Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/29/21 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. 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.
    6 points
  3. Despite a month of promises, on Thursday the 24th at night, conviniently while the Putin shitstorm started he reinstalled a prosecutor in the disciplinairy chamber who tormented a pregnant woman resulting in her death becuase of religious BS. The disiplinairy chamber is an illegal entity and a private tool of Kaczyński and Ziobro (minister of justice and prosecutor general in one person) and is the main reason which prevents us from receiving the 150 bln euro form the EU post Covid fund and results in us paying around 1mln euro in fines. Daily. The president is not autonomous, he's a tool and a clown, unfortunately. Just came back home from a day of trips, dropping people off at shelters and getting food and supplies.
    6 points
  4. 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
  5. Why don't you fuck off to Russia and enjoy the delights of their state media. Stop dragging this topic into irrelevance. If you've got an axe to grind, make your own thread. We don't need your bile making a difficult subject more difficult to navigate. You are making this thread stink of red herrings.
    5 points
  6. Just want to alert you to someone hacking your account and posting analogies so awful a five year old could see through them. Hope you can fix this breach soon! Good luck!
    5 points
  7. I think we can all agree that for the purpose of reproduction of the species ( human, that is ), only two sexes are needed. One is not enough, and three ( or more ) are superfluous. That doesn't mean that there are not people who don't fully fit into the male, or female, grouping; but for the criteria of reproduction, there is no third ( or 4th, or 5th ) category to place them in. One has to ask, then, what is the purpose ( or agenda, if you will ) for having more than the male and female sex classifications. Please explain. Thank God he's not Mexican, or you'd imply he was lazy. Or Oriental and a bad driver. Or Italian and a mobster. Can you see what is wrong with that line of thinking, Stringy ? I had hoped this thread had died, because I really don't like having people I consider friends call each other 'dicks', or make thinly veiled implications of transphobia, homophobia or racism, so this will be my only post on this thread. But I would like an answer ( I will still read ) as to WHY a third sex is needed, and what is the PURPOSE of the differentiation. Is more 'separation' really desirable to more 'inclusion' ? Is this just another social engineering exercise ? Is it to make some people, who feel 'different', feel better about themselves ? What am I not seeing ?
    5 points
  8. The attachement from the international libraries association is self explanatory. Although not specifically for scientific matters I thought it was particularly well presented and a good candidate as a sticky on this site.
    5 points
  9. To expand of swansot's post: When you look at the spectrum of a distant light source like a star or galaxy, the spectrum will contain bright and dark lines. These are the emission and absorption lines from the different elements in the source. Every element has a distinct pattern of lines that occur at a particular point of the spectrum. If the light from the source is absorbed/scattered, you will see a dimming of a certain part of the spectrum, but those lines will still be there, in the same pattern and same part of the spectrum because all that is happening is that you are receiving a smaller proportion of light from one end of the spectrum. With red/blue shift, what we see is all these spectral lines shifted to new positions in the spectrum. So for example, a pattern that normally is in the yellow part of the spectrum will move towards the orange. You may not even notice much of a change in the overall "redness" or "blueness" in the spectrum as a whole, as non-visible frequencies shift into the visible at the red end, and visible light at the blue end shifts into the non-visible range.
    5 points
  10. It is a bit annoying that you just put up a link without seemingly having read it (or scrutinized it). Let me do your work for you. First of all these are not three comedians, the first and third link both refer to the same case in which a comedian (Mike Ward) was fined for making fun in his piece of a disfigured singer (Jeremy Gabriel). I am not sure why you think this is about insulting the LGBTQ community and ultimately the comedian did not have to pay on the grounds of freedom of speech. So that leaves one example in which a comic used slurs against a lesbian couple. I will add that this happened in 2007, so quite a bit before C-16. Now, while this may be a good starting point to discuss limits and issues of freedom of expression as well as the issues of anti-discrimination laws- none of these two cases has anything to do with pronouns or misgendering. As such it seems like a poor attempt to find something resulting in lazily posting a quora answer of all things that does not even address the main part of your claim. Darn, that was annoyingly similar to grading assignments.
