PrinceWith999Enemies @ PrinceWith999Enemies @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

606

Joined

2 yr. ago

If they have curtains they don’t need blinds.

killed in their bunks.

I’m sorry, but how is that relevant? Has any country, including the US, ever said “We can’t bomb them, they might be asleep?”

It’s a bit of both, tbh. I use both it and Apple News for news curation. Flipboard is by far more ad-centric (and AN has more content) but Flipboard is pretty customizable for identifying topics so I keep it around. Flipping through it, every second or third page is an ad, but most of what they link to is available (at least for me) and they’re not overly swamped with clickbait (again, at least in my feed).

I probably use it about 1/3 as much as AN.

I worked in tobacco control in the US for a while.

The approach you’re seeing is literally referred to as the tobacco playbook. That’s exactly what they’re doing. It’s a bit older now, but I highly recommend d checking out a book called Merchants of Doubt.

Not only are they making the same moves and the same arguments, in many cases it’s the exact same PR firms and even some of the same consultants and lawyers as the tobacco industry used.

I really hope you folks do a better job than we’ve managed to do.

Okay, I love the guardian and donate to it, but this is some NY Post/The Sun level clickbait.

I opened accounts on multiple instances due to the instability (and information propagation dynamics) of individual ones. I figured “why not?” I had several Reddit accounts, after all, and it just seemed to make sense.

I thought lemmy.ml was for machine learning. The UI I was using didn’t include self-descriptions.

The US Greens are largely subsidized by Republican funders, and Green presidential candidates have been dinner guests of Putin. The US Greens aren’t an independent environmentalist party but are a GOP stalking horse.

Most people posting as tankies today aren’t tankies.

As someone who has done extensive reading in modern Marxism, Rawlsian doctrine, anarchism both historical and modern, and so on and so on (and yes that was a Žižek reference), many of those posting as far leftists are coming from wholly self-constructed positions. They’re either deliberately playing the role of an agent provocateur or they’re people who have unwittingly become broadcast nodes with the same effect.

You’re even more correct than you think. They’re also literally classified as dinosaurs, as per my other reply.

Biologist here.

This is incorrect. Via Wikipedia:

Birds are feathered theropod dinosaurs and constitute the only known living dinosaurs. Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians. Birds are descendants of the primitive avialans (whose members include Archaeopteryx) which first appeared during the Late Jurassic.

Iirc, that was actually a bug that they decided not to fix because it became such a signature of the game.

It’s also why I’d always take out them first. As soon as I found them, I’d attack and put everything into wiping them out, then play the game as normal.

They literally had a tyrant lizard king. Like a giant, evil, apex predator Jim Morrison. This implies some government structure, but obviously could have predated the rise of bureaucracy.

When you do a meta analysis (a study that aggregates and compares the results of existing studies rather than de novo research), you have to work pretty hard to make sure all of the studies you’re using agree with each other on definitions, the ways they aggregate the data, and so on. You have to start out by collecting a large number of papers, and then building around the ones who are most closely aligned with each other on the statistics you’re interested in studying. Some might group ages differently or report causes of death differently in a way that cannot be reconciled in a statistically reliable way.

I was a contributing author on a couple such papers, and I swore never to do them again. They can be very useful, and hopefully this one will be high impact, but as an author they’re an order of magnitude harder to write than just doing a paper on your own work.

I don’t think that PD (or any of its variants) is a good proxy for cheating, because cheating involves deception or rule breaking, while “defect” is just a legal move.

A better proxy might be something like nuptial gifts in some spider species. So in some species, the male will present a female with whom he wishes to mate a nuptial gift - an insect wrapped in webbing. But the “cheat” move is when either the insect has already been sucked dry or when it’s snatched back too quickly for the female to feed.

We can estimate the degree to which cheaters prosper by looking at how common these and similar behaviors are in their respective populations - let evolution do the calculations. Animal behavior is replete with deceptive and manipulative communication, and because so much of it is genetically determined we can be reasonably confident that we have an objective metric.

I’m not discounting your experience and I haven’t been in a public library more than a couple of times in maybe the last 35 years, but they were some of my favorite places growing up and I still help out by donating to them and such.

All of the ones I’ve been in have had the children’s section physically separated from the adult section by something like the lobby containing the librarian’s desk. Call it about 30-40 feet of space. Furthermore, the kid’s section wasn’t an “anything goes” kind of area - it was treated as an opportunity for kids to learn proper library behavior. The section had its own librarian who wouldn’t not hesitate to shush noisy kids.

So, while I don’t think yours is an unpopular opinion, I am hoping the experience is less common than you’ve seen.

Also, university libraries are often open to anyone (although you won’t be able to borrow books), so that might be an alternate option. They might not have public WiFi though.

Let’s say you were an expert in epidemiological modeling, and you and a modestly sized group of your fellow researchers had been working on an approach that demonstrated what should have been done in 2020, and what a shitshow it would be if it wasn’t done. Then, of course, it wasn’t done. Then one of your fellow travelers wrote a book saying what should have been done. You know the work - you’d contributed to it yourself - but you think other people should know about it.

Would you consider that book “very important?”

Yes, because I know this material well enough that I could have written this book, and have written multiple papers on closely related topics as well as taught courses on this material.

I’m sorry if that seems weird but it’s what happens when you become an expert in a field, especially one as narrow as theoretical biology. I knew exactly where he was going with his argument.

It’s like when you have a twin and you can finish each other’s sandwiches.

If you’re familiar with the subject, you can tell exactly where the author is going to go with it. I’ve been working on and teaching this material for about 20 years, and I’ve applied it against quite a diverse number of areas.

I’m not learning anything new from the book, but simply reading a well-assembled argument as to why it should become a dominant paradigm.

There are several. One is the gene-centric theory of biology, which carries less weight in biology itself than it does in how biological sciences are communicated to laypersons - eg the Selfish Gene, which I could rip on for pages - and others include ideas that are considered contentious within biology, such as multilevel selection theory that extends beyond kin selection. I can’t begin to tell you about the number of arguments I’ve gotten into on that subject alone. I will frequently bring up that there is confusion as to what a “gene” actually is, and how it’s really determined by the context in which we’re using the word. There’s really just so much that needs to be re-evaluated.

Theoretical biologist here. This is an incredibly important book. I just bought it a few minutes ago and so I’m only partway through the beginning, but it’s summarizing everything people from my school of thought (complex adaptive systems theory, multilevel selection models, and so on) have been arguing for two or three decades. It’s a very fast read so far (probably less so if you’re less familiar with the points the author is making), but I really hope that this book has an impact that’s reflective of the timeliness and cohesiveness (as I am reading into what the author is preparing to argue) deserves.