olofscience

Members
  • Content

    1,056
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Feedback

    N/A
  • Country

    United Kingdom

olofscience last won the day on April 13

olofscience had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

108 Good

Gear

Jump Profile

  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    No
  • Pro Rating
    No
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's weird how these types keep declaring themselves right, it's not like there's a lack of extremely supportive people telling them they're right. Oh wait. Actually there is...
  2. Don't hold your breath for an intelligent conversation in ANY situation at ANY TIME in your life. You'd die.
  3. Ah, the good old "stop taxing rich people to pay for social welfare!" combined with "it's poor people's fault that they're lazy and have a lot of children".
  4. olofscience

    EUA

    Please provide proof of this. On the contrary, some of the orange man's followers would rather die than believe covid was real, and they did so:
  5. olofscience

    EUA

    And yet you post no data yourself...
  6. olofscience

    EUA

    Well that link you posted is pushing for ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, for covid-19. It's pretty controversial: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns The concentrations that act against the virus in vitro are much higher than anyone's ever had in their blood, and the usual concentrations have had little or no effect on outcome. The tweet the article refers to has been deleted. There is no reference to the study, no links at all. Great, so you're part of the conspiracy? /s
  7. The climate wars of the 2050s will destroy a lot of shareholder value. Especially if they go nuclear.
  8. The fact that he just concluded "it must be detrimental" without any reasoning for it just shows how little he knows. You don't use animal analogies to make engineering decisions. Not good ones, anyway. Running a richer mix and increasing the power output is actually more detrimental to the lifespan - the engine runs hotter, wear is higher (due to moving parts running outside nominal CTE) fatigue cycles are also hit much earlier. Comparing his truck's exhaust to a jet's exhaust is laughable too. Does it have Mach diamonds? (one of the ways fighter jet engine lifespan is extended is lowering the power output, but he probably doesn't know that either)
  9. If it's blowing black smoke, it's definitely not stoichiometric. Did you win any races then? Because you're definitely not winning any intelligence contests as far as I can see... He's also breathing it since he shares this planet with the rest of us. As I said, not winning any intelligence contests...
  10. What would be the evolutionary basis for this?
  11. Yep, you have no idea about making machines run optimally.
  12. Crack some jokes then, so far you've just been raging incoherently. In terms of the funniest person here you're probably dead last. Winsor reminds me of Markharju. Remember how angry he was?
  13. As opposed to...the lack of data analysis that you posted here? When someone asked you for supporting evidence, you responded with insults. Just saying.
  14. Actually I'll go further - things shouldn't be preached to them. What students need to learn is how to think, not what to think. Teach them how to do statistics. Teach them the scientific method, and how biases can affect experimental results, and the different kinds of biases. Teach them proper history, then give them current demographics, statistics, etc. of minorities. They'll put two and two together by themselves. Look at this guy, he's here to preach, not to discuss. What does he and another troll here have in common?
  15. I'd simply be thankful if the scientific method was taught better, and students taught the sources of experimental bias a LOT more. Maybe the more intelligent ones will start making a link to social biases. That's a bit like saying "it's too difficult, let's just give up trying to correct for these biases". Carefully controlled, biases can be overcome. In science, it might mean being more careful about taking samples. It might mean you need to improve your technology, like making better telescopes. Or, focusing on a particular area slightly more - in a carefully calculated way - more than the others. Giving up is not an option, otherwise scientific progress would just stop. Social biases can also be corrected for, but we'll need a more scientific studies and data to figure out exact mechanisms and then to develop corrective strategies. I'm pretty left-leaning, but a lot of leftists do scream about this issue without having a clue about what bias is. To me the most interesting people are the ones who ask good questions. Those who claim to have all the answers usually say the stupidest things.