swansont

I voted last week. Women in line outnumbered men at least 3:1

It’s not clear to me that GR was a response specifically to observed anomalies - not in the same manner as e.g. proposing an undiscovered planet (Vulcan) was - rather than there being the issue of not knowing how gravity worked and knowing there must be something beyond Newton. Others worked the problem, too. Einstein happened to be right. The other efforts were abandoned. But we’re in the same boat now, since we know there must be physics beyond the standard model. We have to figure out dark matter and dark energy.

You also need the experimental tools to test ideas. At what scale does the next fundamental layer live? It took decades to scale up particle colliders to confirm the standard model. We know there’s physics beyond that, but if you don’t want the math to lead the way (though I disagree with Markus that this isn’t how it should work) you need to scale up the capability to probe higher energies. Similarly for length and time scales. If the new physics doesn’t manifest at the scale we can probe, we’re out of luck hoping for experiments to lead the way. (and atomic clocks have gained several orders of magnitude in precision the last ~30 years, so my colleagues and I in that community have done our part) So it may be like going to the north pole and complaining that you can’t see any penguins. They don’t live where you’re looking.

There has also been a lot of disparaging remarks about Harris sleeping her way to the top. I’m not aware of similar smears aimed at any GOP women by anyone in the democratic hierarchy.

What supergeneral are you talking about? AFAIK there are no six-star generals. The CO of the Nellis Air Force Warfare Center is a two-star https://www.nellis.af.mil/About/Biographies/Display/Article/3863108/christopher-j-niemi/ Yes, there would be someone at the pentagon he reports to.

Yeah, I missed that, so probably yes. They say that Trump’s lead with 65+ diminished (plans on cutting social security and medicare might have something to do with it) and that abortion rights became more prominent. And with their bias uncorrected.

Why not? Any actual analysis to provide? I mean, it wasn’t me saying this, it was the pollster, who knows the model and the data. You’re claiming they are wrong based on…vibes? Tarot cards? Tea leaves?

! Moderator Note You already have a thread on this. One per topic, please.

You missed the point. It’s not the result, as such, it’s the admission that the model has not been updated i.e. the bit I quoted, and that there’s a rather large shift when it’s corrected.

From a Michigan pollsterThat now has Harris leading https://mirs-uploads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/5931-MI STATEWIDE MITCHELL POLL -FIELD COPY - EXEC SUMMARY - CROSSTABS OF MI 106PM 11-3-24.pdf “Before polling began, we looked at what we thought would be the likely turnout in 2024. Every poll we conducted --- including this one --- was weighted exactly the same. We weighted party affiliation, gender, age, race, area, and education. It seems clear now that we are under sampling women, African Americans, and the City of Detroit based on absentee ballot returns and early voting.”

“not anybody else's business” doesn’t mean that some won’t try and poke their nose into it, but where people have agency to decide, they tend to keep those intruders out.

All clocks have errors. Mechanical clocks aren’t that great. You might think not gaining or losing a second per day is good, but that’s a fractional frequency stability of about 10^-5. A decent quartz watch is slightly better. If you temperature-stabilize it you’ll do better. Atomic clocks range from around 10^-11 to 10^-16. Cutting-edge frequency standards these days are around 10^-18 Gravitational time dilation near the earth is about 10^-16 per meter of height change. You need atomic clocks to notice.

Meaningless numbers without citing an actual error margin for the polls, and how this aggregate was determined, since polls vary in quality. A final margin of 3.4 when the prediction is e.g. 3 +/- 1 is utterly unsurprising

It’s your thread, so how about you provide the definition for discussion. Even if it’s copying the one provided in the other thread, since one might reasonably assume Night FM was using it?

Plutonium is chemically nasty, like most heavy metals. So ingestion would poison you, in addition to nuclear effects. Pu-239 decays by alpha emission, and alphas aren’t a problem externally - they would be stopped by the dead layer of skin. If inhaled or ingested, though, that would be bad. So don’t eat it, and a bare chunk might have some dust you could inhale. Alpha decays usually don’t have an associated gamma. But further down the decay chain you might have some beta decays, which do. Encasing it will attenuate them somewhat. The dose rate will depend on the number and half-life; Pu-239 has a ~24k year half life, and the daughter, U-235, is over 700 million years, so there wouldn’t be many isotopes from further down the decay chain. Pu-244 has an 80 million year half-life. It alpha decays and occasionally spontaneously fissions, where you would get gammas and products that beta decay. Not sure if the 244 on that one cube indicates the isotope or the average atomic weight. Probably the latter Bigger chunk has more surface area, so more of a problem. Alphas would not tend to make it out of the interior

As opposed to some other kind of clock? What’s the expected precision of this clock? Why does adding gravitational influence make it more precise, when there are gravitational effects other than (and much biggerthan) relativity?

Probably not the best example when you can point to actual data, like not being able to name a single newspaper that she reads, or a SCOTUS decision she disagreed with, other than Roe v Wade, or her retelling of how Paul Revere warned the British. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-irrefutable-stupidity_b_382213 There are plenty of women politicians on the right who are not attacked regarding their intellect. Palin was, because relative to the job she was seeking, she was not smart.

So you only have to show that Biden wouldn’t have named someone else had a clearly better candidate been available.

You should quote the relevant passage. The link discusses making drugs with fewer side effects and fewer conflicts with other medications. Is that it? It’s not that it’s second generation, per se, it’s that you’re adding constraints to the task. Constraints that weren't considered in the effort to get something available because people were dying, and the process takes time.

Who should have children? People who want them, and make the decision to do so. It’s really not anybody else's business whether someone decides to have children or not.

No, it doesn’t. DEI means “consider these candidates, too.” It expands the candidate pool, rather than constricting it. Unless you think organizations with DEI simply do not hire white guys.

I seem to recall having this discussion before (though it may have been SCOTUS rather than VP). Can you say with certainty that the statement of intent happened before the choice/shortlist was determined? He announced that four black women were on the shortlist in July 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html When did he definitively say it would be a black woman? This belies what DEI actually, and feeds the incorrect GOP narrative, that DEI means choosing a less-qualified minority/woman (because nobody can be as qualified as a white man) rather than the actual mandate of making sure you consider them, since they are often overlooked, and recognizing that diversity has value The GOP people calling her a DEI hire are not using the latter. But was the consideration that maybe a VP that can represent the perspective of more than half of the constituency might have value, and should be one of the criteria to consider? Yeah, I think that’s actually a smart thing to do.

! Moderator Note If you don’t have a model or evidence to discuss then this doesn’t meet the requirements for speculations

Post that, then or shut up. Assertions without anything to back it up is trolling. Because bitcoin bros say so? You have nothing. Can’t point to inflation, since it didn’t show up, so just where is this tax hiding? Can I? Yes. Will I? No. You haven’t made any case for it being worth my time. You admit not understanding the material, so there’s no reason to think a video you watched has merit. A music video even less so. Forum rules say the discussion happens here. That’s to minimize folks having to wade through spam. We want to hear your arguments, not someone else’s.

I don’t think you can speak for all atheists beyond the commonality of lacking belief in a supreme being.