olofscience
-
Content
2,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
I have limited time but sure: You're saying it's impossible, but you can use Bayes' Theorem to calculate the probability of dying if you're vaccinated and boosted, and if you're unvaccinated. The formula is P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A)/P(B). There's no data that provides that info, not because it's not collected, but because you need to calculate it. Your focus on the percentage of people dying who are vaccinated and boosted shows that you really need to understand this section on the Bayes' theorem page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Drug_testing So while accusing Biden of lying while not being able to process the data provided is quite expected of a conservative, what would surprise me is if you actually took the time to learn the principles I provided with the links above. As it is, I won't hold my breath.
-
Your entire post shows that you really need to take a course in statistics and probability...you're throwing around a lot of numbers without realising what they really mean.
-
Biodegradable too. (Although big chunks of PLA probably degrade too slowly to be considered biodegradable)
-
Or catalytic cracking Actually no, you can pretty much make the entire range of materials from any hydrocarbon. Cracking to reduce hydrocarbon length, polymerisation to increase hydrocarbon length, then various other reactions for other structures (esters, alcohols, benzenes, etc) and then fractional distillation for purification. The only restriction is the energy needed to make a particular material, i.e. the cheapest way to make polyethylene is to start with ethane distilled directly from crude oil. But you can also make it from heavier naptha, or even without using crude oil at all - coconut oil, for example, but there will be a lot more steps (and energy used) in between.
-
No, rockets don't emit a lot of carbon, just because there are so few of them. They're a rounding error. well, in an enclosed space, you REALLY don't want to be running any gasoline or diesel engines. Electric is definitely the way to go.
-
To be fair, left wing crazies also somehow support Putin. They still seem to think that Russia is still communist...
-
Nobody's even asking for negotiations. Even with them complaining about power cuts, they're not asking to even vote on negotiations. Even from the articles you linked. Just you, because you're pro-Putin. They're asking for more help from the west, and more weapons.
-
Are you Ukranian in Ukraine? If not, you don't speak for them. If they want to negotiate, they'll ask for it. Not through you, a random Florida man.
-
Ukraine is asking for more air defence weapons, not negotiations. The only one asking for negotiations, is you. Hope Putin's paying you well.
-
I also quite doubt your ability to do any "number crunching" given your zero knowledge of the concept of probability...
-
Targeting energy facilities isn't "bombing them back into the Stone Age". At best, it's back to the 1800s when there wasn't any electricity. Any signs that Ukrainians are desperate to negotiate? Nope. Oh, and Russia is about to lose Kherson.
-
I wasn't aware of the Fox news coverage of Liz Truss, but apparently here's a compilation: https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cj_k2kggcAx
-
"Increase revenue by cutting 75% of staff" Profits, maybe, but I think this will be as effective in increasing revenue as Liz Truss' strategy of "growing the UK economy".
-
I'm actually interested in hearing his justification for his conclusion, mainly: what his criticism of the papers were (methodology, equipment, sample size, etc?) what his criteria for "conclusive" was (p<0.05?) But I expect he won't be saying anything, for obvious reasons. As for the discussion I wasn't attacking him, I was just backing up my hypothesis (that he didn't read it) with evidence.
-
The lettuce won!
-
He rarely reads more than the title, so clearly reading takes huge effort for him. He interprets articles as supporting his point when they're the complete opposite. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength" - to him it's an instruction manual, not a cautionary tale.
-
Nope. Nice try. Bluffing as usual.
-
translation: Brent couldn't read the paper. Didn't make it past the title. edit: and also: as a consequence of the above - he doesn't have any idea whether they're conclusive or not.
-
You've already shown your inability to read scientific papers here. Good luck getting past the titles...
-
You need to go and look up what probability is. Meanwhile in the Pacific, there's been cyclone after cyclone.
-
Fair enough.
-
"the adult at 10 Downing St." has crashed the UK economy within a month of getting into power and will probably be kicked out soon. And you probably still think the policies you support are the financially sensible ones
-
Your conclusions are jumping all over the place. You said "wind and solar will never replace coal and gas", I asked why, and you basically said "we use too much energy, it's impossible". Then another random attack on scientists without any evidence, well keep digging won't you...
-
Thanks. You could have just started with that, and you know, not said the other things.
-
But you're criticising their statements, which is about the science. All you're doing is hinting that they're just money-grabbers without actually providing any argument against their statement, furthermore, without any proof of their financial corruption. You're even doing it in a subtle way, which I think is quite cowardly as compared to an open accusation backed up with evidence.
