Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/25/22 in all areas

  1. We instituted a version of a safe zone in my household when my children were too young to drink. Coming home drunk was a violation of our rules, but if my kids were out with the car and under the influence, they could call home for a ride, 24 hours a day, with zero retribution for drinking. I was willing to accept law breaking and rule breaking if it meant saving them from harm. I suspect people who aren't willing to accept safe zones for drug use among strangers will usually feel differently if it is a loved one whose life is at risk.
    5 points
  2. Putin dies and goes to hell, but after a while, he is given a day off for good behavior. So he goes to Moscow, enters a bar, orders a drink, and asks the bartender: -Is Crimea ours? -Yes, it is. -And the Donbas? -Also ours. -And Kyiv? -We got that too. Satisfied, Putin drinks, and asks: -Thanks, how much do I owe you? -5 euros.
    5 points
  3. I think there might be too much emphasis on testosterone by trans-opponents because they persistently visualize the classic masculine proportions in a drag-like feminine presentation , but not all gender-dysphorics are like that. This person below is the other extreme, and then there's all the gender-dysphorics inbetween. There is as much diversity in this group as there is in cis-genders. Just as with them, you can't monolithically describe gender-dysphorics. The only way to judge eligibility with fairness is by what a person can do and their physical ability put into the appropriate sporting class. Picture this person thrashing sporting cis-women at 100m because they were a cis-man. Not likely, is it? I think people need to go out there, and the internet is a good resource for this, and actually look at trans-people.... the whole gamut. It's pretty obvious to me that human gender is not binary and people can be born with mismatched personal identities to which they sense they belong. Then there's those individuals who identify with neither... they are in a state of gender equilibrium. As iNow has already suggested the solution, it's a practical method to properly accomodate this diversity in a fair and equitable way in sporting competition.
    4 points
  4. Something about it being easier to motivate base voters by pointing at who they should hate instead of offering popular policies that could meaningfully improve their lives. People are often unfamiliar with and even scared of trans kids being around their own kids, so politicians feed that ignorance by passing laws preventing trans kids from using the bathroom of their identity or playing sports… bc they’re all big bruising hulks who are gonna rip poor little Sally’s arms off at their sockets, etc. They appeal the basest instincts of the base, fire them up, win their votes, gain more power, and the cycle continues as more hateful and more needlessly discriminatory laws get passed. See also: Don’t say gay legislation in Florida. And they don’t need you preventing them from trying. This is an argument from incredulity… Nobody cares that you personally can’t envision non-XY chromosomal people being able to demonstrate certain abilities or surpass various skill levels. Let them try and prove you right or wrong. Just set the standards and move forward. Those who qualify get to play. Those who don’t qualify can’t play. If the standards need review or future adjustment, that can be done without wondering how best to keep trans kids separate and rejected, or boys and girls in separate divisions. The same way kids get assigned to the varsity team versus the junior varsity team, or T-ball versus Little League. You’re not being asked to solve world hunger or find a rational number = the square root of 2.
