Their research was based on model that suggests intelligent people with "hyper brains" are more reactive to environmental stimulus and that “may predispose them to certain psychological disorders as well as physiological conditions involving elevated sensory and altered immune and inflammatory responses".
Their study seemed to confirm this, as it suggested that because of their increased awareness levels, those with higher IQs react more to their environment. This creates a hyper brain/hyper body scenario, where they display a hyperactive central nervous system.
So highly intelligent people focus more on the shit going on around them and melt down over it. The more oblivious percentiles brush it off (if they even noticed it at all) and move on with their lives. That seems about right.
Peer review even at its best is basically a test of "seems legit" before publishing to avoid obvious sloppy mistakes, bad stats, unwarranted conclusions. . . . Peer review is an indication that something is not obviously bogus.
I think you're talking about the idealized version of what peer review was originally intended to be. As we're all aware, over the past few decades the mantra "peer reviewed articles in highly regarded journals" has become one of the prominent measuring sticks used to present whatever topic is currently catching grant dollars as "settled" and try to shut down debate. That's pretty much the polar opposite of "not obviously bogus," and that's what I was taking a dig at.
Also, if you scroll up just a few comments, you will see three citations to Probosiec taking credit for the "Rape Melania" sign as well as for starting the "assassinate Trump" chant.
Nothing of the sort. Your three links are simply examples of the articles I mentioned that have no source but the original BuzzFeed article, itself effectively just saying "a little birdie told me so."
Writing something that the author wishes were true does not constitute journalism.
Jack Posobiec, the guy who held up the "Rape Melania" sign
There you go again. The one cite in your Wikipedia article that even tries to support the claim that Posobiec was the one holding up the sign is a BuzzFeed article that says... wait for it... "according to sources." "Sources" that are, ever so conveniently, never named.
Even more conveniently, every one of about half a dozen other articles about this I sampled had no independent corroboration and simply linked back to the BuzzFeed article.
This is exactly the sort of thing that would have been caught during the rigorous, diligent, inherently skeptical peer review process.
But seriously, no wonder most studies can't be replicated by others -- the odds are high that either the cells in the original study, the attempted follow-on, or both were screwed up.
Sheesh. What in the world did I ever do to you other than chuckle at your sig?
As you well know, I can't prove a negative (though you yourself could take a look at (a) my UID and his, and (b) my comment history and his, and draw some reasonable conclusions, but I get that conspiracy theories are more fun). Happy trails.
Why else would he 'go middle school' in response to being called a mental child?
It's a fine question, but sadly one that I think is going to remain unanswered. I've tried to engage with the guy more than a couple of times thinking that there might be some sort of rational thought process lurking behind the sophomoric flamebaiting, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that he has only one speed.
They've also learned to exploit their own market share to build volume which is another means of lowering costs. That is what embracing the change does for you.
Oh, so we should "buy American" after all? It's so hard to keep up.
And just to be clear, my reference to "this non-falsifiable, modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism" was referring to your reflexive labeling of the OP as "a Russian dezinformatsiya agent." That stands.
Um, ok. Unsurprisingly, neither of the articles you linked show any of the actual emails or receipts you claim to be evidence of "a deal to exchange the lifting of sanctions for campaign help." In fact, the original WaPo article your ABC News link mentions says exactly the opposite -- that the new emails bolster the Russian lawyer's story that the meeting had nothing at all to do with campaign help:
It could offer evidence backing up the Russian lawyer’s claims that she was meeting with Trump Jr. solely to discuss a 2012 law despised by the Kremlin that imposed financial sanctions on wealthy Russians as punishment for human rights abuses.
If there's some specific "evidence" you'd like to specifically direct me to and specifically say why you feel it proves the deal you mention, I'm very happy to talk about it. But I'm frankly not holding my breath given your well-established tendency to... er, embellish.
Per capita is quite a useless measurement when looking at technological conversion rate. You need to start with the existing pool of what it is you are changing rather than the number of people.
You bring up an interesting point -- it's not clear in either country how many (if any) EV sales are actually displacing cars in the existing pool as opposed to being net new sales to new drivers.
