noslenwerdna

My point is every invention has pros and cons, and tends to displace people who were very tied to the previous way.

Sure, it's just that the era of super high paying programming jobs may be over.

And also, manufacturing jobs have greatly changed. And the effect is not even, I imagine. Some types of manufacturing jobs are just gone.

Everyone should do the tasks where they provide unique value. You could make the same arguments you just made for recorded music, automobiles, computers in general in fact.

I didn't know the FTC got involved in Afghanistan

Journalists are (or were) on Twitter though

As an ex-HEP, I can confirm that yes, we had blinding and did correct for multiple hypothesis testing explicitly. As Kyle Cranmer points out, we called it the "look elsewhere effect." Blinding is enforced by the physics group. You are not allowed to look at a signal region until you have basically finished your analysis.

For pre-registration, this might be debatable, but what I meant was that we have teams of people looking for specific signals (SUSY, etc). Each of those teams would have generated monte carlo simulations of their signals and compared those with backgrounds. Generally speaking, analysis teams were looking for something specific in the data.

However, there are sometimes more general "bump hunts", which you could argue didn't have preregistration. But on the other hand, they are generally looking for bumps with a specific signature (say, two leptons).

So yes, people in HEP generally are knowledgeable about stats... and yes, this field is extremely strict compared to psychology for example.

He is implying that the scientists involved haven't thought of those questions, when in reality this field is one of the strictest in terms of statistical procedures like pre registeration, blinding, multiple hypothesis testing etc

Also he makes many factual claims that are just incorrect.

Just seems like an extremely arrogant guy who hasn't done his homework

I never said anything about practicality, you are confusing my replies with someone else's. I said this

"But why do those fields deserve more money, when at least a large part of the problem is cultural."

More money won't fix the cultural problems with the field. Maybe the lack of a universal quantitative framework makes issues that are slightly bad in some fields much worse in the social sciences. I don't know. But it's naive to just say other fields have the same cultural problems so we can ignore it for MY field.

There's a famous anecdote where Dyson came to Fermi with a theory for weak decay (I think). There were a handful of datapoints that matched experimental results.

However, Fermi threw out Dyson's theory, despite the empirical agreement, because it had 5 free parameters ("with 3 parameters I can fit an elephant, and with 4, I can make it waggle its trunk is the quote" IIRC). This is difficult, but essential criticism all fields need.

AND all this is apart from the fundamental question of whether important generic scientific truths can really be gleaned from the social sciences.

That is fair. Is what you suggest possible though?

I agree that studying psychology better could be beneficial. Is it possible? Or more to the point, is it merely a matter of money, as you said?

I said a large part of the problem is cultural, I did not say that psychology is the only field with cultural problems. I'm not sure how you got that idea.

But why do those fields deserve more money, when at least a large part of the problem is cultural.

One example is the famous reluctance to publish negative results in psychology. Nearly all published results in (collider) particle physics are negative.

If senior faculty prefer to only hire people with a string of published postive findings, you are literally encouraging p-hacking. Again, they are not "bad" people, it is just that the system the senior people have setup in that field is not conducive to doing good science.

I didn't claim that it means they are "bad" whatever that means.

I am saying that we should take those claims less seriously, especially if the results from that domain don't replicate, as in the case of psychology and other social sciences.

Maybe there is little we can conclusively say about those domains.

Depends what you count as hard science. The replication rate in high energy particle physics is near 100%? When the LHC started up they were able to measure nearly all of the particle resonances found in the 20th century. It's not like they suddenly disproved the existence of electrons or something.

As others have said, that's not what a Schwarzschild radius means. You would only get a black hole if all the matter is inside the radius.

The Schwarzschild radius comes from the free space solution to Einstein's equation. It only holds in free space. So if you want to use it here, all the matter would need to be within Schwarzschild radius, and then you could calculate what happens outside that radius (again, in the matter free space outside). If you want to know how gravity behaves inside a star you have to use a different tool.

Fair enough

The copernican principle is separate from the model. Basically it says that our position in the universe is random - we don't exist at the center of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

"Hermann Bondi named the principle after Copernicus in the mid-20th century, although the principle itself dates back to the 16th-17th century paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic system, which placed Earth at the center of the universe. Copernicus proposed that the motion of the planets could be explained by reference to an assumption that the Sun is centrally located and stationary in contrast to the geocentrism. "

I've seen this discussion a lot, but what about when they hire a sound-a-like voice actor for a cartoon after a popular movie?

Case in point, Owen Wilson was the voice of the main character in the Cars movie, but they got a different voice actor for some of the cartoons who sounded similar. Same thing for the ghostbuster cartoon after the movie was a big success in the 80s.

Why is that ok?

Of course, there would also be other markers. Fertilizers is one.

Another is the plants and animals they used for food. Why are some plants and animals still indigenous to certain areas, assuming there was a small globe spanning civilization at some point in the last million or so years? Shouldn't this civilization have at least brought the crops and livestock to other areas of the globe they visited?

But there are other chemicals that a civilization might produce that are also visible in the geological record. Fertilizers would also leave a mark.

If they were as advanced as we are now, we would have seen that the atmospheric CO2 levels had been higher back then, no? This paper draws the conclusions that such a civilization would be visible in the geological record.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.03748

I think the point is it should be part of the upfront cost when searching, rather than something that shows up at the end.

Definitely downloading and uploading company documents to people outside the company counts as stealing...

I think at an individual level it is logical to make the choice to go to an ivy if you have the chance.

But ivy league schools don't present themselves as just a networking opportunity. They present themselves as a way to get a much higher quality education than other universities (and this is why you should hire their alumni).

It would be more honest to present themselves as a marginally better education experience, and also a place where powerful people send their children, thus allowing better networking.

As a society, it doesn't make sense to put that much weight behind the ivy stamp on your resume, if the education is the same as a flagship state school.

Is this not a deeply cynical reason to go to an Ivy league school? Recruiters target those schools so you get a job that will allow you to make more money, and simply because you get access to better connected people (again to make more money)? It's not about the quality of education at all, then.

He admitted to it and showed the police where he hid the body as part of a plea bargain.

He's one of the scientists being recruited from a university (they address him by name).

He also says something about building a cyclotron when they are constructing Los Alamos.

And he sits behind a window of a car or truck during the atomic test blast.

That's all I spotted

Is this epigenetics? Don't want to assume anything, but maybe this wasn't well known when you were in school. I vaguely remember reading about this a decade ago.

Is it possible to add a legend? What do these colors represent in terms of visibility?

It's also a good selector for having parents who got into Harvard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

Yes, of course, building the largest physics and math department in the world to come up with your trading strategy. Yes, there's always that option.