accidentallfact

It's called "a stupid man with money". It's really quite simple:

* He has money

* People want a share of his money

* He has enough people to tell him stuff to make his bullshit seem to have some connection with reality

* Anybody who argues with his stupid bullshit is no longer welcome and gets no chance to get a share of his money

It's a literal streetlight. It has the bigger E40 screw, not the standard E27 screw. It has an awful spectrum, it's basically blue + yellow, with a massive gap inbetween.

The problem with twin studies:

1. There are genetic mutations that make you immune to HIV.

2. Monozygotic twins will both be immune, or not immune, while dizygotic twins may be either, one can be immune, while the other one could get AIDS.

3. Thus, a twin study would likely show that AIDS is a genetic defect.

Well, at the very least you need to agree that its effect was smaller than the harm done by whatever the actual problem is.

That is expected. The problem is that people are not getting healthier, or more intelligent, quite the opposite.

Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.

There is no reason to believe that a lack of nitrogen was a problem in particular. It seems that most effort was spent on getting fertilizers with phosphorus and other minerals, nitrogen was secondary, as many plants can obtain it from the air. If anything, it allows our modern, heavily cereal skewed diet. Poor nutrition rarely meant an absolute lack of food, most of the time it only meant insufficuent quality, and the green revolution was a massive step backward in that regard

I think a quite unexpected (but more common sense) picture begins to emerge:

1. Language already emerged with early hominins (paranthropus and such).

2. Habilis et al developed toolmaking to a level that carrying stuff around was of critical importance.

3. H. erectus emerged from walking, and brought technology to a "civilized" level.

4. Anything post erectus evolved for civilized society.

5. The destruction of soils in eurasia about 24000 BC

6. The destruction of soils in the Americas about 9500 BC

7. Old metallurgy age.

8. Tin bronze age.

9. Recorded history.

It isn't really "theft" when you know how to make something, but bullshit paperwork forces you to pretend otherwise.

It seems to me (and maybe I'm wrong), but it seems to me that "a lack of IP" increasingly means "we have no leverage to get the licences that we need" in China, and "we have no idea how they used to do it" in the west.

I mean that steampunk looks plausible, because it indeed seems to be purely a historical coincidence that electricity was developed at the same time. They are unrelated, one doesn't follow from the other in any way, so there is no obvious need to have both.

You pretty much need to have both chemistry and electricity, or neither.

Even Jules Verne understood the impossibility (or at least absurd impracticality) of a steam powered submarine, and made Nautilus electric.

It's unclear if internal combustion engines would be developed without electricity, and to what degree they would become practical.

I'm not sure about semiconductors, but the discovery does seem fairly random, and it seems plausible that electronics could just go on with vacuum tubes.

It seems perfectly plausible that nuclear wasn't noticed or practically developed, but, as I said, it just isn't an interesting setting.

I don't know. Steam and electricity seem more like a coincidence that they were developed at the same time, so worlds without one seem natural. Another possibility might be no semiconductors. No nuclear also feels plausible, but it's just not interesting. Anything else requires a massive stretch to explain why technology got stuck in such a state.

My biggest worry is that the development of AI will stop once people can no longer easily tell when the AI is wrong. Following its advice may become mandatory in certain aspects of life. But it will be quite not good enough, and give catastrophic advice, but the failures will be blamed on people who don't follow it correctly.

I think it was because old TVs already had wide gamut, so sRGB meant a significant reduction. It never was "contrast" as such. Anything made today is vastly better than any CRT.

I think it would be pretty uncontroversial from the technological point of view, but then, the first "real" TV broadcast would be the 1936 Olympic games...

'Steampunk' means no electricity. You need to come up with another term. Analogpunk, maybe?

Here you can see that cones only extend to 2° from the center. I think it's illegal to drive with less than 20°FoV.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1...

>The eye behaves differently in high or low light conditions: in daylight, for brightness levels above 3 cd/m2 the vision is mainly done by the centre of the retina, we can see colors and the maximum sensitivity is at 555 nm (in the green region). This type of vision is called photopic vision.

That's completely impossible, you would have severe tunnel vision in daylight, if it was true.

There has never been any real evidence that rods stop working in daylight.

I don't think that this is the reason.

