This is an interesting discussion. What most people don't realise is that capitalism as we practice it now wastes 99.9% of the human and material resources we currently use. Once you realise that, the problems raised by the idea of gift or resource-based economies become much more tractable. At 10 minutes 30 seconds the discussion turns to the way we treat our family and friends differently. We don't charge our nearest and dearest. At this point Molyneux brings in Neo-Darwinian evolution to explain why there is this difference between the way we treat our kith and kin to the way we treat everybody else. I guess he will go on to argue that this is because we evolved to be like this, otherwise we would not have survived. He will presumably say that this is human nature and because it is genetically determined, nothing we can do short of a programme of eugenics and euthenasia will change that. Well, ... you know what my answer to that will be, ... something along the lines...
Sabine's book, Lost in Math published in 2018. See Rebecca Smethurst on the Crisis in Cosmology . Here's an interview on the subject of the book: At 16 minutes 27 seconds on aesthetics in a theory. I think you should worry first and foremost about whether or not it works, otherwise you are not doing empirical science. At 19 minutes 19 seconds on whether there would be better ways to advance physics other than by building the next generation of super high-energy particle collider. This is similar to military spending and it's really just an artefact of Keynesian monetary theory: that you can create 'wealth' by employing men to dig holes in the road and fill them up again. Of course you are not creating real wealth, you are destroying it and creating fake money. The upshot is that the better ways of spending much, much less money on encouraging sound scientific teaching and research are not of any interest, because they don't employ nearly so ma...
He says the first tests used in Wuhan were based on a technique used to develop indicators for certain types of lung cancer. They are RT PCR , which is PCR on RNA sequences. An indicator is not a test, it is merely a data point which can be combined statistically with others to provide a whole set of tests which one hopes will be more or less effective in detecting some type of cancer. At 10 minutes 16 seconds on the 80% false-positive rate, see Hannah Fry - How to Bend The Rules at 16 minutes 33 seconds At 24 minutes 4 seconds , on exosomes and viruses, see How Viruses Work , Britt Glaunsinger on the Genomics of SARS-CoV2 and this, from 7 minutes 4 seconds : See This Shows The Sort of People Behind Outbreaks of Viral BS . In particular, this video in which Wolfgang Wodarg mentions a test developed in Berlin that was 'fast-track' approved by the WHO. According to this CDC Web Page on Rapid Mo...
Comments
Post a Comment