knzhou

24 ms·

181.
by knzhou 6y ago
"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the e
182.
by knzhou 6y ago
"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the e
183.
by knzhou 6y ago
> The WHO denied human-to-human transmission This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of state
184.
by knzhou 6y ago
> The WHO has been spreading misinformation from the start, including claims that covid does not spread from human to human Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying t
185.
by knzhou 6y ago
My news source was the actual WHO press conferences. They've been quite clear on this since January. If you've only heard what some secondary source says the WHO said, then your perception of the WHO is completely determined by
186.
by knzhou 6y ago
I will repeat: they said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare. So a video saying that people should prep
187.
by knzhou 6y ago
> Prior to March 3rd, the official position of the WHO was that "The flu is worse" This is a lie, and the product of many different organizations flat out making up claims about the WHO to deflect blame away from themselves. Th
188.
by knzhou 6y ago
> [2] https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one say
189.
by knzhou 6y ago
I mean, if you actually dig a bit deeper into the story there, Li Wenliang had no expertise in the field, was going off very little information, and was sending out mass messages saying that SARS had returned (which was absolutely not true;
190.
by knzhou 6y ago
"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the e
191.
by knzhou 6y ago
> For example, some scientists found that covid-19 shared some non-trivial segment of RNA with the HIV virus. This is "zombie information" and a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that should be stopped. The single paper t
192.
by knzhou 6y ago
> -should of closed borders, its too late now The WHO is completely consistent: they have never advocated for closing borders. (After all, the W in WHO stands for World.) They still don't want closed borders.
193.
by knzhou 6y ago
"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the e
194.
by knzhou 6y ago
> parroted China’s line about no human-to-human transmission This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have
195.
by knzhou 6y ago
> the WHO denied human to human transmission This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of state
196.
by knzhou 6y ago
This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying there probably is person-to-person
197.
by knzhou 6y ago
"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the
198.
by knzhou 6y ago
This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying there probably is person-to-person
199.
by knzhou 6y ago
These programs exist, but are generally separated from the ordinary high school system. For example, right here in the Bay area there's Proof School, a private school founded precisely "for kids who love math", AoPS Academy,
200.
by knzhou 6y ago
There are now , not so much 40 years ago. Even today, a lot of the STEM enrichment programs in the US have roots in the USSR. Hell, a big fraction of the physics problems I assign when tutoring these days were written by Russians in the 80
201.
by knzhou 6y ago
Have a look at the list here: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/national-... Basically anything in the top 250 is the kind of school I was talking about.
202.
by knzhou 6y ago
It’s the classic way to treat school. Do your math homework during history class. During math class, prop up your school textbook and read a more advanced one behind it. Avoid any courses that advertise themselves as containing lots of bu
203.
by knzhou 7y ago
I'm just a random guy from the internet in my 20s with no children, so I'm not really qualified to give advice! All I'm going on here is the examples I've seen, which are math focused. From these examples, you don't
204.
by knzhou 7y ago
My point is that there's been an explosion in opportunities that kids can use that go around what schools provide. Even when I was in high school, you could get most of an undergraduate education from MIT OpenCourseWare for free, and
205.
by knzhou 7y ago
I tutor some exceptionally gifted students as a side gig (for scale: calculus at 10, publishing research papers and learning graduate-level general relativity at 14), and I can say that the lessons of papers like these have been taken to he
206.
by knzhou 7y ago
There's a pernicious effect going on, though. You can see on the Twitter threads about this that people are asking physics professors what they think -- and they're all weaselling out, saying stuff like "No comment." Why
207.
by knzhou 7y ago
Thanks, this is much better than the incredibly vague Wolfram documentation. Skimming through it, the links between the specific physics and the general statements about graphs seem to me to be rather weak. A typical section looks like sett
208.
by knzhou 7y ago
Well yeah, but a lot of the criticism is baseless. For example, you have people downthread saying things like "this can't be right because it's discrete", or, "it's inherently impossible for a theory of everyth
209.
by knzhou 7y ago
It's common practice to "announce" in the sense that you email colleagues about it and give seminars. It's not common practice to do a press blitz, solely directed at an audience that will be unable to criticize it.
210.
by knzhou 7y ago
But it's only easier to comprehend because it's vaguer. If you wanted to express specific, nontrivial mathematical statements in CA language, it would immediately get more complicated. Certainly, a paragraph about Euclid's

More ›