CharonY

Do you mean published 500 papers? Even so, it does not really matter, as it depends on their precise area of research. That again depends. If you write papers, you have to do things before you publish them (unless he just wrote reviews, which would not be ideal). So again, credibility depends a lot on what work the person has done. Scholars who understand the literature are usually folks who contributed to it, not those that just read it. They had already taken a stab on it and we have seen what happened. They managed to cripple the folks who knew (at least somewhat) what they were doing and as a results the US under Trump had the highest death rates among Western nations. I vividly remember the op-ed they wrote how they did not dismantle the pandemic preparedness group, but just made it leaner and more efficient. Which obviously turned out to be a lie. Now, they are kicking out those who might be able to contribute knowledge. So we are left with morons and it is clear that health care will suffer. There are no two questions about it. Also, it is almost inevitable that health care cost will increase. Vaccination and similar efforts are the most cost-effective medical intervention there is. Reducing it by even few points, and couple it with crippling information gathering and communication by the CDC means more stress on the system. And this is only based what they are doing right now. They do have more plans according to their playbook. Now the criticism regarding lack of transparency form the Chinese seems more ironic than ever.

Except again, you are wrong. It is not widely accepted as a demonstrably fact, but at this juncture it is considered to be the most likely explanation. So far, there have been no real alternatives with better evidence. This is a very important distinction and it is unfortunately the first time that you are just assuming things as basis for your arguments. This is commonly referred to as strawman argument.

In addition, Meta also apparently used pirated literature.

Who cheated to be the smartest kid in the first place. It is cheaters and billionaires all the way down...

That seems like just being partially misinformed but not entirely surprising. During the first presidency I was wondering how much of an impact having an idiot as a leader would have in the first place. I.e., how resilient the system is as a whole. While there were cruelties against certain groups, which in itself could be considered a failure, the system mostly kept chugging on. Some folks got the short end of the stick, for sure, but it wasn't as if lack of leadership made the system collapse. The real weaknesses for everyone came (in my mind) during unexpected crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, for which system did not exist or were dismantled. It seems to me that the folks missed the latter part plus the fact that they now have a plan to dismantle the system itself, based on Project 2025. I.e., they only remembered the first part of the presidency.

Argh. I cannot tell if it is satire or a memo from the administration.

Apparently the order has been rescinded after a temporary block by a judge. But they have vowed to purge spending on "woke" agenda. Fits right into authoritarian playbook. Eliminate knowledge not aligned with ones ideology.

The ways I am aware of add garlic (or garlic oil) at the end.

This is outside my expertise but a cursory reading suggests that similar to quite a few other antioxidant treatment options, they benefits might not be very high. I would be a bit careful regarding these statements. It is true that in recent times retractions from Chinese groups have increased, but I will also say that on average their work is more scrutinized. I am sure the numbers have changed, but about a decade ago the retraction rate of US was just below that of China, yet there wasn't a similar sense of suspicion. In general, the research community has boomed in size and the cycle of publish or perish has accelerated to ridiculous levels. There is a clear distinction between rock stars who publish monthly or even more frequently and the old backline scientists who still personally scrutinize all the data sets delivered by students. That process alone takes longer than for the rock stars to throw out a paper. To summarize my rant a bit- I would be careful to single out specific countries, even if suspicions are warranted. There is a general issue (IMO) of research quality and it is also very evident in Western countries.

I don't think they will be. There are farmers who believe that avian influenza is a federal ploy to steal their farms. And now with their guy in place they will be safe (by not testing). The issue is also that avian influenza is a reportable disease. But if no one is testing....

I mean, if there is no testing and no regulation to cull infected birds, we might get some suspiciously cheap chicken nuggets eventually.

Within the first week of this administration, they are starting a muzzling program, where federal researchers are not allowed in engage in "external communication". These would include the CDC and NIH (avian influenza, anyone?). This would also pause systems that are needed to evaluate research grants. But good news, a pause has also been ordered on all federal grants and loans. So there wouldn't be any grants to disburse, anyway. This applies to many other federal programs, including food programs and housing. But for the context in research, some see it is a strong indication that the administration seeks to control narratives by crippling critical resarch. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/28/us/trump-news-executive-orders?smid=url-share

Most of your energy expenditure is basal metabolism. I.e. the majority of your energy expenditure is entirely independent of physical activity.

Oh yey. The US tried to export democracy with guns. Now they try fascism with bots. What a time to have a brain.

