This is, not to put too fine a point on it, crank science. Opening up the linked document, the DOI fails to resolve, the paper investigates pH variations in urine during tide cycles, and also skimming over it doesn't appear to make a single prediction. This is at best unfalsifiable, and a "break with the scientific community" is an accurate assessment.
The physics of tides is largely well-understood, and the moon and sun provide the primary forcing. Accurate tide tables are regularly computed the world over, with measurements regularly made. Without even looking at measurements, the shipping industry demands accurate tide forecasts for navigating efficiently. The claim that "tidal phenomena are... primarily electromagnetic" requires some serious evidence to back it up, with calculates to boot, rather than invoking mysticism that tides are "beyond us". Many things are beyond our current scientific understanding, and that is humbling, but tides are quite well understood.
I would not dismiss this as crank science so quickly, first and foremost because it's not claiming to be science, not theoretically at least. It's observation of likely correlation. Also I would not say tides are "quite well understood" because it's misleading. I'd say sufficiently understood so that models are precise enough to be useful, but they're still an approximation to a few cm. For now water levels, costal geography, terrain, and weather seem to be the main parameters they attribute to the small variations observed, but who can say there aren't more parameters to take into account? Also what doesn't help in having a "well understood" feeling is that you can find different explanation of the bulges on either side of the earth.
I don't have the scientific knowledge to assess all this. I'm not even sure how to understand properly the questions Jeanne Rousseau asks saying newtonian physics can't answer. What I hear however are competent people observing small variation in the properties of water and living systems that seems to be related to cosmic phenomenon, including moon phases. Variations we can also find in the atmosphere/ionosphere with more recent measurements of their ionic polarities. Adding to that are all the new discoveries that link weather phenomenon to electromagnetic influences from the sun, with water significantly influencing the electromagnetic properties of the atmosphere. Finally more people question the true molecular structure of water, as H2O seems to be a crude simplification over a dynamic mixture of isotopes and ions.
Overall the tidal theory is not a done deal, we only have approximate models, and this topic can be discussed for years to come. That's probably why she was told the tides is a phenomenon that is beyond us.
An intervention on the household someone is raised in is not the same as an intervention on race. This is part of what it means when people say racism is a structural problem: people are, systematically, treated differently in many different parts of their lives. The USA is a country where, within living memory, the insurrection act was invoked to allow black children to attend a school which wanted to segregate them.
Leaving aside the question of what IQ actually measures, the authors of the single study you cite interpret the results as inconclusive due to confounding factors. The mainstream position in biology is that race is not a biological concept [1]. It seems that you are trying to argue that there is some immutable difference between races, a position usually described as scientific racism. As you are not aware of evidence-based arguments against scientific racism, there are studies showing a reduction of the "Racial IQ Gap" [2], as well as papers reviewing scientific racism in the literature [3] where it is argued that much contemporary research promoting ideas of immutable racial differences fail to meet evidentiary and ethical standards.
This looks interesting as an approach to relating schema to data types. One aspect that feels very counter-intuitive/unidiomatic is that, if I understand correctly, in your example there is no Schema enum. Usually this sort of macro does not erase the type defined, and I would find it extremely confusing that I cannot reference, say, Schema::User{..}. It would be clearer to me if this were defined inside of a macro_rules macro, more like lazy_static e.g.
```
schema!{
User {
name: String,
},
Story {
author: User,
title: String,
content: String,
},
}
```
This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims.
There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?
Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.
It is a fine form of forward secrecy: past messages aren't compromised by later keys being compromised. The sender/receiver ratchets essentially provide a notion of what a session means in an asynchronous environment, and the double ratchet algorithm shrinks the window as much as is possible i.e. every time the sender/receiver changes. Dumping the keys only when messages are deleted is an extremely poor security practice.
Dumping the keys before the messages are deleted is kind of pointless. An attacker that gets some form of access to the private key material is going to also have access to any archived messages in any sort of instant messaging environment. You can't make old messages go away simply by forgetting the session key used to transmit them if you keep them around in some other form.
> If the story is "all companies must be fully employee-owned workers' cooperatives", then first, note that you are calling for a restriction on workers' rights: they have to be given part of their pay as stocks, and they can't sell them freely.
This is simply not true. Many workers' coops issue one share per worker (there may not even be stock), which affords them one vote in company matters. In such a scenario the share may not be bought or sold, as it is a case of one share if and only if a member. It is not correct to represent proportional democratic control of a workplace as somehow a restriction on workers rights.
The employees can democratically decide how they want to run things. They can choose to issue stock, they can choose other people to make decisions about the business e.g. appoint a manager to make decisions for them. They cannot do these things in a general employment situation.
At the most bloody-minded level a food-service worker must wash their hands after going to the toilet and this is a restriction on their rights, but at the same time this infringes upon the rights of customers to not get sick eating food. Denying employees democratic control of their workplaces is a much greater restriction of their rights. And as a matter of practice, employees get the short end of the stick when they have a boss.
Well if you don't allow the traditional company governance and everything must be a cooperative - then these employees cannot choose a traditional company governance.
