guscost

55 ms·

571.
by guscost 6y ago
Oh, also: > There is plenty of work done in non-perturbative QFT, in which renormalization doesn't even arise at all. Yes, because that stuff doesn't even attempt to be compatible with GR. There is no conflict between the pro
572.
by guscost 6y ago
This sounds like more of the no-true-scotsman problem to me. You're basically saying that a paradigm shift has never happened more than once per field (at its founding).
573.
by guscost 6y ago
I don't think you grok it yet ;) Hint: Every scientific theory is built on top of a formal system.
574.
by guscost 6y ago
> why do you need to [get rid of renormalization]? What does renormalization actually represent? Why does nature do that? Those rules seem kinda tacked-on after the fact, to me... > There's nothing about the fundamentals of QFT t
575.
by guscost 6y ago
I mean, I agree with all of this, Kuhn's version is some bullshit that should not be called science! But then does "real science" even exist? If yes, that really means we have never changed to a new paradigm? The second in
576.
by guscost 6y ago
Kuhn's philosophy is a direct descendant of incompleteness. In a sense, all of postmodernism is too.
577.
by guscost 6y ago
Got it, that checks out. You have a very strict definition of science that I'm not sure how I feel about, we're dangerously close to a no-true-scotsman problem, but I respect the idealism.
578.
by guscost 6y ago
You're gonna love incompleteness if you can grok it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theor...
579.
by guscost 6y ago
How do you get rid of renormalization? Are those not incompatible paradigms to the best of our knowledge? About string theory, "really not any different" and "strings instead of point particles" don't seem compatibl
580.
by guscost 6y ago
Modern science is absolutely not a single paradigm. QM has been in conflict with GR since its invention. Lambda-CDM is in conflict with MOND and other cosmological paradigms. String theory is a paradigm. And that's just talking about
581.
by guscost 6y ago
By the way, I'm working on a long and meticulous essay/rant which argues that we're reaping the whirlwind of Kuhnian post-modernism with the COVID-19 situation, and the consequences will be absolutely devastating for science
582.
by guscost 6y ago
This is one of my favorite subjects, and I love the idea of negative and positive heuristics. On the other hand, has anyone ever seen this happen? > But, according to Lakatos, when the time comes, a revolution is driven by logic and me
583.
by guscost 6y ago
Thanks, yes it looks like recent weeks are weighted for under-reporting (how to figure out the weighting with so much chaos is another question), and they're estimating that a little over 60% of excess deaths in the past few weeks were
584.
by guscost 6y ago
Yes.
585.
by guscost 6y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav... http://euromomo.eu There's nothing for the USA as a whole, it will be compiled from states' records and estimate
586.
by guscost 6y ago
And you'd think deaths from auto accidents would be way down, but apparently not in Boston: https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus-covid-19-...
587.
by guscost 6y ago
From my link in this thread: > MUSC, a major stroke center, averaged 550 calls per month over the past four months about possible stroke patients from the 45 to 50 emergency rooms that refer patients. But it has seen just 100 in the firs
588.
by guscost 6y ago
Dying at home, many of them. Excess mortality is way up, and it’s not all COVID-19: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/patients-with-heart-at... > The possibility that patients may be suffering — and even dying —
589.
by guscost 7y ago
Well it’s not going to make your more susceptible, that’s for sure.
590.
by guscost 7y ago
Anyone nearer to the “virus less bad” side of an argument should consider signing up for this (if you’re healthy, of course). It’s a win-win because you get to gamble on quicker immunity.
591.
by guscost 7y ago
Nobody can back up any of these claims right now, it’s all belief and speculation. If someone says they have analyzed the outbreaks in Seattle and NYC and can control for all the differences between them, they’re delusional.
592.
by guscost 7y ago
Also why the government claimed that cartels are “taking advantage” of the shutdown to smuggle drugs, probably complete bullshit and the real truth is they are running operations because they don’t want to see eye-popping numbers of overdo
593.
by guscost 7y ago
Vitamin D?
594.
Covid-19 Human Challenge Trials(1daysooner.org)
11 points by guscost 7y ago|0 comments
595.
by guscost 7y ago
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/21/behind-pro...
596.
by guscost 7y ago
They'll probably cull everything that doesn't earn them ad revenue, to minimize the fallout. The content will trend toward sanitized garbage and the viewers will start leaking to somewhere else.
597.
by guscost 7y ago
The market won't sort them out, but the courts will. Wait until they are deemed a publisher, and no longer exempt from liability[0] for all of the content that they publish. Unfortunately they hire a lot of lobbyists so it might be a l
598.
by guscost 7y ago
I think so, but I'm not an expert. See discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958660
599.
by guscost 7y ago
It would not be ruled as a significant factor leading to death in many of those cases, and for the rest, NYC residents might be more at risk due to higher average viral dose (subways). Also there is a lag in IgG antibody production, the tes
600.
by guscost 7y ago
> we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why. Yes we can, and will. We’re gambling with every choice we make about how to respond to this, and anyone claiming that t

More ›