This is, not to put too fine a point on it, crank science. Opening up the linked document, the DOI fails to resolve, the paper investigates pH variations in urine during tide cycles, and also skimming over it doesn't appear to make a single prediction. This is at best unfalsifiable, and a "break with the scientific community" is an accurate assessment.
The physics of tides is largely well-understood, and the moon and sun provide the primary forcing. Accurate tide tables are regularly computed the world over, with measurements regularly made. Without even looking at measurements, the shipping industry demands accurate tide forecasts for navigating efficiently. The claim that "tidal phenomena are... primarily electromagnetic" requires some serious evidence to back it up, with calculates to boot, rather than invoking mysticism that tides are "beyond us". Many things are beyond our current scientific understanding, and that is humbling, but tides are quite well understood.
An intervention on the household someone is raised in is not the same as an intervention on race. This is part of what it means when people say racism is a structural problem: people are, systematically, treated differently in many different parts of their lives. The USA is a country where, within living memory, the insurrection act was invoked to allow black children to attend a school which wanted to segregate them.
Leaving aside the question of what IQ actually measures, the authors of the single study you cite interpret the results as inconclusive due to confounding factors. The mainstream position in biology is that race is not a biological concept [1]. It seems that you are trying to argue that there is some immutable difference between races, a position usually described as scientific racism. As you are not aware of evidence-based arguments against scientific racism, there are studies showing a reduction of the "Racial IQ Gap" [2], as well as papers reviewing scientific racism in the literature [3] where it is argued that much contemporary research promoting ideas of immutable racial differences fail to meet evidentiary and ethical standards.
This looks interesting as an approach to relating schema to data types. One aspect that feels very counter-intuitive/unidiomatic is that, if I understand correctly, in your example there is no Schema enum. Usually this sort of macro does not erase the type defined, and I would find it extremely confusing that I cannot reference, say, Schema::User{..}. It would be clearer to me if this were defined inside of a macro_rules macro, more like lazy_static e.g.
```
schema!{
User {
name: String,
},
Story {
author: User,
title: String,
content: String,
},
}
```
This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims.
There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?
Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.
It is a fine form of forward secrecy: past messages aren't compromised by later keys being compromised. The sender/receiver ratchets essentially provide a notion of what a session means in an asynchronous environment, and the double ratchet algorithm shrinks the window as much as is possible i.e. every time the sender/receiver changes. Dumping the keys only when messages are deleted is an extremely poor security practice.
This is similar to arguing in favour of the existence of dictatorships, as not having them restricts the choices of what kind of society people can choose to move to. The point is that in a democracy, at least in principle, people can choose their "boss", and discarding this has bigger implications for everyday freedoms.
The employees can democratically decide how they want to run things. They can choose to issue stock, they can choose other people to make decisions about the business e.g. appoint a manager to make decisions for them. They cannot do these things in a general employment situation.
At the most bloody-minded level a food-service worker must wash their hands after going to the toilet and this is a restriction on their rights, but at the same time this infringes upon the rights of customers to not get sick eating food. Denying employees democratic control of their workplaces is a much greater restriction of their rights. And as a matter of practice, employees get the short end of the stick when they have a boss.
> If the story is "all companies must be fully employee-owned workers' cooperatives", then first, note that you are calling for a restriction on workers' rights: they have to be given part of their pay as stocks, and they can't sell them freely.
This is simply not true. Many workers' coops issue one share per worker (there may not even be stock), which affords them one vote in company matters. In such a scenario the share may not be bought or sold, as it is a case of one share if and only if a member. It is not correct to represent proportional democratic control of a workplace as somehow a restriction on workers rights.
That is the argument you are making, and I struggle to see in what world being published in Nature is "being suppressed".
They make the claim "vaccines that pose 50% higher excess risk of myocarditis compared to an infection", and this is a misleading claim.
The risk to an individual of taking the vaccine is more sensibly measured against what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated, not what happens to somebody who isn't vaccinated and also didn't die.
This is like comparing injuries in people who survive jumping out of a plane with and without a parachute. How important is it if people without a parachute break their arms less often?
Your first study does not show what you claim it does, or at least it is a gross simplification.
These statistics are at the 10 per million scale i.e 0.001%, which is smaller than fatality rates for unvaccinated under-40s.
That is to say that there is a selection bias for people who did not die, and this is a significant oversight in your interpretation.
I'm not sure we have the same understanding of emergence, here (and I'm not going to insist on being precise).
I would think being emergent has something to do with a structure being present in a system which is not a fundamental part of the description. Something like thought being emergent from connecting a group of neurons.
Calling x, p, t, emergent, when they are co-ordinates in the conventional formulation of QM, is not this. I wouldn't call time emergent in the description of a simple harmonic oscillator, and I wouldn't call frequency emergent either.
There are arguments that the Amazon is pushing down warehouse worker salaries [0,1] (i.e. $15/hr is certainly not the highest warehouse worker wage).
I read this campaign mainly as a public relations move in attempt to undermine union bargaining for substantial material demands, and am happy to hear other views.
In the general case, you can compress a sequence of N biased coin flips with arithmetic coding.
For a coin with known bias, this compression is (essentially) optimal and will therefore produce ~N*(Shannon information) unbiased bits.
This is a bold claim: I do not believe that if all remaining fossil fuels had vanished overnight that growth would remain identical.