• 2 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • Seriously. We are talking about tire tread compared to weight. Both use multiple sizes of tire depending on the year/model. There are a few that overlap in diameter to get the closest to comparison but they still have a very different width. We are talking about a 235/35R18 vs a 235/75R18. That is a huge difference in wall height/aspect ratio and changes how the tire gives under power. Those numbers massively change depending on model as well. Something like an f150 raptor could have a 315/70R17, almost a foot wide. So comparing just the weight and saying they are close enough is far from a fair comparison.




  • MrEff@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzHardcore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Let me just point this out- this was the exact same argument by many intellectuals back in the 1950’s about segregation/integration and blacks in science. Why should we care about their color? If they are good scientists with great original ideas and experiments, then surely they will get published and get their positions commensurate to their merit. This is also ignoring their segregated schooling being underfunded, not being welcomed into higher ed unless at specific ‘negro’ universities, and the crippled career paths because of it. But sure, even with their second rate primary education due to their skin color, and their second rate secondary education due to their skin color, and then their crippled career prospects due to their skin color- why don’t we then measure them on merit? The black man never amounted to what out nice ivy league educated white man has done, so why take a risk on them? And again, should we not just judge them on merit? Ignore that if a black man has a novel idea then they must then have the idea reviewed into perpetuity while one of the white reviewers just so happens to come up with the same idea then publishes before the black man.

    So to sit here and still argue that merit alone while disregarding the person is only progress is actually quite regressive.

    Now, beyond that- modern publishing is blind in most every respectable journal because of this issue. It is only after being accepted is the author identity revealed to the reviewers.






  • MrEff@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzsmall wins
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Evey time I hear about the evil big pharma funding all the studies out there to influence them in they favor, I immediately ask, “where is this funding and how can I get it?”

    Because let’s be honest, unless the leg work is already done, they aren’t funding shit.

    On the flip side of that, I did do a study for 3M and their hearing protection devices (I am an audiology/PhD student) and the funding was great. There were also basically no strings attached other than “use this product, study workplace noise, be able to publish it”.





  • I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty? If they didn’t want to be part of Russia, then they should have just said so. Has Velinsky tried talking to the justly elected Putin? This 100 billion could be spent on rebuilding all the housing in Ukrane that was blown up by Russia DEFENDING its self from the Ukrainian troops invading Ukraine. This could be 100 billion dollars in food aid spread around the world in the form of Ukrainian grain shipments that have been stalled or sunk, but Ukraine has CHOSEN to stop shipping their grain by blocking their own barges and trucks.this could have been 100 billion dollars in CLEAN oil that Russia could have been exporting to help the world with energy, but instead will have to rebuild because the plants keep blowing up. If only there was a solution that would let the world move on and spend their money on better things. If only we would just give in to Russia and let them take what they want at the expense of others- then the world would be a better place.


  • Have you considered that not everyone’s transportation needs, financial situation, and living arraignment are the same?aybe people live different lives with different needs because they need to. Some might live different lives because they want to.

    I think it is great that this person is in a position in their life that when they needed a car, most likely 5 years ago, they were able to buy an ev, and pay it off. Good for them on the small victories in life.






  • Hot take here and I would love discussion- but this is a small reason why I am against a full UBI in cash, but want UBI in voucher form with only a small portion in cash. Vouchers limit potential inflation spill over from sectors and you can now control how much people are getting depending on factors to better and more fairly suit their situations. This is also why I am a huge fan of “food stamps” or food welfare programs. This is essentialy what they are doing already, just make it universal. Then we look at things like housing vouchers, another great program that we can now just scale up and make universal as well. Then you only need to give a smaller cash handout for incidental spending. You know people are going to have to spend money on housing and food, so make those the priorities for funding vouchers and you can put rules in place to minimize inflation within those industries. Then if you have people who are well of enough to not need the full voucher, let them convert the voucher over to cash at a penalty rate, say 2 to 1 for cash, or some progressive scale for remaining money. They don’t need the money as much, but you also don’t want them to be completely left out unfairly and have them resentful of the system. This could even expand into other industries or normal costs. Transportation, cable/internet, cell service, even some insurance (like car, rental, umbrella- assuming that if you are at a level of providing UBI, you are already providing universal health care). Now for each voucher you can make it needs and situation based and evaluate a fair amount for each person through an automated system depending on some quick metrics of their life. Each voucher system is also industry specific with its own oversight and regulations and inflation reductions built into it. I think it would be a better system and am open to others thoughts.


  • MrEff@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzShouts out to ?anova
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I have learned that stats for research is a dark box that you put numbers into, shake it up, and then record the numbers that come out. I use SPSS, my advisor uses SigmaPlot, and another PhD student in my lab uses R. Sometimes I’m not even sure if we are getting the same numbers out of the shaken black box and I am too afraid to ask…

    ANOVA? Sure, it is those clicks in that menu. ANCOVA? MANOVA? sure, there is some thing I check off or some other spot I click on. What do they do? The computer prays to the number gods with a different accent, then I shake the ritual box and read the numbers that come out.


  • I agree with you as a realist on the situation. We will never stop manufacturing them, at least for the foreseeable future. But we forget that something like recycling is the last stage of the 3R’s to follow. We must first look to reduce consumption. We need to find alternatives where possible, and switch away from these forever chemicals anywhere we can. Next, while “reusing” is not the best term here, but we need to find ways to extend the life of the products that we are forced to use and try to use them up in every way we can. Then lastly we need to be recycling it as best as possible before we send it to an incinerator, or more realistically a developing nation landfill.

    Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle is listed that way for a reason. Everyone always just jumps to the final stage then argue about how bad the recycling is while not even considering ways to reduce or reuse throughout the entire process.