    3 points
  5. It was unknown whether the plants would germinate at all - the fact they did tells us that regolith did not interfere with the hormones necessary for this process. The plant they chose was the first one to have its genome sequenced, allowing them to look into the transcriptome to identify epigenetic changes due to the regolith, particularly what stress responses were triggered. They also compared regolith from 3 different lunar sites, allowing them to identify differences in morphology, transcriptomes etc between sites. Full paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03334-8
    3 points
  6. Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. I find it interesting that you, Krauss, Degrasse Tyson are heavily critisising philosophy, where it is clear to me that you and your scientific heroes have no idea what is actually done in modern academic philosophy. Don't understand me wrong: I have read several books of Krauss, and these are great in explaining modern physics and astronomy for the lay people; and I extremely like the Degrasse Tyson's work in the public understanding of science. However I also recognise without a shadow of doubt that they are fighting a straw man here: philosophy as it was thousands years ago, or hundred years ago. Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?). If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either. True, we know much more, and cosmologists can describe the history of the universe until about 10⁻²³ seconds, but the original question 'where everything comes from' is not answered. Even Krauss does not know the answer. So if you would say, e.g., that philosophy still has not answered the thousands of years old question if we have free will, I would say 'maybe not, but we understand the problem much better'. The same as in cosmology: we understand much more about the origins of the universe, but we do not have the definitive answer. You are using different critera for the progress of science and philosophy. In trying to understand and accept the present scientific difficulties in answering this question, one is, eh... philosophising. Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines). Doing unfounded assertions about philosophy is just bad philosophy. (Yes, when a scientist reflects about the status of his science, he is doing philosophy, not science.) Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. Recently I have been reading What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics by Adam Becker (Astrophysicist and philosopher). Its historical description shows clearly how heavily influenced the discussions between the 'quantum pioneers' by philosophical stances, and when it is about quantum fundamentals, it still is. With that it also shows clearly how important history of science and philosophy of science are, even for physicists. E.g. it shows how devastating the 'Copenhagen creed' was for an open discussion on the fundamentals of quantum physics, even so much, that you could forget your career, if you showed interest in fundamental questions (e.g. John Bell, working at CERN, helping in calculations for its accellerator/collider, but 'doing work on fundamentals on Sundays' Bell's theorem belongs to this 'Sunday's work'; he even warned Alain Aspect not to strive for doing entanglement experiments, unless he was tenured, (which he luckily was)). Read this book, maybe you get a bit more respect for philosophy and history of science. You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.
    3 points
  7. I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth. An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues. That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities. As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included. It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it. Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish. Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.
    3 points
  8. Come on man, just because I was caught exposing my genitals to the Moon light before it was popular in conservative circles.
    3 points
  9. Every body appreciates the printed classics. A lot of the new printed stuff is garbage 🙂 . If you say so. Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization. Is that a 'strawman' ? I was not replying to you, I said 'some members', and then named them. I was not replying to an imaginary argument. So maybe by 'strawmanning' you mean someone doesn't share your worldview ?
    3 points
  10. Permanant dipoles are easy to explain. You have a molecule with partial +ve charge in one place and a partial -ve charge somewhere else. The partial +ve charge will attract a partial -ve charge in a neighbouring molecule and vice versa. So it's just like the attraction between oppositely charged ions but involving only partial charges. London forces, also known as dispersion forces, arise due to "flickering, fleeting dipoles" due to motion of the electrons in an atom or molecule, which induce dipoles in the neighbouring ones. The strength of dispersion forces is greater between atoms (or molecules involving them) that have greater polarisability, which tends to mean larger atoms with a more diffuse outermost shell of electrons. As I recall, the random fluctuations in electron density that give rise to this arise from the same quantum mechanical principle responsible for vacuum fluctuations - basically another manifestation of the uncertainty principle. The name Van der Waals forces is given to all intermolecular attractions that don't involve a chemical bond. So the term includes both London (dispersion) forces and the attraction between permanent dipoles. (But it would not include hydrogen bonds, as these have some directional bonding character and are thus not entirely electrostatic dipole attractions.)
    3 points
  11. Wow! ... bastards. Ukrainian intercept about that:
    3 points
  12. Society is only allowed to use the drug that you prefer?
    3 points
  13. I spent the middle third of my 60 years on mostly cannabis and amphetamines. The only time I've had black eyes or social strife is on excess alcohol. The saddest people I've ever seen are alcoholics by a wide margin, it knocks all the other drugs into the second division for the mess it causes. AFAIK one cannot safely withdraw from a full-on alcohol addiction without medical assistance... the physical addiction is real.... as I'm sure you know. Not sure about meth, but all the others are about a two week withdrawal for the physical side of the addiction. Obviously, the psychological side takes longer to overcome, but one is passed the physical aspect of the addiction after that time. Not so with barbiturates and alcohol. I've had many conversations with a UK Social Services substance misuse team, whose care I was under for a couple of years under a voluntary admission. Their sources are based on evidence.
