swansont

! Moderator Note Moved to politics. Please post items in the appropriate section

I would argue that he is both.

Maybe people on a science discussion board would rather discuss…science? As opposed to getting exhausted talking about things probably meant to exhaust us.

Trump has shown time and again he’s not that bright, so I don’t think it’s all that thought out. Why would he care? He scammed them and got what he wanted from them. They are of no use to him anymore (not directly, at least) I don’t see why this matters. Trump shows no empathy or compassion. You are (like a lot of people, I imagine) projecting decency onto him, despite the lack of evidence that he actually has it.

Are you asking what it actually is, or how it’s treated by the GOP?

I agree, but I don’t think that removing the Spanish was motivated by greed. That’s another aspect of his “character” but largely orthogonal, I think, to his racism.

What does that have to do with Trump? He doesn’t appoint them. (and all senators are members of congress, but not all members of congress are senators) The prevailing view in the GOP is that women are inferior and exist to make babies (and perhaps sandwiches). Women are not treated as equals. It’s not a question of whether he is sexist, but to what degree. As to the specific composition of Trump’s appointees: go google it

AYFKM? I don’t understand why there’s any question at this point. I get why NYT and WaPo et al. hedge on their headlines (like their “confusion” about Musk giving a nazi salute), but seriously, is there any question that Trump is a racist bigot? Motivated by cruelty?

Any evidence that such matter exists? Any suggested ways of finding that evidence?

There have been people on street corners preaching that the end is nigh for a long time. And yes, they were invariably wrong, but THIS TIME, I assure you, the prediction is right. That’s what this sounds like. What has the approach you lobby for ever produced?

And is a common theme across multiple topics, followed by insisting that this new approach incorporate methods beyond science.

Cryptobros are apparently pissed off, since they were hoping to legitimize their scam, and this does pretty much the opposite.

How in the world do any of those quotes suggest that anyone thought figuring out abiogenesis would be simple? (The only one that might lean in that direction is from Popper, who was not a biologist.) You might be able to get a little traction if you dig for quotes from before DNA was discovered, in the realization of just how difficult the difficult problem was. That’s not really accurate. The limitation is on superluminal information transfer. Information transfer is part of teleportation, which uses entanglement. So it’s involved. That said, I’ve never seen a clear explanation of the role of entanglement in biology in articles that tout it (but those are pop-sci articles that often get entanglement details wrong anyway)

Anticipated by whom? I’d like to know who thought it would be simple.

I knew about $trump, and $melania had already wafted its way to my nostrils.

How long until his leavings are sold or auctioned to doting fans? A new currency called $hitcoin

Not really. You have to include the statement it’s denying, which was that quantum biology being considered an alternative to abiogenesis. There’s really only one way to negate a statement if the form “A is B” Chemistry includes quantum effects - a degree in chemistry would include a course on physical chemistry, which includes QM. Quantum chemistry is a branch of p-chem. Quantum effects were never excluded. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry No part of science would be an alternative to abiogenesis. Since we don’t actually know the process, how can anything be an alternative? If it’s correct, it would simply be the explanation.

It’s not being suggested as an alternative to abiogenesis. I don’t know what part of this you misunderstand. Perhaps you could explain - in your own words - what you think abiogenesis is, and how quantum biology would be an alternative to it.

No, that’s not the idea.

! Moderator Note We expect posts to be made in good faith. If you can’t do that, we’d prefer you not post here at all.

! 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.