Yes, there is something obviously wrong with most LED lights, but it isn't too much of short wavelength light, but on the contrary. It's the near absence of cyan light in most LEDs. Our eyes are by far the most sensitive to it, the majority of receptors in the eye are sensitive to it, and we may focus primarily on it (focus differs for different wavelengths). This is how you get the feeling of something being wrong with your vision as you for example walk into a mall, and so on.

If anything, higher temperature lights seem to make it better, not worse, but the problem will persist as long as the cyan hole stays there.

It seems that a large majority of conflicts did:

The revolutionary war: CS America vs AT british empire.

The french revolution: CS revolutionaries vs AT aristocracy.

American Civil war: CS North, vs AT South

WWII: AT Nazis, vs CS jews.

Probably many more.

It's the same kind of schizm that has lead to a lot of hate and mass murder over the last century or so: Abstraction/dimensionality reduction vs. concrete logic and statistics

Concrete statistician: I can learn the problem in its full complexity, unlike the dumdum below me.

Abstract thinker: I understand it, because I can reduce its dimensity to a small number of parameters.

CS: I can predict this because I have statistics about its past behavior.

AT: I told you so.

CS: You couldn't possibly know this, because it has never happened before. You suffer from the hindsight bias.

AT: But I told you.

CS: It has never happened, you couldn't possibly have statistics of when such things occur. You were just lucky.

CS: I'm smart, I can be taught anything

AT: You are stupid because you need to be taught everything.

War (or another sort of mass death or other kind of suffering) emerges.

Mood and evidentuality are two somewhat distinct concepts.

Mood denotes the informations factuality, if something is, could be, would be, certainly is so, or there may be moods for direct or indirect commands (tell him to come) and so on.

Evidentiality denotes how the speaker knows - you use different evidentiality if you have directly seen something, if somebody told you, or if you deduced it.

Then there is mirativity, which denotes how expected or unexpecred the information was.

I believe that turkish has all tree.

It's only a bit milder, because only one amino acid is missing, while google shows you extra severe cases, often mixed with general malnutrition.

There is evidence that methylmercurycysteine

1. occurs in sea life

2. occurs incorporated into proteins

https://doi.org/10.1039/B819957B

Methylmercury cysteine is an extra amino acid, and obesity is indistinguishable from mild kwashiorkor.

You are simply wrong about how everything involved works. It's a diseased, swollen tissue, not "energy storage".

I have a much darker hypothesis about it - when people are left to compete, they often resort to badmouthing those who they think could outcompete them.

Thus, the reputation of the most competent gets destroyed, while the village idiot remains as the only one left unscathed.

That isn't how I understood Dilbert. Dilbert is a normal guy and PHB is actually mentally retarded.

It's essentially gallows humor for a world where, for no apparent reason, blithering idiots often seem to be the only people who wield any decision making power.

You admitted to me a few days ago that you are so fat that it makes you miserable. If direct, personal experience with it not working doesn't convince you, nothing will.

All right. I guess you're right then, and the entire world is lying and everybody wants nothing else than to eat more.

Let's say there is a new discovery tomorrow - there is a virus that lives in your mitochondria, and makes them unable to produce energy. We can make a vaccine against it, and nobody will ever get fat.

Would you be against the vaccine?

It also cites a study which says that the average loss is 5%. That isn't what most people imagine as "highly effective".

Weight also doesn't tell the whole story. The people don't get any better, they get (more) starved in addition to staying obese.

It's a disease with another cause, hunger is only a symptom.

Too much money has been wasted on proving and "educating" people that it's just overeating, while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

The one that convinced me is horses. Horses get fat, and they need to wear a muzzle that makes eating difficult for them. Otherwise, they eat so much so fast that it literally kills them.

There seem to be AREAS that are affected and areas that are less affected. Either there are fat people in the area, or there are no fat peoplle in the area. People who move seem to quickly change weight to fit the local norm. There doesn't seem to be any clear correlation with dietary habits, or anything else that is commonly observed. The entire Japan appears to be spared.

It gets commonly missed that it isn't possible to get obese on purpose either. It's hard to eat more, and the body just seems to burn off the excess.

Definitely. Alcohol just makes me confused and sick, with no upsides to it.

I'be been told that I must be drinking incorrectly, and given advice how to drink correctly, but no, no positive experience with it for me.

The funny thing is, I actually like the taste of it (it tastes kind of minty to me, while most people claim it tastes bitter) but the effects are pure poison.