    3 points
  14. No, the values are normalized, otherwise they would not make sense. Also, it is more of a rank score. They used multiple factors, such as mortality, dependence, impairment of cognitive functioning, etc. and the idea was to create scores that reflect their relative relationship to each other. I.e. a drug with double the mortality would receive double the score on that metric. For some, data are more lacking than others and also are shifting. Depending on what you look out for, cannabis has been shifting up and down over the years and depending on cohorts, for example. Long-term data are going to be quite interesting in that regard. That being said, certain harms could increase once the use increases. However, that is not always the case. For example, legalization of cannabis did increase hospitalizations in certain regions, but it was not an universal effect and the trend stabilized within a relatively short time frame. Conversely, if alcohol was not such an accepted social drug, harms, especially those to others, would be massively mitigated. These types of rankings are therefore somewhat tricky, but almost every way folks look at it, it is clear that the top spot belongs to alcohol by a fair margin.
    3 points
  15. No, I do not have a link. However, if you knew me even a little you would know that I have references. No, only if the ratio actually impact the outcome we are investigating. Otherwise you are biasing the analysis by assuming an advantage (after all this is the very question we want to establish in the first place). Especially if other factors, like, say the horse may be more important factors. So what you need to do before assuming that the advantage plays a role, you'll have to look whether the effect is present in the first place and also whether other, potentially more influential confounding factors are present. In other words, you are doing the exact mistake that many are criticizing. Without first establishing whether your factor has an actual effect you just assume it in all and demand that it has to be incorporated into the research design. And again, this is would be a classic example of bias in the study design. Rather, you would need to first figure out what factors influence race horse performance and then look whether gender is among those and how strong it really is, relative to the system we created around this assumption. For example if we have a huge gender difference, just looking at number of wins really only tells us about how many of each gender are participating, and not that whether is a physiological effect. If experience is a huge contributor and for whatever reason one gender does not stick around for the sport, it does not mean that there is a physiological reason either, and so on. So the challenge here is of course that a perfect data set would have exactly the same race conditions (including same horses) just with the gender swapped (and having an otherwise comparable cohort) in exactly the same races . Since there is not such a data set, one way to one needs to adjust external variables (i.e. physiology independent parameters) that may affect for example the likelihood of receiving higher rated mount (or being able to race at all). When adjusting for these factors the conclusion was that https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527002520975839 Now there are other papers out there looking at the performance of the horse and the impact of the jockey. After all, the horse does the running. And here a fairly recent study suggest that the gender does of the rider does not seem to impact horse performance. In the same paper they also just calculated winning ratios based on UK and Australian data and here they found that in the UK the winning-rate (again, adjusted for the fact that fewer women are competing) to be not significantly different between men and women. In Australia there was a difference but which vanished if one considers the money spots (i.e. top three positions) in the races. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1341860/v1 So if the numbers do not immediately show a strong gender-based difference in outcome if one adjusts for the system (in contrast to sprinting, for example) why would one start off with the assumption of a difference and then try to frame the study from a flawed position? And this exactly is the issue with many of these assumptions. We know there are gender differences, but then we immediately jump to the conclusion they must be pervasive in everything we are looking for. And if we look with these blinders on, unsurprisingly we miss other aspects. This is one of the big reasons why there have been so many studies claiming to show that for some reasons folks with darker skin colour are less intellectual or that in general we only find the effects we are looking for (see the replication crisis) or why we have pervasive myths in the medical field. I.e. we first need to establish that there is an effect, then eliminate potential sources until we find the determining factors. In other words, we need to apply the scientific method also for those questions and should not start with a strong preconceptions.