    5 points
  11. If 0/0= a then 0 X a= 0 is also "well defined". a/0, for non-zero a, is "undefined" because if we set a/0= b then a= bX0= 0 which is not true. 0/0 is not defined because if we set 0/0= b then 0= bX0 for any b. Many people say 0/0 is "undetermined" rather than "undefined". But there is no good reason to set it equal to 0.
    5 points
  12. 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
  13. He mentioned it: It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like. I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'... If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism. Obviously not. And your reaction: I assume Studiot thought more about Marcel Grossmann and David Hilbert. Historians more or less agree that Mileva's role was mainly that of a highly intelligent 'resonance board'.
    4 points
  14. These forums rely on a threaded discussion structure. When you start arbitrarily pulling out threads, the entire garment falls apart. Or, in this case, the discussion stops making sense. Conversation has PersonA, then PersonB responds, and PersonA replies, and PersonC jumps in, then PersonB posts, and PersonA replies. This keeps going on and on for days, often weeks or even months. Deleting PersonA leaves that "conversation" looking like "PersonB no context, PersonC no context, PersonB no context." Why does this need explaining? When creating a membership, you agree to certain rules. Also, you post voluntarily. If you're bothered by inability to delete later, then don't post. Problem solved. The volunteer staff here are not in place to help you try to revise your post history because at some point later on you suddenly decide you don't like it.
    4 points
  15. Just a few short years ago, we used to call them "tabloids" and the people who believed them "morons." Today, we call it "right wing news."
    4 points
  16. Built another end grain cutting board. Gave several of various designs out as gifts over the holidays, but think I’ll keep this one for our own kitchen bc I really like the optical illusion. Approximately 13” x 9” x 1-3/8” and constructed using cherry, maple, walnut, and paduuk.
    4 points
  17. wow I don't think our Molson's chugging friends to the north quite realize that our Democratic Party is, by the standards of pretty much every other democratic nation on Earth, quite moderate. And has been trying to find compromise every way possible with a GOP that has moved far to the Right and now snuggles with white nationalists and Christian theocrats and bizarro science deniers. And their undertow pulls along others who should know better. Due to our flawed electoral college system, and the deeply skewed Senate (where in a few short years, the most conservative 30% of our populace will have 70% of the Senate), and a ton of gerrymandering, a minority has hijacked the political process and has little interest in real conversation about issues or compromise. FFS, we are just trying to survive as a democracy at this point. And so many of us are straining to reach out to conservatives, try to find some way to shift in their direction without abandoning whole demographics at risk, struggling to have some kind of rational fact based dialog with them that has some anchoring in the reality of the 21st century. Outside of a few places like Boston, Seattle, or San Francisco, I don't think you find that many liberals who are loftily proclaiming their wisdom and rightness or are not willing to compromise. You really have to know compromise is all we do these days. I had to vote for Biden who, in any other recent decade, would have been seen as centrist, and has not had a career I would call terribly progressive. My vote was a compromise, as were many others' votes. And anyone I vote for in South Dakota is a compromise (and I think other Red Staters would likely say the same).
    4 points
  18. I feel like trans kids in sports is similar to inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, women voting, equal pay, women in the military, and others ad nauseam. People don't like change and feel like the current issue is one of a kind which will wreck havoc on some part of society. Like all the other issues we just need to keep pounding away, showing them in the media and in television, making them one of us instead of the "other". We'll have small victories early on, followed by bigger ones, until the tide turns and transgender humans can finally join the rest of the humans as equal. The fact that so many organizations are already addressing trans people in sports is a good sign. As always, the conservatives will drag out the inevitable as long as they can.
