cauch

45 ms·

361.
by cauch 2y ago
Who is saying that Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off? The fact is that Bostrom gave credit to science quackery just because he wanted to be cool and rebel. I personally don't think Bostrom is "racist", more that he i
362.
by cauch 2y ago
> There is no meaningful question to ask about "Black IQ" Yep, exactly my point. > Is that actually what happened though? I'm not saying that you can only consider a group as a outgroup if they have different skin color
363.
by cauch 2y ago
> However, at the level of a specific nation, during a specific period in its history: that nation may be composed of a small number of major descent groups. ... and groups A and B may also differ in their frequency of physical appearanc
364.
by cauch 2y ago
You are pretending that you are welcoming any opinion, especially opinions that differ from your own. Yet, you were very quick to invent unfunded hypotheses to cast opinions different from yours as "not smart and therefore discardable&
365.
by cauch 2y ago
But these honest conversations are occurring. For example, scientists have honestly looked up the "biology" or "DNA" hypothesis. But this hypothesis is not very strong: - why a "color-of-the-skin" would be link
366.
by cauch 2y ago
But the author himself says that his sentence is repugnant. Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" without being accused of being the big satan t
367.
by cauch 3y ago
And you cannot pick an interpretation of what you've said and "demonstrate" that my interpretation was not legitimate just because you don't like it. You cannot say "how old are you" and then scream and cry tha
368.
by cauch 3y ago
My point is that your question existed because you gave credit to an hypothesis. You gave credit to the idea that I'm in a bubble. You were happy to consider that and to even ask. You lecture me (badly) on "what I should have writ
369.
by cauch 3y ago
So you are saying I'm not in a bubble, BUT I'm in a bubble because, I quote, "people around you" "they work with solar and wind". How can I be outside of the bubble if the people around me are all in the bubble
370.
by cauch 3y ago
Fine, so things are clarified: you were saying it could be a bubble because X, and now I've demonstrated that we are not in the situation X, so it is not a bubble. I still don't understand how you can assume I'm not myself in
371.
by cauch 3y ago
> I said that I would expect someone working in the sector to believe in the sector. I did not say AT ALL that someone working in the sector is surely wrong. No, you said that you expect someone saying that solar and wind is not that bad
372.
by cauch 3y ago
You are saying that you are worried about botched conclusions based on superficial observations, and then you do exactly that. There were a lot of mistakes in the way Germany exited nuclear. Concluding from that "not exiting nuclear is
373.
by cauch 3y ago
I've had a look to the other answers parallel to mine, and it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks the affirmation I've reacted to has no ground in any scientific study. I've also seen some of your other contributi
374.
by cauch 3y ago
I'm not working in solar and wind. Some of my colleagues are writing reports that recommend more nuclear in some cases, and less nuclear in other cases (I say "some of my colleagues" because I'm not personally working on
375.
by cauch 3y ago
You are guessing ... Ok, so, once again, you are just some random dude "having an opinion" with nothing more than prejudices on the subject. There is a lot of things to say about the mistakes of Germany. And a lot about the mistak
376.
by cauch 3y ago
What do you mean? We currently have solar and wind generation deployed. We can SEE the graphs, see by ourselves where it happens. Where are these "more frequent" events that you say are somehow hidden by renewable-advocates? And w
377.
by cauch 3y ago
Not sure I get the point as I don't know any plans where energy distributors and providers are not strongly involved, and these actors will be strongly impacted by unstable networks. So, obviously, stability has a very high importance
378.
by cauch 3y ago
While dunkelflaute is a problem, they are as rare as events where a nuclear power plant has to stop production for an unexpected reason. In both case, nuclear or not, when building a network, you will need to build some redundancies and fle
379.
by cauch 3y ago
> Solar and wind still have no path to stability. This is a surprising assertion. I keep seeing it, and each time, when I dig, it turns out it is from someone who does not really know what they are saying and fall for naive ideas such as
380.
by cauch 3y ago
Your link goes to Syria government, not Iran. But that's missing the point: if you don't like Iran as an example, replace it by any right-wing dictatorship. > It's the most deadly conflict of the region and it's brush
381.
by cauch 3y ago
> Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy Even if indeed "academia is left-wing" (which I'm still not sure it's properly proven: everyone who said that appeared to just &q
382.
by cauch 3y ago
Your argument was that anti-vaxx cannot be that bad because we survived without vaccine. I'm simply saying that being violence cannot be that bad because we survived with very violent time. The second line is indeed the opposite of wha
383.
by cauch 3y ago
> If academic institutions of rich reputation champion, for example, denial of the Cambodian genocide, is the harm undone if another institution admits it happened? That's a really good example: if another institution admits it happ
384.
by cauch 3y ago
This argument is soooo ridiculous. Who determines who is a grifter? What about facts? Reality? The guy own's admission when he is boosting about how manipulative he is and when he admit fueling controversies for his own profit? That &q
385.
by cauch 3y ago
> all they need is one belief: don't use violence. That's dogmatic. In history, there were plenty of situations where this areas was very grey. What if you are in 1943 and that you need to defend yourself? Will status quo be ev
386.
by cauch 3y ago
> We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject modern science, they can choose foolishness. The point I was tr
387.
by cauch 3y ago
Things are more complicated: some people get more fame and more founding that their work would normally require because they present themselves as cancelled. There are even "anti-leftist-dogma university" initiatives coming out, w
388.
by cauch 3y ago
For 1: I guess I'm on the clear, because the affirmation "obviously, the majority are successful" was made without checking the exact numbers. On my side, it's just a guess, but based on the fact that there are tons of u
389.
by cauch 3y ago
But would you say someone who says "I call for violence against pedophiles" deserves to be more deplatformed than someone who says "hm, I've heard that vaccine is linked to autism, just google it (and avoid classic media
390.
by cauch 3y ago
Do you have examples of people attempting to deplatform someone who has not expressed the content of their speech before? From what I can see, deplatforming attempts are in very large majority done towards people who already have demonstrat

More ›