momoschili

think you got it the wrong way bud

the distinction between writing and drawing seems to be a bit gray to be honest

As an imperfect analogy, Stephen Wolfram is a fairly successful theoretical physicist by academic standards with considerable expertise, yet his theories on fundamental physics and its interpretations are considered fringe in the physics community because he most of what he spins is untestable conjecture.

Individuals who disagree with the scientific consensus aren't always wrong, but most of the time they are. What separates these people is the amount of evidence they can bring to the table.

even Cliff himself (somewhat right leaning in today's American political environment) did not go so far in his blog. Cliff often speaks very highly of the European weather forecasts, and in his blog post it seems pretty clear that he is using it as the model for most of the suggestions.

unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. The gold standard for western weather prediction is the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and that is a collaboration between multiple government agencies.

I agree, but I would assert that it is no more arguable than your own interpretations

Edit: Ah I see that it is 1985, that certainly is a significantly shorter cycle of data.

Explosive growth does not happen in a vacuum. Sometimes it's due to a pre-existing boom and bust cycle (eg lynx and hares, rabbits and wolves, etc). Sometimes it's due to the elimination of key species or ecological instability (eg hares in australia with no predators, boom of sea urchins in california, cuttlefish booming due to overfishing), or maybe it's something completely different altogether.

Given that there is no history of a pre-existing boom and bust cycle in the data, I think we can rule that out. So clearly something is happening that wasn't happening before. The question you want answered is one-dimensional and ill-posed in this situation to allow you to better understand the dynamics at work.

Explosive growth is generally speaking not stable. I will defer to the dictionary definition of stable. I'm just using words how they are defined.

From an ecosystem perspective, simple "coral coverage" is not a good enough metric to indicate that the coral reef is healthy. We also need to understand the biodiversity, is one coral taking over because it is better adapted and creating a monoculture? It's not clear. I made a point to not jump to conclusions, simply stating that explosive growth does not indicate a healthy ecosystem.

In addition to looking simply at the explosive growth limited to the past 4-5 years, it seems reasonable to look at the entire plot as well. All 3 graphs in [1] date back to 1965, and look at that data it seems that the growth/population of corals was reasonably stable up until the late 00s.

edit: only goes back to 1985, error on my part, but still relatively stable from 1985-late 00s

It may be possible that this recent spike in growth indicates that there is a strong recovery, but looking at the data it also seems inarguable the ecosystem has become highly unstable as well over the past 20 years, with drastic increases and decreases in all 3 populations that are much greater variance than from the mid 60s to early 00s.

While I agree with you that it's possible that this coral death is overhyped, your own conclusions don't seem to be evidence-based themselves.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by game logic then. Unless you're playing multiplayer civ (which I think is pretty niche even for civ standards), the AI logic is kinda central to the game.

this definitely isn't the case in my experience. I run Civ VI on a relatively high end desktop (5950x + 3080 Ti) and there is a very noticeable slowdown between turns with lots of Civs/city states on large maps

sounds like the game will be perfectly playable on mid-tier hardware, and you only need better hardware for "ultra" 4K. Bit of a poor clickbait headline by Tom's which has unfortunately become the norm :(

I'm happy that there are some higher fidelity graphics that will be available for those that can use it

looooooooool indeed i was somewhere else

brain fart on my end, you're definitely correct that SQUIDS are not something demonstrated quite yet, I should have said Josephson junction, but even that seems more niche than I had thought when I wrote the comment.

I didn't realize that! That seems like the most practical application from a defense perspective.

I think this view is a bit narrow in terms of what "AI" advancements may depend on. I think it's very easy to argue that large scale AI adoption will require orders of magnitude higher bandwidth than what we currently have. It's not clear that long term electronics will win in all applications, especially with the strong resurgence in interest of photonic computing. Fundamentally, photonic platforms have much higher potential bandwidth (at the cost of power and size currently) than electronics.

GaAs (and other III-V) would likely be an essential material for some kind of photonic or hybrid compute system.

The response below addressed the quantum sensors, but I would be careful of calling "everything" quantum such as image sensors. Sure they rely on the photoelectric effect which is quantum, but not really in the sense of what we would consider a 'quantum sensor' today.

I suspect what could be more relevant are III-V based SQUID Qubits. These are highly sensitive systems that multiple nations are exploring for submarine detection. More near term, quantum communication via quantum light sources also can leverage a III-V platform.

Seems like it was previously owned by Coherent, like some kind of III-V (specifically GaAs mentioned) photonics processes there in the past. This kind of technology is typically quite useful for lasers, LEDs, or potentially image sensors as well. Many LIDAR sensors and even light sources can notably depend on III-V semiconductor sensors. Also widely used by the telecom industry.

Outside photonics definitely useful for high speed electronics, but that would probably take more process development to get going.

Awesome thanks for providing a reference!

Took a quick look at your blog. Some of those examples are quite bad, similar to the fake gels in the Science article. Do you know if any of them gained particular attention?

>You have made so many mistakes in your reading that I would urge you next time to carefully re-read people's posts before responding to them. Also never quote someone without using their actual words. For example, it was not explicitly said that any engineering book would contain those references, it was a general statement not a categorical statement.