    3 points
  16. To further clarify the point I didn't make very well earlier... By definition, conservatives tend to conserve and be somewhat averse to change, especially social change. Thus, I think the objections being raised by some about Biden's pre-selection announcement have something to do with the simple fact that we are progressing. Since conservatives tend to be somewhat averse to change they will often do a lot more analysis and questioning about all the trappings surrounding a change that is happening. When gay marriage was such a hotbed of debate, conservatives tended to question whether there could simply be a kind of 'separate but equal' arrangement, or whether or not gay marriage would 'destroy the sanctity of marriage', or why gay people couldn't take it slowly to let straight people get used to the idea over time. Progressives on the other hand were more inclined to simply say 'just let it be legal already!' And now that we've had gay marriage for a while, those concerns conservatives had no longer seem so significant to many. A more recent example is Hollywood's move to be more racially and culturally aware when choosing actors for a role. For example, not too distant arguments that you should pick the 'most qualified' candidate for the role regardless of skin color/culture were ignored, and very few people complained, when Steve Spielberg announced ahead of time that he would choose an Hispanic for the role of Maria in West Side Story. And just to show how important a qualification skin color was to Spielberg for the role, he chose Rachel Zegler, who had exactly two previous credits to her name, one of them being a podcast. Thus, I think that recent concerns raised regarding Biden's pre-announcement are part of the nature of the conservative mind, are part of the process we must go through as changes occur, and will not seem to be very important in the not too distant future. Similarly, I suspect that in the future conservatives will not be as concerned as they are today about trans-gender athletes, pronouns, politically correct language, and incandescent light bulbs.
    3 points
  17. Not quite: 'philosophy' was just the name of every activity that wanted to understand the world. (Was Newton a philosopher? His main work is titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.) It is our understanding of the musings of Aristotle that he was active at disciplines that we now distinguish: during my physics study in the context of the history of physics I learned about his 'laws of falling bodies', during my philosophy study I learned about Aristotle's logic (syllogisms, categories, etc), and I assume he would also appear in the history of biology. There are some overlappings, e.g. Aristotle's concept of causality that is interesting for the history of philosophy and physics alike. It is clear to us nowadays that to make methodologically justified statements about nature, you must study nature, not just sit behind your desk and start thinking. However, if you encounter problems, there may come a point where you have to think about the fundamentals of your methods or other assumptions, like in the early years of quantum physics. And that discussion is not over yet, but has shifted. E.g. the question if String Theory is still science, or just mathematically advanced metaphysics. And what about the Multiverse: proponents of some version of the Multiverse generally affirm that there is no causal connection between the different parallel universes. So the hypotheses about the Multiverse cannot be empirically tested. Is that still science? These are philosophical questions. In modern days, no, not so much. Genady is partially right: To simplify: if the topic is nature, it is physics; if the topic is methods and general assumptions behind physics then it is philosophy. And in this sense there are at least periods in which physics needs philosophy, even if it are physicists themselves who are doing the philosophising. But physics does not need music or sports; physicists might, but they are not special in this respect. There are a few reasons, why you got this impression. First, the irony, or even sarcasm, of one of these was just too much. As a science fan, you could get the impression that you are plainly stupid. (If you remember, I also asked him to tone down. To no avail, as he was even banned.) This made it impossible for you to take his points seriously. AFAIR his point was that the selfunderstanding of science (a philosophical topic!) of many scientists is poor, but you read somehow that he implied that science in general is wrong. But the second point lies clearly with you: your utter ignorance about modern philosophy, just picking a few bonmots (some nearly 100 years old) that fit to your prejudices. Here I have a few others by Mencken: Do you really want to call him in the witness stand? Philosophy is not science. In the natural sciences there is always an arbiter: nature itself. Philosophy is essentially reflecting on our thinking. But as the thinking changes, due to developments in science and society, the reflecting will change as well. Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which is a part of philosophy. This is a caricature of philosophy. No doubt that Feynman heard these kind of questions, but the way he talks about them, I assume these were questions by 'would-be philosophers', i.e. fellow students who wanted to spread some 'deepities'. You do not find such questions when you look into the 'philosophy of physics' department. Yes, I notice you are pretty good informed about the contents of modern physics and astronomy. But, as you say you are not well-informed about what philosophy is presently doing. So why all these attacks on a discipline you simply don't know, and just take some bonmots, that support your prejudices? Forgot to add, there are physicists, who are much better aware about philosophy, a small list: Lee Smolin Sean Carroll Carlo Rovelli Albert Einstein From the latter:
    2 points
  18. Definitely difficult to find a compromise. I don't at all think impossible. I don't believe we'll ever get truly fair and equitable inclusion of transgenders, but then we don't really have fair and equitable inclusion of anyone else either. We just need to get reasonably close.