    4 points
  19. Ok, that confirms that you indeed do not get follow the gist of the argument. I am trying one more time and then I suggest that we give up on that as it does not seem to go anywhere. The argument of segregation is based on the fact that boys at some point become stronger than girls. Agreed? From there it follows that there is a physiological difference, and let us just call it strength to make it simple. After all if there is a difference, we should be able to measure by whatever means (otherwise there would be no difference). So let's say at girls have an average strength of 5 going up to 7, whereas boys have an average of 8 going up to 10. So let's say individuals with a strength of 8 or above are too dangerous to put together with folks with, say, more than two levels of difference. So let's say then that we put a threshold of 8 for the higher league. As no woman might reach it, it will be only men. However, men who do not reach that threshold (and therefore would be at similar risk of injury as women), would also not qualify. Conversely, transgender and potentially some other rare women who cross that threshold would then compete in that league, which would minimize risk of injury.
    4 points
  20. 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
  21. To all women @SFN, and to all women in science: Happy Women's Day!! We value you, trust you, we love your work, and we wish you to keep going strong. Most importantly: We are inspired by you. You're better off without a Y chromosome, believe me. What's your favourite woman in science? Mine is Emmy Noether.
    4 points
  22. This is certainly misinformation being pushed on us by you. There are two FB posts mentioned in this Wikipedia article, and one is allegedly fake. The translation doesn't mention "Russians" (but you know that better than I do), but instead it calls out the "inhumans" (or the perpetrators of observed attrocities). It can't be "murder", because this is a war, no matter what Putin says. Russia has been using foreign troops known for their inhumane approach to warfare. Given the overall hatchet-job look of that Wiki (more scandals space than bio space), I'd say this is more Russian propaganda. What makes it even more insulting is trying to hide obvious genocide (bombing maternity hospitals and train stations full of fleeing families) with your manufactured version. Fuck you, Putin!
    4 points
  23. ... and Mistermack might have it backwards. The rich get the gravy and avoid incarceration; the poor get the blame and go to jail.
    4 points
  24. The above comments give good advice, here's my attempt to give a bit more. The fan belt should be checked as above, but if you hear an unusual squealing noise coming from the engine, usually when you rev the engine from tickover, then that's an extra clue that it needs attention. I use the lights as exchemist advises, but if you look carefully, a good altenator usually brightens the lights when you rev it, and dims slightly when you let the revs drop back down to tickover, so in that case, you can see it's charging, and don't need to turn off the engine. With a volt meter, (surest method) you will get about 12.5 volts with the engine off, 12.8 with it ticking over, and about 13.3 when revving the engine. (all variable) so if you get a constant 12 to 12.5 when off, and the same or less when running, then it's not charging. If you find it IS charging, but the battery is flat in the morning, you have a current leak somewhere. A way to test for that, is to charge the battery, then turn every electrical item off, and disconnect the positive terminal at night. If the battery is good in the morning when you reconnect it, it's likely that the battery has been slowly leaking charge overnight. A friend of mine found that a usb connection to his dash camera had been doing that, flattening the battery overnight.
    4 points
  25. No, that's not accurate. The control rods had graphite tips, but were made of boron, which readily absorbs neutrons (graphite, not so much). One of several issues was that a bunch of the rods were completely withdrawn from the core. When the control rods were inserted, the first part in was the graphite tip. Graphite is a moderator, so it improved the efficiency of slowing neutrons down, making for an increased fission rate, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to happen when you are trying to shut the plant down. It was a design flaw, and was exacerbated by not following safety protocols - they pulled more rods out of the core than they were supposed to. The system also had a positive void coefficient, so when excess steam started forming inside the core, it increased the fission rate. Again, the opposite of what you want when trying to shut down. It's not about the rods being cheap. There were design shortfalls and procedures were circumvented; multiple issues which all acted together to cause the accident. https://www.vice.com/en/article/597k9x/why-the-chernobyl-nuclear-reactor-exploded https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
    4 points
  26. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europe/ukraine-russian-prisoners-of-war-intl/index.html Seems more and more to be the case. Putin might have not so much have overestimated his military's competence, as underestimated the decency of the average Russian soldier. If humanity is going to survive long term we're going to need to realize we're all cousins, and we're all in this together.
