swansont

it’s not offered as a definition; as I said, you assume certain knowledge on the part of the thread originator. The context of the statement was in response to a claim about reference frames - “A worldline cannot be associated with two different reference frames” The issue is whether the statement is correct or not. An answer to a post is not expected to be a tutorial on the topic. It certainly does not rise to the level of pseudoscience

And yet there are manufactured controversies.

No? Manufacturing controversy isn’t a failure of integrity?

If they are reporting things accurately, then they aren’t in the large swaths that aren’t. Large number, perhaps, but limited reach. Indeed. Almost like integrity has taken a back seat to profit. Maybe because Trump winning means more money for the bosses (tax cuts and all)

When someone posts a thread on a topic, it’s OK to assume they have the requisite background knowledge to discuss the topic. No need to reinvent the wheel. “ALice has one reference frame Bob has his own reference frame” is inconsistent? Inconsistent with what? Um, no. Events do have their own reference frame. That’s not claimed, nor are dimensions given I don’t see where “spacetime interval” is mentioned at all One post can’t establish a pattern, and you haven’t shown what you’re claiming. Sounds like you asked for clarification, but are complaining that it didn’t tie back some earlier point, but there’s no reason that that needs to happen.

Why would it?

Who are not the mainstream media. (they are not in the large swaths) You can report that he’s spouting gibberish, and that if you have to work that hard to find meaning, perhaps the spouter is not up to the job. Also, given his many efforts to subvert the electoral process, why aren’t the obvious candidate for intentions being reported? Why the effort to make them benign? Allegedly hit. We don’t have an actual medical report confirming that, or detailing how much brain damage he suffered.

Trump’s speech at the convention, for one recent example. Really, pretty much any speech he’s made - the gibberish isn’t reported. The nuggets of coherent points are picked out. Saying that you won’t need to vote anymore, but the headlines are about calling Harris a bum https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-harris-attacks-bum-failed-vice-president-rcna163922

If we’re talking about issues of fact, and basic concepts, you can post them here.

I think large swaths of the media have displayed massive malpractice in their coverage of Trump. They filter out the nonsense to report something coherent, while for others they ignore the message and latch on to any misstatement.

I’d need to see examples, because if you can support an argument it doesn’t sound like pseudoscience. And you make no mention of the support for your position. The thing is, every scientist is/can be wrong about some things. We do have misconceptions, and they can become entrenched. But that doesn’t make it pseudoscience; that’s a much higher bar.

You have examples of a resident expert repeatedly posting pseudoscience? (Not just errors, that everyone makes and are often corrected when pointed out, and not mere communication errors or points of esoteric minutiae)

It’s never come up. If someone went off the rails there would probably be a wellness check by other staff and we’d discuss the situation. Only then would we consider depositing their body in a shallow grave in the woods.

ABC/IPSOS poll https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-sees-boost-favorability-after-biden-drops-race/story?id=112306763 Harris July 19-20: 35/46 (favorable/unfavorable) July 26-27: 43/42 Trump July 19-20: 40/51 July 26-27: 36/52 Vance July 19-20: 25/31 July 26-27: 24/39 (presumably voters but not couches were polled) Name a system that would not have die-hard fans I think a presidential candidate should not require such a large contingent of people continually telling you what they really meant by their remarks.

Yes, but they were already going to vote for him.

It may not be absorbed efficiently, but adding any energy is going to raise the temperature. You can also superheat water in a microwave (it’s one of the concerns about putting liquid water in one) in which case you start out above 100 C.

Yes, you could have steam hotter than 100 C if it absorbed microwaves.

On of my CO’s made a comment to this effect - he discovered that he actually had to lead because he was in charge of a bunch of civilians (and a top-heavy bunch at that; lots of people who were equivalent to officers, rather than a normal pyramid structure). Pushback from people criticizing decisions and having to deal with a union was a new experience. — Having a military background lends credibility when dealing with the military. But it’s not clear to me that you have an edge in decision-making

Who is proposing a unity ticket? The same chuckleheads who were rooting for a contested convention? You might lose voters on the left for any you gain on the right. If you want an energized left, which is what’s happening right now, you can’t throw cold water on them with a “unity” choice.

But white men often don’t have to work as hard to succeed — not to say that they don’t, but they (we) don’t have barriers to overcome that women and/or ethnic minorities do, and have advantages from the structures already in place. Hence the adage that women have to do things twice as well to be considered half as good.

“Page not found” LOL

You didn’t provide the actual case studies in your references. Just links to the site where the case study might possibly be found, which really isn’t a proper reference.

I’ve met Nobel winners, authors and admirals, but the coolest was meeting astronauts (the return crew of STS-124)

Aren’t you the author?

What case studies? Are you just cherry-picking some successes among all the obvious failures?