Not sure if I mentioned that, but I have been looking over some data related to grade inflation and it seems that at least for those countries I looked, grade inflation is worse in countries with tuition (e.g., Canada, USA) are higher than in countries without. That likely is associated with the incentive to keep student longer around and have higher graduation rates. That being said, it seems that globally (or at least in Western systems) there has been quite a bit of grade inflation overall, just slower for those with exclusive public funding.

To be honest, I suspect that most AI companies don't want folks to look that closely. I would actually be more surprised if they didn't as most are treating it a bit like Wild West (as evidenced by the numerous ongoing lawsuits).

I think both are related to various degree. Also, considering that quite a few folks TikTok, facebook, twitter, etc. as their main source of information, bot-generated content has been on the menu for quite a while. While they may have originally been human-generated, the short format, plus the propensity of certain folks to keep sharing that nonsense, made them highly prolific regardless of their source. Of course, the amount will continue to increase with AI but I think one of the bigger issues is that they will look more sophisticated (especially images).

Plus, the overall method was largely empirically derived over a long time period. There really was no founder, but a whole lot of pioneers.

That is pretty much it. Stock values are to a large degree dependent on investor's sentiments and expectations. I.e. value is a derivative of factors rather than a hard-wired to products. To me, it seems that stock bubbles is not that different to things going viral on the internet. And I suspect the internet has added volatility to some degree, especially in the tech sector. I am pretty sure that Chinese actors would be happy to use American shit to further their agenda, too. After all, they use twitter a lot outside of China.

It is more of a matter of semantics related to the nonsensical order. Developmentally, all human embryos develop the same way and they are physiologically indistinguishable (which is why at conception makes zero sense). Only after 6-7 weeks we start to see sex differences emerge, mostly by the actions of androgens. Embryos that either do not produce androgens and/or are immune to continue to develop female characteristics. There is a little bit more nuance but that is basically all that is needed to follow these two arguments. My argument is basically because of the stipulation of "at conception" and the production of small gametes (reproductive cells) we are all sexless- there are no gametes at conception. The other interpretation is more based on the expected physiology and at conception up to 6 weeks we all follow the same (female) pathway, as androgens are absent, we are all female.

Very good point, and there are of course other chemical differences. We have evolved extremely sophisticated mechanisms to expel CO2, based on the fact that it is a gas. SiO2, on the other hand, isn't. I am sure that there a also thermodynamic constraints and at minimum the whole metabolism would have to be rewired, assuming it is possible in the first place.

Well, it is not just trolling, it is just a repetition and expansion of his racist actions during his first presidency. There were many stories of how ICE targeted POC and disrupted communities which was not limited to undocumented folks. There was a wave of outrage and apparently everyone forgot again. So now they do it, but even more uninhibited. Hospitals again are targeted which is going to be huge problem for public health and just a few days in, there is already a report that they detained a Puerto Rican veteran. And we are not even a week in. Meanwhile the racists and fascists will bank on the fact that most folks are tired of it and just let them reign freely.

The only form of intelligence they like, it seems. Pedantically I would add that even with female traits, at this point gametes are not formed (oogenesis starts around week 7, IIRC), hence the sexless comment. But obviously that is not really the point and I suspect we are doing that because we do not want to think too hard about of the ramifications of the order. I wonder what some of my US colleagues who regrettably are Trump voters think now. (I know what the others think).

I don't think that is happening. The whole movement has cult-like aspects and they happily adjust reality (remember in 1984 where they switched which faction they were forever at war with?) to fit their narrative. Recently, a Jan 6 convict tried to decline the Presidential pardon said: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/politics/pamela-hemphill-trump-jan-6-pardon-rejection.html?smid=url-share While it is great that some folks regained their perspective, for many more it will remain out of reach. Critical thinking skills are on a massive decline (for a variety of reason) and it just help perpetuating fantasy parallel to reality. Regarding the pet story a poll (https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Reactions_to_Harris_Trump_Debate_poll_results.pdf#page=6) showed that among folks intending to vote for Trump 52% (22; 30) said that Haitian are definitely or probably eating their dogs. 20% think it is probably false, only 5% state it is definitely false. Interestingly, support for this statement is highest in the mid-income brackets (50-100k- 30% def/prob true) but it seems it is because in the lower brackets (24%) there are more non-white folks (white folks are more likely to think it is true). In the higher income brackets (21%) the rate might be related to educational levels, but they have not asked that, I think.

JohnDBarrow has been asked to leave for consistent use of bad faith arguments.