    4 points
  27. symptom378 is banned as a sockpuppet of Jalopy, who, as it turns out, is Adelbert_Einstein and Karen Brown and thequeenofhearts. Truth in advertising requires their next user name to be Dick
    4 points
  28. Thank you, and I’ll say I worked very hard on teaching them how to type / finding an appropriately sized key board, so it’s nice to have my work recognised.
    4 points
  29. In this thread I would like to explore the legal and ethical basis of pandemic (or public health in general) related restrictions of human rights. I will focus on human rights as outlined by the universal declaration of human rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx. Specifically Article 12 of the covenant is important here: In a specific comment the office of the high commissioner for human rights outlined that: In other words, they see a close connection between these rights. Yet certain health measures might curb rights. The basic framework to realize health within a human rights framework is therefore that any restrictions need to be implemented in a way that maximizes the outcome but must also be lawful, proportionate, necessary and applied fairly. These limitations have been outlined in the Siracusa Principles https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf So independent of the actual implementation in the last years, there are guiding principles for the lawful implementation of public health measures. As such implementing public health measures, including isolation or other mandates are not necessary at odds with human rights principles. In fact, I would argue it is dangerous to frame it that way as it would necessarily decrease compliance and delegitimize the measures themselves. That being said, it can be argued that many implementations might have been insufficient in following these guidelines. Fore example, self-isolation can result in the loss of job. While many countries have provided some worker benefits, that may be insufficient. Likewise, it can be argued that many of these measures are not applied equally. Low-income folks have a harder time following many measures as they are strapped for means, while higher income folks or folks with jobs that allow remote work are barely affected. This is not only exclusively a human rights argument, but also one of public health, as folks with economic constraints are often less likely to get tested in the first place, in fear of losing their jobs. We can explore the intersection of each of these rights with a view on public health and discuss their implementation (and potential violation) of a given right. For example: Quarantines and lockdowns are obviously a limitation of the the freedom of movement. In order to ensure lawful implementation several aspects must be safeguarded. These include: - only implement mandatory restrictions when scientifically warranted and only when individual health and safety can be safeguarded. This includes ensuring that folks can continue to secure their livelihood, have access to necessities and have access to other necessary services (e.g. support for disabled). Fundamentally speaking, mostly voluntary measures in conjunction with education, widespread screening and contact tracing are in fact likely to work better in most areas as it will increase cooperation. Erosion of public trust on the other hand is likely to result in more folks trying to evade these measures.
    4 points
  30. This was posted by the US Embassy in Kyiv. An amusing rejoinder to Putin's statement that Ukraine had never been a country.
    4 points
  31. I get that way when I see folks too lazy to to check their own sources and as a result promote dangerous misinformation. Especially when the claims are ridiculous. PhaseI is never dropped as it is a requirement to recruit a larger cohort (especially if preclinical data is lacking) From your link: How does it square with your claim that: It is bad (but perhaps not fatal) to misunderstand something. But it is worse to spread misinformation and then put in a link that contradicts the assertion, apparently hoping that folks would not read. Heck, here is a graph showing the timeline and the overlap between I/II/III. There is misunderstanding, which I am happy to help clear up and there is willful misrepresentation. This is not an example of the former. I also note that you entirely missed the issue of endpoints and rather seem to develop an own idea how trials should be rather how they are in reality. Edit: It is a bit rich in accusing someone of using outdated data and then present papers to delta. That aside the percentage in the paper refer to the secondary attack rate (SAR), which is basically the ratio between numbers of new cases among contacts to the total number of contacts. A SAR of 25% would indicate one new infection after four contacts, whereas a SAR of 38% would indicate one infection after 2.6 contacts (i.e. vaccination resulted in a reduction by ca. 34%). There are a couple of more studies out there but fundamentally they roughly show that vaccinations in delta reduce transmission roughly by half (some show more, some less). The authors do describe why they had overall SAR, and this is because they measured most of it in household settings, where SAR is higher due to ongoing contact with an infected person. With regard to omicron, studies found that two shots do not confer much of immunity anymore, but a booster shot still reduces transmission by half (i.e. comparable to two-shots with delta). The immunity does go down with time, but is still protective for at least 6 months. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050721/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-4.pdf See page 14. I will reiterate, we are entering a new phase where proper risk assessment is going to be increasingly relevant. Spreading misinformation has contributed significantly to the disease burden and deaths we have seen so far and we have to take a strong stance against it. I do get that being anti-consensus can make one feel like something special, but here we are not talking about something theoretical ideas. Here, our actions have immediate impact on those around us and we have seen that misinformation kills. I am happy to address and discuss things that may be confusing, as frankly the whole mess is not necessarily straightforward. However disseminating outright misinformation is dangerous and should be treated like spread of similar dangerous information. I am pretty sure that at this point more folks died from misinformation related to COVID-19 than from trying to do dangerous experiments, for example, and we have a policy against the latter.
