified with it, AFAICT. Maybe his point is that if the Casimir force exists maybe there's something like this for gravity, but still, the Casimir force isn't tied to exotic matter and it's attractive and it relies on there being boundary conditions for E and B fields that AFAIK don't exist for gravity, so it would be a really weak analogue for the kind of exotic matter you need for wormholes to become stable
    2 points
  45. 2 points
  46. ...and many more find that creating the illusion of it instead...is better for the bottom line
    2 points
  47. I don't think this object can have fallen from space. The chem analysis shows an amazing % carbon so it did not travel very fast through the atmousphere or it would have burned up. Sorry about the ? mark, I chose a sigma from the character set but it seems to have come out as ? mark. The other interesting thing about this analysis is the absence of hydrogen. However at 45% carbon I would guess some industrial chimney (there are plenty of these around Birmingham) or other was being cleaned out that night. If you have seen industrial chimneys at night you can often see the sparks and or material be ejected.
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.