swansont

So? Data generally has some kind of experimental error. How precise and accurate does it need to be? Does it need to be 0.01%? Don’t you still get useful information if it’s 1% or 10%, or (in some cases) just order-of-magnitude estimates?

It has happened, but most of the time, no, the sockpuppets still talk nonsense.

The failures are being posted on social media. Listing presidents with their dates of office. Counting the number of “b”s in blueberry. Complicated stuff like that.

And that draws a distinction between what moderators do and what admins do. Any behind-the-scenes tinkering with how the site runs is admin. Moderation is enforcing rules about posting and decisions related to that. And there’s the maxim that anyone who actively wants to be a moderator is not qualified to be one.

IMO, You need to do your own homework.

Moderator NoteUse your existing thread. Repeatedly posting the same material without engaging is considered spamming, and can get you banned.

I think some things are driven by lawyers saying “Do it this way so we don’t get sued” and appealing to common sense doesn’t make for a strong argument in court.

Can’t say for sure, but its existence might be due to (an interpretation of) privacy laws in existence somewhere. Internationally-used software has to comply with everybody’s requirements*. So if someone e.g. thought that this was some kind of personal data, there would have to be an option to protect against its dissemination. Again, I don't know this to be the case. It’s just a plausibility argument *(We had to switch hosting this year because of one country’s arguably misguided law)

But wifi is typically less than a Watt, IIRC.(When I bought a wi-fi router at work I had to prove it complied with some federal rule on EM emissions on government property) so you’d need an amplifier

Replying to a post telling you not to just provide links with a post that just has links and not much else is a bold strategy. Unfortunately, Cotton, it did not pay off.

Telling us what it isn’t is not particularly helpful. You’re proposing something new, and a new state of…something (not matter) so you need more than this. Yes, but if you smack a trampoline you generally don’t go through it. So that analogy fails. You haven’t provided much in the way of a mathematical model, and that is absolutely require. Just saying it’s been derived from known data isn’t very illuminating. And hand-waving gets old pretty fast.

A valid point, I think. It’s a little like how more people used to be able to maintain or fix their own cars, out of necessity. You had to know things about the internet because nothing was (reliably) plug-and-play. Now very few know what’s going on under the hood. (edit: posted w/o seeing exchemist’s comment)

Threads merged

What for? It was the question that was asked. I don’t think you understand what compare means. You can compare the results of analysis of the data. We do it all the time. As you pointed out earlier, progress (development) does not apply to biological evolution. Why would you imply the opposite a short while later? If you want to talk about medicine evolving you need to make it clear you aren’t talking about biological evolution, since the definitions are different. But it has, and that was an answer to an inquiry, not the topic of discussion. And who “joins” evolution with religion? (that’s rhetorical; please don’t sidetrack things further by answering)

Moderator NoteYou have a thread about this already https://scienceforums.net/topic/135819-the-dean-paradox-a-paradox-exposing-a-fundamental-disconnect-between-the-logic-that-underpin-physical-theories-of-reality/ And you abandoned it rather than engage in discussion. It’s still open, for the moment, but you need to follow the direction of the mod note there.

You can compare e.g. mortality rates, and medical treatments. Which we did. See? That was pretty straightforward. We can’t compare them to see the differences because they’re different? Your “logic” escapes me.

You’re getting ahead of yourself here by building on a foundation that has yet to be established as valid. How does one test that “luxia” exists, much less that it has these properties, without using an untested model? i.e. using mainstream science. Are we moving through luxia, or at rest with respect to it? Adhering to precise definitions is important in order to communicate How does the luxia “know” that the motion is a wave vs bulk material? What interaction is involved?

waitaminute has been suspended for violations of our rule against bad faith discussion, and posting speculations in mainstream forum. Normally the latter is addressed by simply moving the thread, but posting as if you are just seeking comment and avoiding the expectation that you have to defend the thesis is an unacceptable tactic

Indeed. Thank you for volunteering this — you agree that we afford you that ability to be anonymous, but instead of doing that you chose to misrepresent yourself. You were given the opportunity, and you did not take it. That was a choice you made.

Yes, evolution was mentioned, and it was not a good argument, which was pointed out. The focus on medical advances, nutrition, war and slavery really have little to do with evolution. The fact that it was mention in a few posts doesn’t make it relevant and certainly was not the focus of discussion. This seems like a complete non-sequitur. You most certainly can compare ages.

It becomes hard to just assume incompetence when both traits are so strong, and the goodwill of offering benefit of doubt has long eroded away. “It wasn’t malice…this time” is hardly an endorsement .

Coding error is blamed. Wikipedia has an entry on it, and points to a post on Xitter, which I won’t link to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

It’s not like war has been eliminated from the equation, nor slavery (if we’re comparing recent times to the middle ages, the 1800s are recent times)

No

Anyone can raise an issue of modifying the rules — we have a section for suggestions. What’s not proper is breaking the rules and then pleading that you shouldn’t be bound by them for the reason that your ramblings are some new revelatory truth. We get this a lot. To quote the judge from “My Cousin Vinny” I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it. Go develop your idea and you can present it when it’s compliant with the rules.