    2 points
  19. I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation. And I wonder whether the inclusive but unspecific phrase 'everything one does not like' indicated less than objective or incisive intellectual inquiry. Is the 'racism club' a hyper-inflated version of the old 'racism card'? 'Playing the racism card' was a charge that used to be levelled at anyone who mentioned historical bias in relation to the distribution of anything from baby clinics to public transport to polling stations to secondary schools. Now that the very same inequalities of distribution have remained unchanged or increased through space-age gerymandering, the not-very-effective card has grown into an equally ineffective club.... ....which, I'm guessing, is only ever used by "progressives" who still don't like everything they didn't like 50 years ago.
    2 points
  20. So this someone took offence that you did not take offence to someone not offending you? Thats some next level stuff.
    2 points
  21. Ok, In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy. But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people. Ha ha, Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place. How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society. Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. I had a discussion at work yesterday, I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves. My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.
    2 points
  22. What's wrong with progressivism? Absolutely nothing!! In fact it is a desired aspect ofr any and all progressive societies. We have elections in Australia this Saturday and we have the present tired old conservative government now playing politics and claiming now is not the time for change, against the Labor party, the party that gave us probably the best universal health scheme in the world, compulsory employer and employee contributing superannuation, general wage growth instead of stagnation, and a party for the people, leaving no one behind. The party I have been presently handing out leaflets for and have been a member of. But progressivnism like political correctnness can reach a stage of going mad and silly and shooting themselves in the foot in the progress.
    2 points
  23. This is all part of the modern phenomenon of re-defining words to suit an agenda. Republicans are trying to re-define 'progressivism' as something bad; as simply change for the sake of change, or change to a worse outcome. Most people ( who don't watch Fox News ) know that is politically driven, and it actually refers to the improvement of the human condition.. I would also suggest the term 'populism', has been re-defined by a liberal agenda, to mean something just short of fascism, while in effect it means a government serving the needs, and representing all the people, including commoners; not simply the elite affluent/intelligentsia, who don't necessarily believe the 'commoners' deserve representation.
    2 points
  24. https://news.yahoo.com/rights-violence-problem-184823155.html
    2 points
  25. That would be reasonable start point, wouldn't it? And then if we actually start to observe differences between male and female riders, we would hypothesize that there might be something going on. However, as it is often assumed (also by some members of this board) that there must be a difference and then work their way backwards in order to satisfy their assumption. IIRC there was a paper looking at bet rates showing how folks underrate female jockey performance, which is a bit odd as folks make money with establishing good betting ratios. My conclusion is fairly simple. There is insufficient evidence that indicates a significant impact of the sex of the rider on the outcome. I have provided at least two references that have looked at it. So far your only counter-argument is that you do not believe it to be the case. Skepticism requires data and so far only one side has provided any. A no effect finding requires a lower burden of proof. If a homeopathic drug does not shown an effect compared to a placebo, we would not simply assume that the study was flawed and ask whether they used the correct dilution of nothing or whether the flasks had the right silica composition. If you have any evidence that for some reasons only the male jockeys were sickly, feel free to show it. Otherwise you cannot just selectively dismiss data. Using your approach I could simply dismiss every single study in existence by increasing the burden of proof until I find my bias confirmed. Note that if there is a follow-up that looks at more factors and finds certain associations, that would be a different matter. As it stands, there is no study I could find that contradict these findings. This does not make sense. Here they decide to go further than other studies (which looked at win ratio and could not find evidence of male dominance) and try to look at it mechanistically. Again, here is evidence and you still have provided nothing. In my world, data is crucial and trumps gut feeling. And as iNow explained yet again, one does not simply start with an assumption and then ignores all evidence to the contrary (or only looks for support). If I am generous the one supporting factor could be that there are male winners than female winners. But then we have seen that there many more male jockeys than female ones. So that makes a straight comparison a problem. The other issue is of course that horses are very important. If you put a great jockey on a weak horse, it is unlikely to suddenly turn into a winner. So some folks tried to account for horse rankings and then see if women who ride similar ranked horses as their male counterparts perform worse. But the data does not pan out (so we can not simply assume that it is happening). Then perhaps the effects are subtle and maybe men can slightly but significant improve or at least change how horses perform (does not have to be due to male physiology, for example, potentially men might treat horses differently resulting in performance differences). The last study did not find that, either, except for weak significance related to heart rate, which is difficult to translate into performance increases. So if there are sex specific differences between men and women, they appear to be weak or at least difficult to detect. From this dearth of data to get to the point where we not only assume a difference, but also think that it is due to physiology, is just straight up bad science. It basically has the same level of evidence as claiming that Asians are biologically better suited for maths.
