dcow

23 ms·

361.
by dcow 2y ago
I’m actually now much less certain that fluoride is unequivocally safe and newly skeptical of anybody arguing that anybody else questioning it, including effects on the brain, is a whacko. Thanks to down-thread links to the meta analysis fr
362.
by dcow 2y ago
I think you should read it. It literally says fluoride in higher concentrations is linked to lower IQ. It says there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions in lower concentrations. NOT that fluoride in lower concentrations is de
363.
by dcow 2y ago
Nobody is banning fluoride. They’re just deciding not to include it by default in the drinking water.
364.
by dcow 2y ago
What’s the alternative if you believe we can’t sustain the funding? Who is competent enough to decide whether “a whole class” of biomedical researchers are worth spending public money on or not? These aren’t easy questions with happy answer
365.
by dcow 2y ago
But that doesn't mean the administration is anti-science. It means they believe the situation is dire enough to justify drastic cuts. And that is a policy call regardless of your scientific beliefs. In other words, one can reasonably
366.
by dcow 2y ago
I guess I (and probably the GGP) understood the response to be more general, picking out the IQ point as easily refutable therefore a short-circuit way to dismiss the broader narrative.
367.
by dcow 2y ago
You missed the point. It’s not objectively true in all situations that if you don’t believe fluorinating water is necessary that you’re an a-scientific bad faith actor. One can argue the opposite position in good faith, reasonably. Your sta
368.
by dcow 2y ago
Tariffs aren’t a binary good/bad. They’re a tool in the policy toolbox, one that Canada has no problem using, by the way.
369.
by dcow 2y ago
Sure! Which means he’s either a really effective covert operative, or just a crank. To be clear I’m not arguing in support of crack science. I’m arguing against him being plugged into some broader insidious agenda.
370.
by dcow 2y ago
What does Canadian sovereignty have to do with even a broader picture argument that the right is using illiberal science to undermine and dismantle political institutions? “Anybody who wants to debate me must first demonstrate good faith by
371.
by dcow 2y ago
I don’t agree with the framing of “we are experiencing an assault on objective truth…”. We are experiencing a challenge to some existing status quo practices, some of which have come out of science in the past. But nowhere in any conversat
372.
by dcow 2y ago
I have decided it must be attached to a sort of superiority complex. These types of people believe they are capable of deciphering fact from fiction but the general population isn’t so LLMs scare them because someone might hear something wr
373.
by dcow 2y ago
Have you talked to a non-artificial intelligence lately? I’ve got some news for you…
374.
by dcow 2y ago
I think they’re painted into a corner with WWDC. Everything has to be a crowd pleasing brain busting wow drop each year. I’m certain there are teams that design their entire workflow around the yearly wwdc. It honestly feels like an executi
375.
by dcow 2y ago
Just to be clear: Putin and bio-"weapons" labs is different than Assad and sarin. I believe you are referring to the Russian spin that Ukraine was doing bioweapons research. (I also don't believe Tulsi espouses that slant, de
376.
by dcow 2y ago
We really have to shatter the bind. Every time someone buys into the two party system and votes against rather than for, we all lose. I'm not criticizing you, I am lamenting how toxic and horrible first past the post voting makes our e
377.
by dcow 2y ago
> Meeting them makes Tulsi complicit. What? That's simply not true even by a long shot. In no way shape or form is she condoning anything by being willing to engage with someone non-violently. Go read my other response. I've qu
378.
by dcow 2y ago
> “I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard said. IDK... I don't have strong enough hatred in my so
379.
by dcow 2y ago
I think the term posthuman captures things concisely. Most transhumanists seek a posthuman future. Maybe the author's word soup wasn't fully charitable, but I understood the sentiment. I do think given that the author is exploring
380.
by dcow 2y ago
Gabbard confirmed that no classified information was contained in the conversation.
381.
by dcow 2y ago
Veritasium has a few recent videos on Action. In one of them I believe he shows speed of light expressed as one unit of action, which implies that it’s the highest “resolution” any propagation can resolve at based on the fundamentally small
382.
by dcow 2y ago
Let’s see what the courts say. I will respect whatever outcome happens there. I sympathize with not continuing to grant visas to people who lead protests that involve crimes like trespassing as part of their demonstrations in support terror
383.
by dcow 2y ago
As long as you keep convincing yourself that this is just a phase of right wing crazies, it will keep happening. Support for the democrats has never been lower. There is bipartisan support for the current administration. It’s not just right
384.
by dcow 2y ago
It’s not just “opposing views”. It was calls for violence and support of terrorists. I guess the media didn't include that detail.
385.
by dcow 2y ago
I think Trump and his administration are patriots. Clearly to a fault at times, but everyone has faults. I do not step back and see America on a course to fascism with Trump at the helm. If we drown in debt we don’t have a nation. Full stop
386.
by dcow 2y ago
No dunking… I just don't see it. One human to another.
387.
by dcow 2y ago
Nationalist is not fascism. Ffs they aren’t ethnically cleansing the nation. They are removing illegal aliens who have no legal right to be here, and they’re open to those removed people coming back legally. A lot of people have a really bi
388.
by dcow 2y ago
I’m not calling people names.
389.
by dcow 2y ago
A fascist is not “far right”. I think the dictionary definition is more accepted. So far the people in power have not used violence to suppress opposition. They have not promoted one ethnicity or race above others. They have not made trump
390.
by dcow 2y ago
I’ll take the dictionary definition: Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic gove

More ›