Ballpark numbers here suggest that in the U.S. sales growth is less than 1% annually (we'll call it 2.7 million to be generous), while in China it's around 7-8% (making it in the neighborhood of 13 million). According to this, last year there were about 160,000 EVs sold in the U.S. and about 350,000 in China. That means that about 6% of net new car sales in the U.S. were EVs, while only about 2.5% of China's were.
So measuring per capita for new drivers, our EV sales are still over 2x China's.
Of course, the other way you could look at all this is that the numbers are vanishingly small in any event (160,000 is one twentieth of one percent of the 270 million cars in the U.S., and 350,000 is one tenth of one percent of the 190 million cars in the U.S.), and so these statistics are noisy enough to be essentially useless for showing any long-term trends. But that's just another way to come to the same conclusion that the article is badly misleading at best.
How is that particularly different than just about any commodity-level manufacturing these days? I read the article to be about deployment, not production capacity, but if that's the point then it seems like it just collapses into the larger point that China has cheap labor that we won't allow ourselves to compete with.
How are absolute deployment numbers evidence that a country with a population of 1.4 billion is "winning the race" over a country with a population a quarter that size?
Don't the charts in the article really say that the U.S. has nearly double the deployment of electric vehicles and solar on a per-capita basis?
As for nuclear, it's hard to even call that a "race" when we've hobbled ourselves.
That's exactly what a Russian dezinformatsiya agent would say.
It's not at all clear to me why this non-falsifiable, modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism would get modded up so enthusiastically. Probably that thing about people not learning from history being doomed to repeat it.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I know -- I read it. I'm sorry.
Their research was based on model that suggests intelligent people with "hyper brains" are more reactive to environmental stimulus and that “may predispose them to certain psychological disorders as well as physiological conditions involving elevated sensory and altered immune and inflammatory responses".
Their study seemed to confirm this, as it suggested that because of their increased awareness levels, those with higher IQs react more to their environment. This creates a hyper brain/hyper body scenario, where they display a hyperactive central nervous system.
So highly intelligent people focus more on the shit going on around them and melt down over it. The more oblivious percentiles brush it off (if they even noticed it at all) and move on with their lives. That seems about right.
Peer review even at its best is basically a test of "seems legit" before publishing to avoid obvious sloppy mistakes, bad stats, unwarranted conclusions. . . . Peer review is an indication that something is not obviously bogus.
I think you're talking about the idealized version of what peer review was originally intended to be. As we're all aware, over the past few decades the mantra "peer reviewed articles in highly regarded journals" has become one of the prominent measuring sticks used to present whatever topic is currently catching grant dollars as "settled" and try to shut down debate. That's pretty much the polar opposite of "not obviously bogus," and that's what I was taking a dig at.
Also, if you scroll up just a few comments, you will see three citations to Probosiec taking credit for the "Rape Melania" sign as well as for starting the "assassinate Trump" chant.
Nothing of the sort. Your three links are simply examples of the articles I mentioned that have no source but the original BuzzFeed article, itself effectively just saying "a little birdie told me so."
Writing something that the author wishes were true does not constitute journalism.
Probosiec admitted the sign was his.
The BuzzFeed article said exactly the opposite. Feel free to cite a different source if you have one.
Jack Posobiec, the guy who held up the "Rape Melania" sign
There you go again. The one cite in your Wikipedia article that even tries to support the claim that Posobiec was the one holding up the sign is a BuzzFeed article that says... wait for it... "according to sources." "Sources" that are, ever so conveniently, never named.
Even more conveniently, every one of about half a dozen other articles about this I sampled had no independent corroboration and simply linked back to the BuzzFeed article.
Surely you can do better than that.
I think the scientists would like to see the publish or perish schema go away as well...
Helpless victims one and all, I'm sure.
Every working scientist would love to see this happen.
Even if it compromises (perhaps significantly) their publication rate / bonuses / career path? I'd love to see a survey or two on that.
* whoosh *
This is exactly the sort of thing that would have been caught during the rigorous, diligent, inherently skeptical peer review process.
But seriously, no wonder most studies can't be replicated by others -- the odds are high that either the cells in the original study, the attempted follow-on, or both were screwed up.
Ah, clearly I needed more caffeine this morning.
Sheesh. What in the world did I ever do to you other than chuckle at your sig?