    2 points
  26. In some other report I read that gas orbits the BH in minutes, much shorter than the observation time used to create this image. In any case, I understand that what we see is not the accretion disk, but its image distorted by the BH. E.g. the source of the bright spots maybe behind the BH and we see it three times as its light is lensed by the BH.
    2 points
  27. Diffraction effects from the support structure inside the telescope https://www.universetoday.com/155062/wondering-about-the-6-rays-coming-out-of-jwsts-test-image-heres-why-they-happen/ https://www.quora.com/What-will-the-diffraction-spikes-on-stars-imaged-by-the-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-look-like#
    2 points
  28. Yes - this is in fact a fundamental symmetry of nature, called unitarity. Colloquially speaking, information should be conserved when a system evolves, at least in principle. There is of course a precise mathematical definition for this, but for now you get the idea. For example, if you burn a book, the information contained therein becomes inaccessible for all practical purposes; however, if you somehow knew everything there is to know about the final state of the burning, ie all details of every single ash particle left behind etc, then in principle it would be possible to reconstruct the original book, so the information has been preserved, albeit in different form. Unitarity is very important particularly in quantum mechanics. Crucially, the black hole information paradox would be an example where unitarity is violated - this is why it is so problematic, and requires resolution. No, ordinary physical processes should be unitary, ie information only changes its “form” and “location”, so to speak. In the BHIP, information enters the event horizon. Quantum field theory combined with GR tells us that the event horizon carries entropy and radiates; this Hawking radiation is perfect black body radiation and thus carries no usable information. At the same time, the BH shrinks and eventually evaporates completely, leaving no remnant other than its Hawking radiation. The final state of BH evolution is thus simply a black body radiation field that contains no relevant physical information - meaning it is impossible to reconstruct whatever information entered the event horizon previously, based on what’s left of the original BH. The information is lost, not just for practical purposes, but also in principle - a violation of unitarity. As a side note - in practice (as opposed to in principle) determinism does not imply predictability. For example, a GR 3-body problem is fully deterministic, but in general only predictable for limited amounts of time (Lyapunov time), due to chaotic dynamics.
    2 points
  29. Yes, regulation. But cars are not banned, lest we crash them; working in scaffolding and towers are not banned, lest we fall off, and fireplaces and stoves are not banned, lest we burn our homes down. And we do all those things: drive carelessly, build and work carelessly, heat and cook carelessly. Accidents do happen, because nobody can force us to be sensible. Government can only try to minimize the damage we do to ourselves. And that's all legalization of drugs is meant to accomplish: make regulation possible; re-allocate the money from the futile attempt at prevention of the cause to mitigation of the effects.
    2 points
  30. Anything's better than being a Boltzmann Brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
    2 points
  31. Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...
    2 points
  32. Meanwhile, even before legalization cannabis-related crimes were mostly related to possession and import. After legalization obviously those rates dropped. While impaired driving under drug but no alcohol influence increased a bit, it is still only 8% of the rate of alcohol-related impaired driving. And in contrast to alcohol there are no robust associations with violence or other crimes connected to cannabis. I.e. if one wanted to allow only one drug, it would be safer to keep cannabis and ditch alcohol. This is likely also going to be the case for things like psilocybin. It is clear that the case for legalizing only alcohol is not (entirely) based on risk, public health or similar assessments.