I will admit to some mistakes in comprehension and a poor literal quoting, though I will also maintain that I captured the majority of the essence of what was written in the quote. In the case of "any book about electricity..." vs "any engineering book" the only books that would be relevant to the discussion should be engineering OR science books relating to electricity.

>No, once again that's not what was said. The concept being communicated is that the scientific method works over long periods of time, not short ones. Over long periods of time, such as 200 years, the work that survives peer review and remains significant today are things like Maxwell's work on electromagnetism as opposed to Dr. Franz Mesmer's work on animal magnetism.

With respect to "time" I will refer to another comment I made below in response to the previous OP.

I think it's interesting that you use Mesmer as an example because his work failed to gain the acceptance of the scientific societies of the time, and was in the late 1700s, significantly earlier than the proposed mid 1800s to early 1900s

>Is not correct as far as I believe. Instead, we're saying that there's no reason to believe any study until it has stood the test of time. The longer it remains impactful the better.

Upon rereading I agree, I apologize to you and OP for my misunderstanding. However, ultimately in general I still have to disagree at least semantically with "standing the test of time". I am not really familiar with the processes in biological or social sciences, but from a physical science background, any result of interest will need to be built upon quite quickly. Either some kind of design will be reproduced to improve it or use it, or in the case of a theoretical result it will be awaiting some kind of experiment to validate it.

>> The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have spent a good amount of time reading their methodology yourself.

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement (besides the 'long period of time'). Though I would also say that simply mistrusting the result has the same issue, so the only correct way forward seems to me to be to act as if it does not exist until you gain the expertise.

>Saying that textbooks from Maxwell's era had misunderstandings and bad information is not saying they are inept, it's saying that that is how it works, it always has and always will be that way. That's it, really. The fact that good science came from it is to be expected, and the fact that bad science existed is also not to be suprising.

I'm not familiar with textbooks of that era as through personal curiosity I've only read a few. I would still like to see an example of such an occurrence to understand the context under which these treatments are discussed. If these fallacious techniques were widespread enough to be popular in textbooks there must be some kind of literature supporting them?

>I think you interpreted the statement about the 1900s textbooks being wrong as a slander against the entire era, which is not how I read it, and certainly not what I meant to imply by any of my comments.

I will admit to being a bit hotheaded in the initial response, which I apologize for.

From a philosophical perspective, I don't see how the vaccine mandates for public jobs is appreciably different than vaccine requirements for public school that already exist.

As far as the China lab goes, there were plenty of scientific papers that studied the China leak theory, though I personally don't know what they found.

The originator explicitly said that 'any engineering book' would contain these references, thus it would seem that this was at least a widespread belief among physicists and engineers at the time. Do you have any example?

Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted. I think that this assertion should be backed by considerable evidence, and that burden is of course mostly on you

I don't dispute that there were doctors applying electricity and/or magnetism to the body in an "un"-rigorous manner, but is there documentation that suggests that the scientists at the time had come to the conclusion that it worked?

Also notably, Whittaker's work was a 'loser'. I chose it specifically for this purpose. I had read parts of it previously because it was a 'loser' as he chose to dispute Einstein's contributions to special relativity.

I don't think Derek Lowe is frustrated that "science is full of fraud", this is likely editorialization on your part. It seems that it stems specifically from Masliah, who is common across all papers in the dossier. Granted, Masliah appears to be prolific, so this is admittedly a large issue in the peer review and verification structure in this field.

To put this into context though:

Let's begin by supposing that fraud exists in all ventures where people stand to gain, which I don't think is controversial at all, especially not in this comment section.

In light of this assumption the fact that this all came out in the first place is proof that being a luminary does not make you immune from investigation. That this happens 'over and over again' simply means that eventually we catching this fraud. The fact that the scientific community is constantly trying to reproduce and verify is why these become public in the first place.

So on the contrary, it's not that nothing ever happens or nothing ever improves. There will be articles like this one in twenty years because there will still be fraudsters in twenty years, and there will still be scientists working to verify their work.

How are "heavy handed covid response and censorship" a prime example of that?

There is a difference between "not considered strange at the time" and "science" via scientific publication and subsequent consensus validating the idea. I have mentioned that luminaries can have odd ideas multiple times in this thread, it's not something I seek to deny. However, as I continue to reiterate, these ideas are generally:

1. outside their areas of expertise

2. not validated by independent scientific research

I completely agree that science should be approached with thoughtful skepticism, and I agree that 'trust the science' might not necessarily be the best semantics to use. However, it is not clear that skepticism by all parties should be considered with equal weight. Most of the times, people should "trust the science" because they are not equipped to be skeptical.

not sure what you're getting at

Alan Turing was an incredible computer scientist and mathematician.

Unfortunately he is out of his area of expertise in physics and human biology/neuroscience (? not sure where telepathy would be if it was to be rigorously studied). This is akin to Freeman Dyson on global warming.

That scientists can have strange ideas is something nobody can dispute. That those strange ideas enter into scientific legitimacy is another story entirely.

Agree. The fact that we are seeing this kind of discourse within the scientific community is in my opinion a great argument for the scientific method.

It seems convenient that the evidence to corroborate the claim can't be found yes?

I think you will also find that the publications of the 1800-1900s are quite well preserved.