swansont

! Moderator Note You’ve been here long enough to know the rules about posting videos. No text summary? No video.

Who had Vivek Ramaswamy? Will not be a part of the “department” of government efficiency

Argument by quote-mining is intellectually lazy. Admitting you spend lots of time assembling your posts is an admission of inefficiency rather than assuring quality. “I worked on this a long time” is one of the items in crackpot bingo (i.e. it’s a red flag in discussions) because people who peddle such nonsense think it matters, rather than the result. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority People aren’t right just because they say something, and it is especially dangerous to assume they’re right outside their area of expertise. It’s also important to discern whether they are stating an opinion, which is not a claim that something is objectively true.

! Moderator Note Shall we apply game theory to “Where should I post my thread?” to see if we can improve your posting choices. No apparent repercussions if you just lazily post it in the lounge, but what if there were? Like, say, angering the moderators?

Not this kind of argument. It’s fallacious, and perhaps worse, it’s lazy. You can’t make the case yourself, so you find others who said something that has a keyword or two in it, but if you don’t know the circumstances of their statement you don’t really know what point they were making. I’ve seen quotes pulled out of context that meant the opposite of what the poster implied. So color me unimpressed by quote-mining. If you’ve got an argument, learn the details yourself and make it.

! Moderator Note That’s not how it works. Rule 2.2 still applies - respect copyright protections

There are a number of problems here (in addition to the OP talking about individuals rather than country-level issues) There’s an underlying implication that population should continue to increase or remain constant. Why? There are a lot of things that would get better if the world population dropped. Looking at the birth rates and simultaneously assuming they are not changeable and must be changed points to some cognitive dissonance. Birthrates below 2 does not imply some terminal condition. “Self-eradication” is hyperbole. If birthrates are at 90% of replacement level it will take ~7 generations for the population to drop below 50% of the current value. That’s 150-200 years. It’s not imminent. Plenty of stuff is going to happen in that time that will impact the situation. And it would be much longer before there were any genetic bottleneck issues. The graphs shown above include extrapolations, which must be based on assumptions. None of that is a certainty, and there’s plenty of time to adjust the conditions that would support a sustainable birthrate. Emigration/immigration happens, so a notion that any one country or region must have replacement-level birth rates has racist/ethnic echoes to it.

Scientists say a lot of things, and it’s not always about science. Argument by quotation is pretty lame, as I think I’ve mentioned before (it’s the argument from authority fallacy) and it’s even worse when there’s no context or even an actual quote.

Out of ~155 million votes, it would be small, but since he won by less than half of that, it's thin. Compared with the margin of recent elections it’s quite thin. Not as thin as 2016, which was negative, or Bush in 2000, but smaller than other elections dating back to Carter in 1976, when Carter got only slightly more than half of the votes that Trump did (40.8 million vs 77.3) That says a lot about how the electoral college is structured. Biden got 306 four years ago, and there were no shouts about a mandate. Obama got 365 in 2008, and we didn’t get the mandate nonsense we’re getting now. Did Kamala run on an “anti-gun” platform, or is that some more “alternative” truth?

Gravity is proportional to mass, but the acceleration you feel depends on the mass of the nearby celestial body, not your own.

It might be more instructive to think of power you’d be throwing away. If a sub-optimal angle reduced your power by, say, 10%, do you want to lose 10% of a small number, or a big number?

Well that’s not very clear. Telling how you don’t judge isn’t very illuminating, and admitting you violate a religious teaching? That can’t go over well with the eye in the sky.

Do you judge others? How does that comport with your religious text?

Noon is when the Intensity is the highest, so it makes sense to maximize the geometric efficiency for a fixed panel for the part of the day when you get the most sun. You’re only tilting based on angle above horizon at noon, not on the orthogonal direction, and the sun passes through more atmosphere near sunrise and sunset, which scatter blue light more efficiently (i.e.the light actually used by the panels) Do you want to optimize for when you’re getting 50 W/m^2 or when you’re getting 250 W/m^2?

To expand on Phi’s answer https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/heart-muscle-tired “the heart is made of cardiac muscle, consisting of special cells called cardiomyocytes.Unlike other muscle cells in the body, cardiomyocytes are highly resistant to fatigue. cardiomyocytes are primarily powered by mitochondria (the energy house of the cell), similar to your other muscles. However, cardiomyocytes have as much as10 timesthe density of mitochondria, skyrocketing their energy output.”

Why does that matter? It’s not the matter under discussion. The point is that you don’t have to be judged by a supreme being. If you ask about my criteria, do you question yours? There are other religions out there, with other gods. Did you shop around? Are you like so many religious folks, who pick and choose what parts of their religion to follow (e.g. a-la-carte Christians) and somehow justify ignoring other parts of religious doctrine? But you are acting like a troll. Sealioning. Textbook example. And here we are discussing belief in gods. How do you tell if you have uncovered reality? Is there a way to test it? If science is trying to understand reality, why are there so many parts of physics just mathematical constructs, that are identified as not being real?

To make yourself a better person. That this does not occur to you means it’s unlikely you would understand what motivates others who aren’t like you. But they/we exist.

Trump did not get a majority, and the victory margin was quite thin. And we need to wait and see how much buyer’s remorse sets in. I suspect it won’t be that long until finding people who admit voting for him will be harder.

Movement is always in relation to some reference. The earth moves relative to the sun, for example. The earth does not move relative to some building resting on its surface. Light moves relative to any object in an inertial frame of reference. Because light does not have some fixed frame of reference, asking if the earth moves relative to light can be problematic; you can say it does, relative to any photon, but since photons can move in different directions, “in relation to light” suffers from being too vague of a statement.

Did you ever consider you can judge yourself?

If AI is a fancy name for computer processing, sure. But I think it dilutes the language to refer to everything as AI when there’s no actual “I” And fiction is, well, fiction.

Spacetime is not a substance.

“Fears of a Covid-style pandemic are overblown, experts say, noting that such events are typically caused by new viruses, which is not the case with HMPV.” Please do better

That seems to be the thrust of MAGA, too. “Things were better when we could be bigots and there were no repercussions”

As long as you quantify data, you are going to have statistics of some sort. Unless the conditions of two studies are the same, comparisons might not be meaningful. It’s highly dependent on the experiment, and the presence of confounding variables (which I think tend to crop up more in life sciences) I don’t see how that makes anything better.