But my comment really was about restricting the choice of a potential employee - someone who has not yet decided what company to join.
This is similar to arguing in favour of the existence of dictatorships, as not having them restricts the choices of what kind of society people can choose to move to. The point is that in a democracy, at least in principle, people can choose their "boss", and discarding this has bigger implications for everyday freedoms.
In any realistic scenario, those shares would quickly be diluted to nothing when the company needs to raise money from capital markets. Unions are in general a much better way to protect workers.
The real power disparity between capital and labor is that capital is concentrated and labor is diffuse. Every worker negotiates with the corporation as an individual over compensation and worker rights. When you have a union negotiating the contract, then both labor and capital are concentrated and on a more equal footing, producing more equitable outcomes. Giving employees a tiny ownership stake doesn't really change the power disparity at all.
How do you explain the historically near all-time-low inflation rates from 2009-2021 despite colossal amounts of deficit spending and quantitative easing (pick a 10-year period if you prefer)?
That is a great question, and it has stumped a lot of people. Some people regard it as proof that economic laws are different now.
My take on it is that it's like physics - if you conduct an experiment and determine that the laws of physics don't apply, you've either made a mistake or our understanding of physics is all wrong. Which is much more likely?
My take on the 2009-2021 not causing huge inflation is there was something else going on. Two possibilities:
1. quantitative easing deferred the inflation to the future. There's been a lot of talk in the last few months about it putting the whole financial system onto another precipice.
2. That it did cause inflation - it's just that it compensated for massive deflation caused by the banking collapses.
Or maybe the 25% inflation we see today is just a delayed effect.
(Yes, I know the official rate is 7.5%. But everything I buy seems to have gone up 25%.)
Your first study does not show what you claim it does, or at least it is a gross simplification.
These statistics are at the 10 per million scale i.e 0.001%, which is smaller than fatality rates for unvaccinated under-40s.
That is to say that there is a selection bias for people who did not die, and this is a significant oversight in your interpretation.
The argument he/she's making is that specific findings are being suppressed, so nobody has a full and accurate picture. Thus you cannot refute it with a statistical argument that assumes you do have the full picture.
That is the argument you are making, and I struggle to see in what world being published in Nature is "being suppressed".
They make the claim "vaccines that pose 50% higher excess risk of myocarditis compared to an infection", and this is a misleading claim.
The risk to an individual of taking the vaccine is more sensibly measured against what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated, not what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated and also didn't die.
This is like comparing injuries in people who survive jumping out of a plane with and without a parachute. How important is it if people without a parachute break their arms less often?
Their study isn't an attempt to answer the holistic question of whether vaccines are saving lives or ending them in aggregate, and they never claimed it was, so I don't see what's misleading about it. The claim dannyw is making is about the studies and discussion that isn't being published in Nature, or at all.
Your counter-claim is that this alternative question is what they should have been discussing, and if they had been, it'd be misleading to focus on the risk of myocarditis alone. Which is correct, but then they'd also have to take into account injuries and deaths from other non-myocarditis vaccine side effects, the costs of medical care not given due to the spending of resources on vaccines instead, QALYs and so on. But the sort of institutions that fund such research don't want to know about vaccine downsides, so don't fund any research into it, and moreover expend considerable effort to suppress whatever little research does get done.
I'm not sure we have the same understanding of emergence, here (and I'm not going to insist on being precise).
I would think being emergent has something to do with a structure being present in a system which is not a fundamental part of the description. Something like thought being emergent from connecting a group of neurons.
Calling x, p, t, emergent, when they are co-ordinates in the conventional formulation of QM, is not this. I wouldn't call time emergent in the description of a simple harmonic oscillator, and I wouldn't call frequency emergent either.
I mean that the underlying "real" theory would be for example just a manifold that obeys certain equations. There is no mention of particles, space, or time. Then you'd have a procedure to get from this manifold to the observables of this universe. One point in the manifold does not map to one point in physical space. Rather, for example, the state of the manifold at many different points collectively determines a certain physical thing in spacetime.
So the fundamental description of the world would be some strange configuration space, which is neither classical nor quantum. And the physical world would sit "on top".
If the universe was like this, and you'd try to form a hidden variables QM theory using the wrong, i.e. physical variables x, p, t, you'd automatically get either nonlocality + infinitely many variables, or very convoluted dynamics (like Bohmian mechanics). Which is exactly what you see.
Another reason for me to believe that a description below QM and spacetime is possible, is because QM looks like a statistical limit of something. I find it very odd to identify that QM is the extension of probability theory to imaginary numbers, and then not ask: Probability theory of what?
The physics of tides is largely well-understood, and the moon and sun provide the primary forcing. Accurate tide tables are regularly computed the world over, with measurements regularly made. Without even looking at measurements, the shipping industry demands accurate tide forecasts for navigating efficiently. The claim that "tidal phenomena are... primarily electromagnetic" requires some serious evidence to back it up, with calculates to boot, rather than invoking mysticism that tides are "beyond us". Many things are beyond our current scientific understanding, and that is humbling, but tides are quite well understood.