nonbel

59 ms·

571.
by nonbel 8y ago
The mass of the earth is ~6e24 kg[1]. That would require 133 divisions: 2^(133)*1e-15 = 1e25 which works out to under two days. I'm just saying that life can grow very fast under the right conditions... Do you really want it to be able
572.
by nonbel 8y ago
> Scientists were reproducing each others work before statistics was a thing They were also doing that before Popper was a thing. Yes, but not sure why you are pointing that out. > Whatever "statistical can of worms" ther
573.
by nonbel 8y ago
Scientists were reproducing each others work before statistics was a thing. Whatever "statistical can of worms" there is regarding it sounds like a problem with the statistics being used rather than science.
574.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"In some science fiction movies (for example "Life", "The Green Slime") the alien life forms grow incredibly fast. If that works or is possible, it makes one wonder why no terrestrial life-form didn't adapt
575.
by nonbel 8y ago
Is this the same thing that Smartmatic company was hired for? https://abc7.com/politics/new-voting-system-approved-by-la-c... That seems to be the case: > "Separately, Logan signed a contract on June 13 with Sm
576.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Human activities released nearly 37 billion tons of CO2 in 2017. That would yield about 84 billion tons of limestone if it were captured as pure calcium carbonate." Assuming there is a goal is zero net CO2 added to the atmosp
577.
by nonbel 8y ago
Why not store the CO2 in limestone and build ultra-durable buildings with it (eg, the Egyptian/Mayan pyramids) instead?
578.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"a company that can produce a really great and well-proven drug is not going to make more money than a company that produces a shitty drug that is also approved for the same condition." Yep, there is only a weak mapping betwee
579.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Double-blinding a trial isn't as big a deal when what you are measuring is not impact by observer bias (tumor size)." Have you ever tried to measure something like this and analyze the data? There are so many ways to ske
580.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"I think "the people who adopt a low-card diet" would do well to pay attention to a study that reports increased mortality for people who reduced their carbohydrate intake less than they have." You think the low carb
581.
by nonbel 8y ago
Because wildly speculating and passing judgement on others based on it generally leads to poor outcomes.
582.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"I think it's reasonable to expect that if a small reduction is bad, a big reduction is worse." As I originally asked: why?
583.
by nonbel 8y ago
I had a scholarship.
584.
by nonbel 8y ago
This is called Olbers paradox, and is much older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
585.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Either millions of students are overpaying every year, or the system provides some value." Its the former, except the government is paying for it... EDIT: I say this as someone who got paid by the government via academia to t
586.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Why is the university system so negligent and abusive towards those who invent new ideas and teach new inventors?" Have you considered the possibility that academia is paying researchers/etc what they are worth on averag
587.
by nonbel 8y ago
Because you have provided no reason that it is reasonable to extrapolate the trend from a 50% to 40% carb diet to 5% carb diet.
588.
by nonbel 8y ago
Sorry. I don't have any informed opinion about that.
589.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"According to the study, because minimal risk was observed at 50-55% carbohydrate intake. So extreme consumption on either end can't be very close to the minimum." Your conclusion does not follow from the premise, so ther
590.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"If a moderate reduction of carbohydrates in your diet is bad for you, almost entirely eliminating them does not look very promising." Why?
591.
by nonbel 8y ago
Sorry, but there is really no debate about this study. Their definition of "low-carb" is not the one used by people who are adopting a "low carb" diet, so there is no reason to think their conclusions apply.
592.
by nonbel 8y ago
What about it? I'm just saying this study has nothing to do with a low carb diet. They made up their own definition of "low carb", then people who read the results get confused and try to apply the conclusions to actual &quot
593.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"I really wish to know why those people were on low carbohydrate diet though." They weren't. It looks like the lowest in the study was ~20%, which is about the upper bound on what could be considered "low carb".
594.
by nonbel 8y ago
Look at their figure 1, it cuts off at 20% energy from carbohydrates. I don't think there was a single person in this study on an actual low carb diet.
595.
by nonbel 8y ago
From a comment there: > 'The findings "will disappoint those who, from professional experience, will continue to defend their low carb cult, but contributes to the overwhelming body of evidence that supports a balanced approach
596.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "We really need multiple long-running (50+ years) randomized study that controls for all influence factors to really answer the questions. Something that is unlikely to be accomplished in our current political lifetime and unlikel
597.
by nonbel 8y ago
Id say the highest you could possibly call "low carb" is ~100 g/day. That'd be ~400 cal/day, or 20% of a 2000 cal/day diet. And really 100 g/day is a lot. Most people on "low carb" diets are go
598.
by nonbel 8y ago
I have a friend who had brain surgeries as a child and then again a few years ago. He said even though he weighed 2-4x more for the recent surgery they gave him half the morphine dose he got when younger. Apparently that dose was only enoug
599.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Also no categorization in medicine is arbitrary ( or at least almost none)." Ok, this is crackpot.
600.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"Think hundreds if not more different pathways utilizing many different mechanisms that are not even mapped that well." Perhaps "pathways" isn't the right way to think about whats going on if it makes it seem so

More ›