    4 points
  32. I'm wondering what on earth more any of us can do more to convince @Doogles31731 that there is not, as he imagines, some crucial gap in the basic data in science, just because nobody has revisited Tyndall's 1859 experiment. I suppose one thing is to provide a picture of an IR gas cell, to show him that in fact what a modern IR spectrometer does is exactly what Tyndall did, with the crucial addition of a means of analysing the absorption as a function of wavelength. So below is a picture of a gas cell. It is in effect Tyndall's tube, with windows at the ends transparent to IR. (To this day, many of these windows are made of rock salt, NaCl, though other minerals can also be used.: Another thing we could do is show how mixtures of gases are routinely analysed by IR, every day. Here is a link to a manufacturer of IR gas mixture analysers: https://www.servomex.com/gas-analyzers/technologies/infrared/ Apart from that, I confess I am rather stumped.
    4 points
  33. OK, so the vast majority of mRNA vaccine components (i.e. lipids, PBS and sucrose) have been in use in various medications for decades. The only active component that could be considered novel is a strand of mRNA that encodes the SARS COV 2 S protein. Do you know what else mRNA is in? EVERY ORGANISMAL CELL ON THE PLANET. Every time you eat, breathe and drink you ingest mRNA. Your gut microbiome produces billions of strands of foreign mRNA inside your body every day, which can and do cross the gut epithelium into the bloodstream. Also, the mRNA from the vaccines is cleared from the body in around 72 hours, the spike proteins encoded by them in 21 days. So, given how ubiquitously and frequently your cells encounter foreign mRNA molecules, and that no component of the vaccine actually persists in the body long term, by what mechanism would the mRNA cause an adverse reaction years after the fact? I mean, no one knows if you sprout wings out your butt 30 years after drinking Monster Energy, but there's not really a mechanism that would lend itself to that being a realistic concern.
    4 points
  34. WARNING: Off-topic rant about to begin. Feel free to ignore. <start rant> It is all just so stupid that I think people fight against mandates not because of something they believe in, but because they enjoy being angry about something. I laugh every time I see a video of someone on a plane who sits in their assigned seat, makes sure their tray table is secured & their seats are in the upright and locked position, has their approved-size carry-on luggage properly secured in the overhead or under the seat in front of them, turns their cell phone to airplane mode, opens their window shade, fastens their seatbelt, then throws a hissy fit because they are asked to wear a piece of cloth over their nose and mouth. Clearly it is not personal freedom they are fighting for, but the right to berate flight attendants who didn't make up the rules in the first place. Same thing with vaccine mandates. People who don't want a business owner to be able to require they meet safety standards insist business owners should be able to deny serving people who are gay. Vaccines make your balls shrink, they cause more deaths than COVID, they don't work, they were developed too quickly, they are an unproven technology, they'll cause your workforce to quit, they'll result in Armageddon! Are people who fight against vaccine mandates also fighting against training mandates, hand washing mandates, speed limits in the hospital parking lot, uniforms, complete documentation, and the literally thousands of mandates from government that cover hospital operations? These people exhaust me. <end rant>
    4 points
  35. I am a new member, but already have benefited significantly by the forums. Posting my questions and answering or replying to others, have helped me to clarify my thoughts, to get new insights, and in one case even to solve an old problem. Understandably and unavoidably, there is a lot of noise there. It is not too difficult to filter it out and to get a positive effect. Thank you to the members and to the moderators.
