Examining the various verified equations, experiments, and theories, we don't find any variables regarding "see" or "look."

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

We don't have any clue whether atoms are "empty" or not. This is because our human-scale concepts do not adequately describe reality at the atomic and subatomic levels.

We can only describe experiments' results as probabilities. That is, whenever we look atoms are as Sagan described: made of small concentrations of matter like the electrons and the nucleus. When we don't look and let particles evolve, well... by definition, we don't know. But we do know how the probabilities of outcomes of experiments evolve over time. And that is what the "cloud" is. Indeed, it's not a direct description of the atom, sorry. I can understand that the two concepts tend to overlap for a working scientist in the field, but they are clearly not the same.

In short, we should be perhaps teaching people about the limits of what we can know and explaining why would be more critical than a sterile chat about cheesy imaginary abstractions that make little sense scientifically but are easy to explain to people who haven't studied quantum physics.

True.

Unfortunately the United States incarcerate people 8 times more than Europe for example.

Unfortunately

Unfortunately

In fact, in 2008 the US

So, yeah, singling out the US for unjustly jailing people is not random and perfectly justified by facts, if we don't cherry pick, and as you said, these are very disproportionately poor because they tend to commit more crime and because they can't afford good lawyers and because they can't afford good education.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

It's a well known fact that the United States very disproportionately put the poor in prison. They'd be better off as serfs than prisoners.

• I did not say that capitalist society is divided in classes like proletariat and bourgeoisie, but that's the basis of Marxism
• I said that capitalism will lead smoothly towards an economy of abundance, whereas Marxism clearly states that an actual revolution is needed to achieve a transitional state towards the utopian classless society it describes.
• Marxism wants collective ownership of the means of production, I never said that's useful or needed. In fact I fully think there's a lot of good in capitalism (but that's not pure capitalism)

No, I am not describing Marxism. In fact, every time I discuss this with a Marxist they disagree deeply with me...

We are way into the long tail of diminishing returns there.

One thing is saying "i want a coat made of better luxury material because it insulates better and it's more comfy, instead of the basic free version which is crappy and itchy". Another is "I want the megagizmo superinflatable coat instead of the luxury material one". Not only the second example shows drastically less objective improvements, it also hints to how advertisement is needed to inflate demand for high-priced crap which is not objectively better at all. Remove the ads, this kind of demand collapses.

1. Morality and redistribution of wealth. Any economics philosophy should aim at maximizing well being. Capitalism favors the accumulation of capital, or, basically, draining resources from society. Remember servitude, aristocracy and the middle ages? Yeah, that's the end game of pure capitalism.
2. The assumption that a free market solves all the problems. First of all, it doesn't work at all. In fact a purely free market leads to monopolies, which break its rules. So a free market needs a strong government to keep it free. Secondly, not all social problems are best solved through a free market. Things which are strategic to society might not be profitable to be run at best. In fact, in general infrastructure is best when not run by the free market because it needs to be neutral. Think of health, defense, basic transportation... they are naturally loss-leading, and not amenable to free market logic. You want free market defense? You get an industry that creates wars to increase their shareholder value... not morally acceptable at all.

Furthermore, pure capitalism is leading to its own death because progress is undermining some of the basics of capitalist economy, such as scarcity. Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone. This, in the short term, leads to a society with an inflated artificial demand. Did you not notice the amount of ads you are subjected to? Yeah, that's why. Of course this is only a temporary solution to a structural problem. Market forces will make sure ads are minimized, and this is something which has a marginal cost of zero, so it will eventually be free for all, which is exactly what is happening with adblockers, and adblocker-blocker blockers. After that, demand will collapse and eventually we will move towards an economy of abundance, not of scarcity. I don't know what that will look like, but certainly it won't be capitalism or communism.

Let's not forget that google has no obligation to return search results which are neutral towards what's actually out there. Actually, Google does return customized results!

Don't you think that skews the result just as much as social networks could?

All religions are obviously works of fiction, according to everyone not of that religion...

Take any religion, much more than 50% of living human beings think it's obviously fake.

So, tell me again: what is a "real" religion, objectively?

I don't doubt there's bias against women, nor I want to mansplain the results at all. However I care deeply about good science and reliable facts. This article is not very good at showing clearly that this bias exists. Here are a few major problems with it:

1. Are the samples of women and men who post on GitHub representative of all open source programmers? I would think that women tend to contribute publicly less than man, and tend to disclose their gender less than men, and this probably biases the sample. The article doesn't attempt to analyze this, it merely assumes their sample is adequate.

2. The article says that both men and women get less pull requests accepted when their gender is identifiable, although this affects more women than men. The article does not compare the two values explicitly (in fact, it does not give the value for men at all), and it doesn't attempt to explain this effect -- it could well be that there's a confounding factor they haven't considered other then gender bias

3. Both men and women can accept and deny pull requests. Surely the gender of who accepts or denies the pull request is a factor that needs to be analyzed before the conclusion can be "there is gender discrimination"?

If ads are served after the content, which must be true if they want to appear in Google results, then it follows that an appropriate extension will always be able to block the ad, and the adblocker blocker, and...

It's a strategy which can't win in the long run.

Only if stories like these happen in the science and technology fields and not elsewhere. It seems banal enough, albeit tragic, that it could have happened in any field.

A person in senior position trying to get their subordinates to bed? Shocking! I would never have imagined such a thing!</sarcasm>

I, for one, welcome our Stack Overflords.

PS: I, too, work for the beast^H^H^H^H^H Stack Overflow

> "I did some research and found how dangerous Wi-Fi could be"

No no no no no no...

You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge. Nothing is overturned.

Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximative model of reality, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others. No one cares about "truth", besides religious people.

Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence. It is not unrelated to science, in fact it makes tons of claims about the physical world. So far, any religious/magical claim that has been studied has turned out to be either blatantly false or ...not magic. Yet, people believe anyways. People go to Lourdes, even though it's statistically bad for them. People pray, even though it has no effect at all. At least in science, hypothesis are discarded once they are disproven.