    2 points
  33. You can stick your pity in your bum.
    2 points
  34. Let it be. Very dangerous, if not right Equipment and stabilizers are used. Increasing of concentration will end up with explosions. Its safer and cheaper to buy 32% H2O2 and dilute down to 24%.
    2 points
  35. I'd rather it not be done globally. I almost never sign out and prefer the simplicity of being logged in whenever I visit the site.
    2 points
  36. Directly proportional implies a linear relationship between two variables. If you double the one variable, the other doubles. If you triple it, the other variable also triples. And so on ... For F=ma,you have three variables, and the correct reading is Force and acceleration are directly proportional when mass is constant. IOW, it would not work for a rocket which changes mass as it expels fuel. Nor would it work in relativistic situations.
    2 points
  37. Let me repeat a previous post. OK so to continue with the Mathematics, though Euler also had much to do with applied maths. Princeton University has been home to some of the greatest geniuses in History. They also have a small publishing house which publishes specialist topic books, most of which become standards in their field (see another use of the word field ?). I am recommending one about Euler and his constant, gamma to you as you should find much of interest in it. Most of the book is lightly mathematical to be more generally accessible but read the introduction here and see what you think. Gamma - Exploring Euler's Constant Julian Havil - Princeton University Press 2003 & 2021
    2 points
  38. 😊 I also have that rather pleasant affinity with dogs. Children of course need to be supervised with dogs of all sizes and breeds. I have a habit of approaching nearly all dogs I see, walking with their owners, or out by themselves. As I am confident you already know, you never approach a strange dog with an arm outstretched and open hand...that may appear threatening. Always approach them with your hand closed slightly showing the dog the back of your hand and offer it to them to smell. WRONG: CORRECT: Other worthwhile tips are (1) if the dog has eyes wide opened appearing concerned and/or worried, let it be. (2) If the tail is tucked between his legs also a sign of nervousness by the dog. (3) Always approach with the hand as shown, slowly. then (4) allow the dog to take the last step or so to sniff your hand. (5) Get as close down to the dog's level as is possible. Also I failed to mention the more obvious...If the hair on the dog's back is raised, or if it is showing its teeth...these are warning signs!
    2 points
  39. The spheres are called “framboids” and here is an extensive article speculating about their possible origins. Large framboids are collections of smaller framboids rather than true crystals. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313528873_Framboids_From_their_origin_to_application
    2 points
  40. If you guys think you can bring up who's the most modest around here without mentioning me I humbly ask you to think again.
    2 points
  41. They also hit residential buildings. Fuck you and everyone who thinks attacking sovereign countries unprovoked and killing civilians and children and pregnant women and everyone indiscriminately is funny.
    2 points
  42. Just to add "cautionary tales of evolution" to what @Phi for All said, The male praying mantis is, in terms of evolution, very successful. Yet, he does it by providing the female with a delicious romantic dinner after sex in which he is the main and only course. Think about the implications of this. Evolution only cares about reproductive success. Doing well for yourself doesn't necessarily matter so much. Fig wasps are an even more extreme example. There are more examples of reproductive champion = individual loser in Nature. In tournament species, successful males are tipically short-lived.
    2 points
  43. France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.
    2 points
  44. Because that’s a different label and not equivalent to calling black citizens “colored.” It doesn’t matter. I can’t force you to be more aware of or empathetic about how your words affect people.
    2 points
  45. How would an immoral win in Germany have affected the path of the Allied countries? Would the US have stopped with just two atomic bombs in Japan? With worldwide approval of using immoral tactics to win wars, I'd imagine the US would swing towards authoritarianism much sooner than it has. We'd have had a Trump in office instead of an Eisenhower, or a Kennedy, or a Carter. There's very little that's moral about warfare, but when you defend your country's borders, you're also defending it's fundamental values.
    2 points
  46. I assume you've got the correct four meanings... Yes, It works in Dutch too.
    2 points
  47. Governor Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate 70% of all math books currently used in Florida. He says the other 12% are fine
    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.