pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 22 Nov \ parent \ on: Science territory guidelines science
Great :)
I just hope it's not gonna be one of those shows where they raise thousands of questions but in the end, barely answer them before the show gets cancelled.
The Lost syndrome...
Two episodes into the first season: wife is already asking when I'll come home tonight to watch the next episode...
Thanks for the recommendation!
From here:
As we know, the measure of fire resistance (FR) is the time elapsed from the start of the fire until the point where the material fails to function. CLT’s fire resistance comes in the form of ‘charring’. When the timber is exposed to a fire that burns to a temperature in excess of 400 degrees C, the surface of the timber ignites and burns at a consistent rate. As it burns, it forms a black layer of ‘char’. This char is an insulating layer that prevents an excessive rise in temperature inside the core or ‘unburnt’ part of the panel. This core maintains its structure and continues to function for the period of fire resistance.
While the debate continues around the efficacy of the testing, CLT panels can be produced with an FR of 30, 60 and 90 minutes, so it is a certified fire-safe material. However, it isn’t as simple as just rating the CLT. If you have a project coming up that features CLT, you really need to consider where and how services will be penetrating, and if there are any FR requirements for the structural steel supporting the panels. These elements need to be protected collectively for the FR to be achieved.
Emphasis mine. Just to clarify what is meant by fire resistant.
Surprisingly, not that much. Maybe a little bit more planning, but having only one kid, it hasn't been that much of a hassle. Maybe the first 2 years before potty-training were bit more difficult, but now, closing in on 5 years of age, it's pretty much the same as before. We do a bit more activities that he likes, but even museums, expositions and other adult stuff, he has to put up with it if we as parents decide it is something we want to do. We're drinking less alcohol than before, too, but that's not necessarily because of the kid.
Good thing there is a good incentive to study this. Maybe not from a big pharma perspective, but for a scientist, definitely (well, as much as allowed using the scientific method) showing such a link would be hugely beneficial for their fame as a scientist, and arguably, for their career. It might obviously not be an easy battle, but there are enough scientists who believe they are working for the greater good.
In these discussions, it would help that scientists regain some humility by admitting they don't know everything (#773731) while pushers of alternative theories gain credibility by choosing their battles wisely. It does not help when someone concurrently supports flat-earth theories and anti-vaccines theories. Because the former is provably wrong, it taints the credibility of the latter. While the latter is still a subject of debate for the reasons you mentioned above.
I'm simplifying of course, but we won't get anywhere if both sides do not try to understand where the other side is coming from.
the key phenomena that truly brings us apart from any other living creatures we know
We are likely indeed at the apex of development. So, in that sense, we are indeed special when compared to the other living creatures we know.
One of my former colleagues, a highly acclaimed scientist, extremely smart, was also a very staunch believer. A current colleague, also a very good scientist, has devoted his life to his religion, i.e. no marriage and giving his salary to his church. I've always found this kind of match between scientist and believer quite fascinating. I used to believe, due to my upbringing, but I've only found science to separate me from that upbringing. Yet, for others, it is the opposite.
That's true. The fact that study got debunked is indeed, not proof of the opposite, i.e. that vaccines have no connection to autism.
It is studies like this one that better support this apparent lack of link between the two. And the conclusions of this study focusing on the MMR vaccines should also blindly extrapolated to other vaccines. Each vaccine, old, and especially new, should be subject to similar scrutiny to make sure we are not (un)willingly poisoning our kids.
I still remember the excitement and skepticism regarding these results. This came way before social media was as big as it is now. The LK-99 debacle did proliferate much more widely because of social media. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, lots of people got to know about superconductivity, but still, a bit more skepticism would have been warranted.
I'm very curious about such evidence. The initial study that linked autism to vaccines has been, in my opinion, reliably debunked. Several metastudies also found no link between the two, but who knows, the scientific method can be applied by everyone, not just big pharma or mainstream scientists, so one day I'll be convinced there is a link.
Haha, definitely no time or interest in micromanaging. The hope is that the SN reward system will take care of that.
Yes, I did learn some stuff. Even though I still a staunch believer in evidence-based science, I likely opened my eyes a little bit to a part of science that does not adhere to some of these principles. Unfortunately, it is the part of science that is mostly visible in politics. Politics corrupt the scientific method~~
Hence my attempt at sharing the beauty of science, just done for the sake of science or for the sake of human advancement. Unaffected by policy decisions, other than the ones related to funding of course. By showing these, I hope the show the importance of keep science funding alive, and support the scientist that do good.
- Cognition requires intentionality, awareness, and understanding. It’s not just about producing coherent outputs; it’s about grasping their meaning and purpose.
- LLMs lack all of this. They compute—they don’t cognate.
I'm not sure I agree with the author of that piece. I think what he calls cognition is a much more advanced level of computation, but it is still, just that, computation. Humans want to feel special, but there is no tangible evidence that we are something more than just a lump of cells following the laws of physics he attributes to LLMs. Of course, this is ignoring the spiritual aspect for which, by definition, no evidence is required, only faith, but that's outside my comfort zone as an atheist.
It's nice, indeed. I'll try to step up my own game by engaging with the articles posted here. Currently, it's mostly the controversial posts that drive discussion.
Indeed, you are one of the most prolific contributors to this territory. Thank you for your service :)