woodchuck64
Joined 14 years ago
Karma
835
Submissions
334
Member since
May 10
Recent submissions
Comment · 10 years ago
Sometimes anxiety is a symptom of high-functioning autism spectrum. (Note that anxiety doesn't need to be solely related to social situations in this case either)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809000/
Comment · 10 years ago
> Burnout is caused by a series of failures. Your brain is quick to pick up patterns and will assume your next attempt will be a failure.
I like the simplicity and elegance of that definition. It means work, pressure, "stress", pain, etc., are all completely irrelevant as long as there are enough successes over some interval of time.
Comment · 10 years ago
There's got be some non-political algorithms. Maybe tracking news articles to their sources (text/phrase similarity searching), showing sources, and flagging quality by accuracy of details? A few years of improvement on automatic text summarizing might be able to catch political "telephone" articles that erase and morph crucial details.
Comment · 10 years ago
One thing's for certain: Facebook AI research is running deep-layered natural-language ANNs right now on a year of election comments and likes. I think well before four years they'll know exactly how to detect bubbles of alternate political reality and also how to break them up. There will be some interesting decisions facing them before the next election.
Comment · 10 years ago
> You assume I am a creationist because....
Because the only reason to reject well-established scientific conclusions such as evolution and global warming is moral and emotional reasons deriving from membership in a Conservative Christian religous group that confuses the Bible with reality.
> As the article you linked to to "refute" me itself indicates, ice layer accumulation is inconsistent. Therefore, any conclusions regarding historical events drawn from such data would have to be questioned.
Which is exactly why ice is not dated solely by visible layers. An overview of ice core dating is here: http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/magazine/2014-1/PAGE...
Instead, ice cores are dated by measuring independent signatures: isotopic compositions (reflecting season variations in local temperature) different kinds of impurity (reflecting seasonal dust and other mineral concentration), known events (such as volcanic eruptions, fires). In addition, there's a host of new methods and statistics being used and developed.
Effectively, there is no reason to reject the sound science behind ice-core dating unless your Church Group told you that God wants you to. But that's a silly way to find truth.
Comment · 10 years ago
> Ok... according to woodchuck64, We live in the land of PURE unbiased science! There are ZERO reasons to lean on or massage data one way or another. Funding just comes in, no matter the conclusions.
I didn't say we live in a land of pure unbiased science. However, you can be certain that those insisting that science is biased are basing their conclusions on vastly more biased sources of information than science itself. In one thread, we have a climate science denier who obviously gets moral and emotional comfort from a right-wing political point of view; in another, a creationist who gets moral and emotional comfort from Conservative Christianity. They don't seem to realize that to criticize science effectively, you can only approach from a position with less human bias than practiced science, not more.
Comment · 10 years ago
You are a creationist so it is likely your moral and emotional need to believe in God is biasing and corrupting your understanding of science.
> Consider, for example, the "lost squadron" of WWII. These planes were discovered over 200 feet deep under many layers of ice. Therefore, they must be many thousands of years old, right?
This is straight from the Institute of Creation Research, known Liars for Jesus. This nonsense is dealt with here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html. In short, ice layers are counted by many different methods and no one thinks that 200 feet deep automatically means thousands of years old.
Comment · 10 years ago
I'm with you, the disinformation campaign is growing here.
Comment · 10 years ago
> What we don't understand (unless we decide GCMs are predictive and can be validated) is the impact of a given thermal forcing on planetary temperature. This is the "climate sensitivity." Unfortunately, this is the number we actually care about.
This is false, we do understand this well enough to be sure CO2 is a significant problem for warming, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co...
Comment · 10 years ago
In very few things the truth lies somewhere in the "middle". You either have rigorous treatment of evidence combined with methodological design to reduce or eliminate human bias, i.e. sciences, or you have what someone believes based on uncontrolled emotional bias.
Comment · 10 years ago
> For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries.
If by definitive, you mean 100%, then yes, else no. The IPCC distilled the consensus down to about 95% which is quite strong, by all means.
Comment · 10 years ago
> But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses -- ones that, if confirmed, adjust past temperatures downward.
You have to show this, you can't just assume it. For example, sea surface temperature adjustments are the opposite; in your words, a low-impact hypothesis that is nevertheless formulated and confirmed. http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenizati...
Comment · 10 years ago
Much is made of voter anger this election, but what if a larger factor turns out to be social media designed to inflame anger and fear? Inflaming emotions equals clicks equals profit.
Comment · 10 years ago
True, but now I realize we're getting far afield of the original point of contention.
The issue is that US rural men are unemployed. But the US rural economy will continue to decline until it reaches a balance with global commerce; protectionism, at best, is only a temporary measure. The US rural economy has even more to fall over the next decade.
Can we really think a solution is to teach rural men to find value in contributing nothing? A sinking economy gives nothing to do; even family-raising is a dismal prospect with poor schools and declining healthcare. The best and only plausible scenario is that rural men pack up their familes and move to the cities where jobs are plentiful. Indeed, this is the worldwide trend.