    4 points
  36. I think it is still very much open. GR is an accurate and very valid description of gravity (within its domain of applicability), but it isn’t an explanation, because it has nothing to say about the underlying mechanism. We simply don’t know yet how and why macroscopic spacetime with its observed degrees of freedom comes about; we can only describe its dynamics. This is why research into quantum gravity is so important.
    4 points
  37. This Zeno paradox is deeper than any of the others and was not properly answered for 150+ years after the others. The other Zeno paradoxes rely on sequences of integers and their reciprocals. This one relies on something deeper. The solution came after it became necessary to integrate many functions that could not be integrated by the Riemann integral, commonly taught in high school today. As you likely know, the Riemann integral is the sum of lots of small rectangles that make up the area under a curve. In fact it is the limit as the width of these rectangles ten to zero. But Zeno's question is what happens when that limit is reached ie the width is zero? The generalisation the the Riemann integral was introduced by Lebesgue (1875 - 1941) adn this ushered in what today is known as measure theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Lebesgue The other approach to this issue was also developed in the first half of the 29th century by Paul Dirac and is known as the Dirac Delta function.
    4 points
  38. Ok, So a person born with a single X chromosome is not karyotypically male (XY) or female (XX). They have female gonads, and can typically reproduce with fertility treatments, but often display masculine secondary features. Typically, they have a female gender identity, but not always. Ergo, such a person exists in a genotypic/phenotypic state between the general definitions of male and female. The medical diagnosis they would generally be given is that of Turner's Syndrome. Yes, they are medical diagnoses of intermediate states. As an analogy most humans have 46 chromosomes. Some have 47. They are typically diagnosed with Downs, Edwards, Patau etc Syndrome - just because there are medical diagnoses for trisomies doesn't mean that ALL humans have 46 chromosomes - because people with 47 chromosomes do exist. Yes I am, and no, it's not about inclusiveness necessarily - it's simply factual accuracy. Intersex people exist, which means that sex is non-binary for a proportion of humans. Stating that they somehow don't count because of the associated diagnoses for these states doesn't make people with Turner's, Klinefelter's AIS etc disappear. As I alluded to previously, you wouldn't throw all the cyan lizard specimens out the window just so you could put the lizards into jars labelled blue and green, so why would you do it with human sexes?
