nonbel

33 ms·

271.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Affirming the consequent is a deductive fallacy. It is not a fallacy in probabilistic reasoning" Nevertheless, people commit that fallacy all the time in epidemiology. They say stuff like "if smoking caused cancer, the
272.
by nonbel 8y ago
Aspartame doesnt taste anything like sugar to me... And at this point, from what I've read, the impossible burger is not capable of tricking the person. But look up "anticipatory insulin/whatever release": > "Cur
273.
by nonbel 8y ago
From the source: > "Population‐based cancer incidence data in the United States have been collected by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program since 1973 and by th
274.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "epidemiology is not deductive" -Not sure what you mean by this, it is quite possible to deduce precise predictions from an epidemiological model. See, eg, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles&#x2F
275.
by nonbel 8y ago
Sure, another thing to consider is fallout incorporated into tobacco and then smoked... But do you see why I didn't care if a correlation existed? There are a bunch of ways to explain such a correlation. That line of reasoning was base
276.
by nonbel 8y ago
See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18863438
277.
by nonbel 8y ago
But here you go: > "the lung cancer mortality rate has risen substantially between 1914 and 1968 among persons who never smoked cigarettes. For white males the relative increase for ages 35--84 years has been about 15-fold; the rela
278.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "The usual strategy is to control for smoking. If nuclear test rate correlates with lung cancer rate, but does not correlate with non-smoker lung cancer rate, nuclear test is not causing lung cancer." I'm not really con
279.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "If nuclear tests are the main reason for lung cancer, then why did lung cancer incidence start rising before nuclear weapons were invented?" It became easier to diagnose, or perhaps more trendy? It is actually really hard t
280.
by nonbel 8y ago
The "trick" is occurring when the impossible burger is indistinguishable to your senses from a real burger. You are not changing anything about the nutritional value, but your body will release leptin, insulin, salivia, etc as if
281.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Does the "brain" (which I am specifically using in a biological sense, because it seems like that's what you meant instead of "people in general") actually care about texture and taste when consuming food
282.
by nonbel 8y ago
Who said that? If beef is part of your healthy diet though, you shouldn't assume you can just swap out a normal burger for an impossible burger. But my main concern is the aspect of "tricking" the brain into thinking it is co
283.
by nonbel 8y ago
I always thought this plot: https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cancer_tobacco.jpg Looked eerily similar to this one: https://i.ibb.co/cLbTRfM/nuctest.png Source for nuclear test data: https:&
284.
by nonbel 8y ago
The economics/politics of it is a different issue. I am concerned about the danger of tricking people's minds into thinking the body has consumed something with nutritional value other than it really has. Humans have been consumin
285.
by nonbel 8y ago
By "may", I meant "is" according to your definition. I am just skeptical of the standard process medical researchers use to determine this stuff (NHST), so used the term "may" as I would regarding anything else
286.
by nonbel 8y ago
These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing wa
287.
by nonbel 8y ago
Actual study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002771... Looks like they put people in two different types of VR environments. One was an open room ("vista space"), the other wa
288.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "24 staff members with brain abnormalities. At minimum that doesn’t result from absolutely nothing." I wouldn't be too surprised. If the baseline is some average brain, then that brain does not exist. Everyone has "
289.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"E&M is far from "simple". It contains special relativity, for starters." A theory (which is just a set of assumed first principles and rules of logic) can be simple but allow you to deduce vast complexity from i
290.
by nonbel 8y ago
See my other posts in this thread. I'd guess the money is largely wasted on stuff like incorrect medical "discoveries" that slow down progress. Ie, the money is being used to create problems that require more future money to
291.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "The problem with saying "Half of this research is worthless" is that it's impossible to know which of the research will be worthless before you do the research." Once you know the common problems, it is actua
292.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "You didn't mention tax revenue in your comment either." Yea, I guess you are correct. I just consider adding to the national debt another form of tax (via inflation). > "My point was you need to look at capital
293.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "The US GDP was $17.5 trillion last year. I don't think you're looking at the right numbers." I don't follow. Why do you think GDP is the "right number" instead of tax revenue?
294.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Taxing the rich isn't about generating revenue to make something. It's a reallocation mechanism for dollars that already exist in the economy to things that we want as a body of people." Ok, well here is a departm
295.
by nonbel 8y ago
I look at these "tax the super-rich" ideas like this: >"Added together, the total net worth for 2018's billionaires was US$9.1 trillion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionair
296.
by nonbel 8y ago
Cash is also more easily counterfeited than card transactions. I'm not sure how the risk of a fraudulent transaction works out in the end.
297.
by nonbel 8y ago
>" that cost is passed on to people who pay with any means. If I buy a TV with cash, or credit card, it costs the same." If people start charging less when paid via methods that have less chargeback risk will you reassess?
298.
by nonbel 8y ago
How much energy does generating this trust require?
299.
by nonbel 8y ago
It is a currency that acts like gold over the internet, ie no chargebacks and (is expected to) appreciate over time as more dollars/etc are created.
300.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Programs that don't require brute-force commonly use many times less energy than programs that do rely on brute force." Can you give an example of a program that gives similar results?

More ›