As you well know, I can't prove a negative (though you yourself could take a look at (a) my UID and his, and (b) my comment history and his, and draw some reasonable conclusions, but I get that conspiracy theories are more fun). Happy trails.
Why else would he 'go middle school' in response to being called a mental child?
It's a fine question, but sadly one that I think is going to remain unanswered. I've tried to engage with the guy more than a couple of times thinking that there might be some sort of rational thought process lurking behind the sophomoric flamebaiting, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that he has only one speed.
A minority yes, but he's still President.
I rest my case.
For your sake I hope you're a teenage troll.
He's one of what is thankfully still a minority of people who keep getting older but never grow up.
that "peer review" sounds infinitely more sophisticated and credible than "mutual back-scratching."
Oh, stop. Your intent was crystal clear. Attempting to scurry back behind a veneer of plausible deniability just makes you look weak.
Maybe it could help put the brakes on the recent suicide epidemic.
China has been through 4 straight year on year reductions in the amount of coal consumed while their energy generation has increased year on year.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but the real world strongly suggests they're wrong.
They've also learned to exploit their own market share to build volume which is another means of lowering costs. That is what embracing the change does for you.
Oh, so we should "buy American" after all? It's so hard to keep up.
Of course it's falsifiable
And just to be clear, my reference to "this non-falsifiable, modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism" was referring to your reflexive labeling of the OP as "a Russian dezinformatsiya agent." That stands.
Of course it's falsifiable, but you have to prove the evidence presented is not true.
* * *
http://www.latimes.com/nation/...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
* * *
There are emails . . . There are receipts.
Um, ok. Unsurprisingly, neither of the articles you linked show any of the actual emails or receipts you claim to be evidence of "a deal to exchange the lifting of sanctions for campaign help." In fact, the original WaPo article your ABC News link mentions says exactly the opposite -- that the new emails bolster the Russian lawyer's story that the meeting had nothing at all to do with campaign help:
It could offer evidence backing up the Russian lawyer’s claims that she was meeting with Trump Jr. solely to discuss a 2012 law despised by the Kremlin that imposed financial sanctions on wealthy Russians as punishment for human rights abuses.
If there's some specific "evidence" you'd like to specifically direct me to and specifically say why you feel it proves the deal you mention, I'm very happy to talk about it. But I'm frankly not holding my breath given your well-established tendency to... er, embellish.
Per capita is quite a useless measurement when looking at technological conversion rate. You need to start with the existing pool of what it is you are changing rather than the number of people.
You bring up an interesting point -- it's not clear in either country how many (if any) EV sales are actually displacing cars in the existing pool as opposed to being net new sales to new drivers.
Ballpark numbers here suggest that in the U.S. sales growth is less than 1% annually (we'll call it 2.7 million to be generous), while in China it's around 7-8% (making it in the neighborhood of 13 million). According to this, last year there were about 160,000 EVs sold in the U.S. and about 350,000 in China. That means that about 6% of net new car sales in the U.S. were EVs, while only about 2.5% of China's were.
So measuring per capita for new drivers, our EV sales are still over 2x China's.
Of course, the other way you could look at all this is that the numbers are vanishingly small in any event (160,000 is one twentieth of one percent of the 270 million cars in the U.S., and 350,000 is one tenth of one percent of the 190 million cars in the U.S.), and so these statistics are noisy enough to be essentially useless for showing any long-term trends. But that's just another way to come to the same conclusion that the article is badly misleading at best.
How is that particularly different than just about any commodity-level manufacturing these days? I read the article to be about deployment, not production capacity, but if that's the point then it seems like it just collapses into the larger point that China has cheap labor that we won't allow ourselves to compete with.
How are absolute deployment numbers evidence that a country with a population of 1.4 billion is "winning the race" over a country with a population a quarter that size?
Don't the charts in the article really say that the U.S. has nearly double the deployment of electric vehicles and solar on a per-capita basis?
As for nuclear, it's hard to even call that a "race" when we've hobbled ourselves.
That's exactly what a Russian dezinformatsiya agent would say.
It's not at all clear to me why this non-falsifiable, modern-day equivalent of McCarthyism would get modded up so enthusiastically. Probably that thing about people not learning from history being doomed to repeat it.