    4 points
  39. There is not necessarily a need for one. I.e. if we only want to discuss reproduction, we certainly can ignore infertile groups for the most part. This is one of the various cases where a binary classification is useful and as routinely done. However, I interpreted the OP as broader, as in: "does sex only exist in a binary classification system". As a biologist the almost automatic answer is "no" as basically every classification scheme we have is just a simplification in which almost always cases are found which do not fit these schemes (there are many things that are taught as being universal, except when they aren't, such as e.g. species, or the genetic code). Whether we need to use or address those elements in our scheme depends highly on what we use the classification for. If, for example we solely look at reproduction as a particular trait, then of course we would not need to consider infertile variants. If, on the other hand the question is can we cover the whole human variety that exist just using two sexes, well, in this thread no one managed to create a definition that would have not at least some group falling outside of it, which by definition does not cover the whole variety that exists. To provide an alternative approach to visualize but also categorize sex, which biologically exists in a continuum, in a more concise way some developmental biologists in the 50s tried to create a model of sexual development in humans. Fundamentally the idea is to look at the various steps starting from the karyotype to the full development of sexual organs and organize them into layers. So for example the karyotype would be considered the first element or layer which would be the genetic basis for the following development. The second layer is then when embryonic endocrine organs are formed that make hormones that push development more toward a male or female direction. Then in interaction with those, the next step would be the formation of internal reproductive organs then shaping external sexual organs etc. (I am sure that I missed some finer points but you get the idea). However, the folks who developed this model where especially interested in what they called intersex- i.e. those where either one or multiple of these layers where not clearly in the one or the other extreme. The karyotype could be fully male for example, but much of the internal and external organs would look female (so you could classify layer one as entirely male, but layers two is a bit indetermined resulting in the following layers looking female, for example). Each of the layers is non-binary as individuals would fall somewhere between the two extremes. A person that we would consider archetypical male would therefore fall mostly on the male side at each of these layers, a female on the opposite. However, persons that do not consistently are in or the either end (or perhaps are somewhere in the middle in some of those layers) could be considered intersex or at least on the extreme end of one of the genders (e.g. someone with a micropenis but otherwise fitting in the male categories in the other layers otherwise). So that is an example of an alternative model of sex, which tries to capture the complexity of sex and was developed in order to understand the concept of intersex. And before someone accuses science of following some current political agendas, this model was developed sometime in the 50s which, to my knowledge, is not generally considered to be overrun by SWJs. But at the same time, the folks stopped short of developing a new classification scheme, it was more a descriptive model to a broader range of human sexual elements which would not be possible if we just ignored the presence of those falling outside an exclusive binary scheme. These thoughts have been polished over the years and the mechanisms in each of these layers have been more tightly connected to complex signaling networks which are not simply on or off (i.e. binary) but you can imagine various parts of the network pushing into one, whereas other elements pull in another direction (for each element, i.e. gonadal development, sex organ development etc.) and as such at each step you have a range of possible outcomes (which also depends on external factors, such as exposure to xenoestrogens). But that being said, it is a model used in a particular context, but is likely to unwieldy if one is really not interested in the finer developmental differences between individuals.
    4 points
  40. ! Moderator Note We don't delete anything, but we also won't direct traffic to obviously incorrect science. I will ban you though. Sorry, but I hope you have horrible luck with that website of yours, and I hope you don't mess up too many of your fellow humans with your ignorant misinformation. Please study some science.
    4 points
  41. As a biologist I know that not to be true. What you state is part of a larger evolutionary narrative where biological structures, such as brains are build up successively from simpler to more complex form. Only, that is not the case, it is more like a broad branch of different structures to fulfil sometimes similar functions. It is like saying that modern microchips incorporate vacuum tubes. Specifically, the "old" structure, responsible for fear and aggression is mostly the amygdala, but is only found in vertebrates. Lobsters, for starters do not even have a brain and we do not share the same structures or responses. I.e. it is not more insightful than e.g. saying that folks should always stand their ground, like trees. Those that uproot themselves will die of nutrient deprivation. Or men should never procreate otherwise the women will behead them and use them as snacks. It only sounds insightful if you do not think about it. Also delicious (actual) brains.
    4 points
  42. Yeah, it can get very messy from what I've read. Ultimately, when studying nature, I think we are superimposing theoretical frameworks on nature that may or may not be durable and are, in fact, pertinent only under certain conditions. For example, as in this discussion, how increasingly tenuous the binary theory of gender is... it only works viewing through a coarse lens.
    4 points
  43. Phi provides his opinion on the usage of "suffer fools", and Intoscience provides his alternate opinion, yet Intoscience is accused of 'judging' by Dimreepr, and of being intolerant of other's opinions by others. Then INow chimes in with the implication that ... Intoscience has a problem with Trans people. IOW, transphobic. I, and anyone else reading this, expect better.
    4 points
  44. 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
  45. 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.
    4 points
  46. This tension is likely the strongest evidence against the Moon landings being faked. The Cold War was, for the most part, fought in the court of world opinion; each side trying to convince other nations that their system was the better of the two. And yes, getting to the Moon first would have been a huge feather in the cap of the country that did it, and was the major motivation behind the program. And while you might think that this would lead to the temptation to "fake it", Neither side would have risked trying that. The blow to international prestige caused by being caught would have been magnitudes worse than the gain from getting away with it. And both sides knew that the other would have experts pouring over every frame of footage shot, every photo shot, etc. looking for the evidence they needed to expose fakery. So, the side that was trying to fake it would have had their own team painstakingly go through everything, looking for anything that would give up the game before any of it was released. So things like flags "waving" when they shouldn't be wouldn't have made the cut unless there was a explanation for it that was consistent with it being on the surface of the Moon in a vacuum* The idea that they would miss all these things that some people point to as "proof" of the landings being faked borders on the insane. This is not some Hollywood production where they'll let things slide because they understand that the majority of the audience won't notice or care. Before the US would have even considered faking it, they would have gathered experts and asked them if it were possible to fake it. And the answer would have been "No. Not the the degree that would fool our counterparts in the USSR." I'll give you an example of what I mean. Recently, I saw a video of a group of CGI experts reviewing some footage of a robotics demonstration. A fair number of people were out there claiming that this footage had been faked with CGI. Their conclusion was that it was real footage. Mainly based on the fact that there were things in the footage that just couldn't have been done CGI without leaving clues that they would have spotted. They knew what could be done CGI, and what couldn't. So the idea that the US could have faked it well enough to fool the USSR, or that USSR could have exposed them and didn't, is laughable. The very fact that USSR never made any attempt to claim the US landings were faked is because it would have made them a laughing stock in the court of world opinion. * And it wouldn't have been good enough to offer some "hand-wavy" explanation. As stated above, the USSR's experts would have gone over with that footage frame by frame, comparing the flag's motion against what would be expected for it being in a vacuum on the Moon vs. being disturbed by moving air.
    3 points
  47. 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
  48. Astronauts, airplane pilots, counter-terrorists, Formula One drivers, army officers, etc. - all have to learn.... the modern way (after 1990) is to play computer games with simulated battles, simulated hostage rescue in Counter-Strike, simulated airplane flight, and so on.. The longer people train, the better experience they have in a subject they train. If they make a mistake, the simulated plane crashes instead of the real one. If an army officer loses a war in a simulated game, he gains knowledge, experience, can learn from what was done incorrectly.. Hours, hundreds hours, thousands hours, of experience that people from the old ages were not able to get in their lifetime.. If you make a mistake, you learn from what you did wrong and start over so you have a chance to not repeat it again... You gain experience, which is impossible to gain in the real world.. because you're dead.. Turn-based strategy is completely different than RTS.. A typical RTS has a fairly advanced economy, i.e. you have forest, quarry, iron/silver/gold mines, you need wood to build houses (at the beginning of the play), you need stone to build houses (a more advanced one or walls), you need iron to build a bridge, tank or airplane, etc. etc. People need to eat, so there are farmers, cows, pigs, etc. Multiply that by a thousand to get a true picture of the complexity of any modern RTS.. and yes, simulated RTS units also have morale, for at least 25 years.. (In one of my favorite RTSs from 20 years ago, hops were needed to make beer, which when distributed to people raised the morale of the population ) Do you really not see the similarity of generals surrounding a dictator, planning their next moves, on a map with little figures representing them and enemy units? (apart from humanitarian aspects, complexity and unexpected influences e.g. help from 3rd party side) ..if reconnaissance of enemy forces is working (in the time of satellites, it should be top-notch), they know in advance when they are sending soldiers to their deaths in a suicidal mission and a pointless move that cannot succeed.. Their units are just little figures on a map (or arrows).. In an RTS, you have immediate feedback from the opponent or from the A.I., which behaves accordingly to the force set in the options. The officers of the Russian army behave as if they had no basic experience. Officers received their ranks not on the basis of their experience on the battlefields, but because of their subordination to the V.P..
    3 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.