olofscience

Lithium batteries don't actually contain lithium in metallic form - lithium is "dissolved" in the cathode and anode and lithium ions travel through the electrolyte when the battery is charging and discharging. Like how seawater doesn't contain metallic sodium - it contains dissolved salt. The flammability of lithium ion batteries is due to the electrolyte, which is usually quite flammable. Murata has just announced lithium batteries with a solid electrolyte, but they're going to start with tiny batteries and production is starting this fall: Murata to Mass-Produce All-Solid-State Batteries in Fall

Yup, electric things are dangerous because they could cause fires! In other news, fossil fuels literally set the sea on fire: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/gulf-mexico-oil-pipeline-fire-b1878558.html For stupid post of the year, brent surely sets an unassailable lead.

Ah, the old "not doing business with black people is just business sense, not racism". Self awareness isn't one of your strong points is it?

On the contrary, there's a LOT of money in that - the global health and wellness food market was valued at 707.12 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 and is projected to increase to 811.82 billion U.S. dollars by 2021. Seriously, stop demonising doctors and nurses as being money-chasing sociopaths. You're sitting behind your computer posting about the pandemic, while doctors and nurses who battle to keep covid patients alive and losing - and even dying - and you dare to imply that they only care about money. Do you only care about money?

ah, the economic version of "SHTF" that RonD1120 has been predicting for half a dozen times now. (I think - I've lost count)

It's weird how these types keep declaring themselves right, it's not like there's a lack of extremely supportive people telling them they're right. Oh wait. Actually there is...

Don't hold your breath for an intelligent conversation in ANY situation at ANY TIME in your life. You'd die.

Ah, the good old "stop taxing rich people to pay for social welfare!" combined with "it's poor people's fault that they're lazy and have a lot of children".

Please provide proof of this. On the contrary, some of the orange man's followers would rather die than believe covid was real, and they did so:

And yet you post no data yourself...

Well that link you posted is pushing for ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, for covid-19. It's pretty controversial: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns The concentrations that act against the virus in vitro are much higher than anyone's ever had in their blood, and the usual concentrations have had little or no effect on outcome. The tweet the article refers to has been deleted. There is no reference to the study, no links at all. Great, so you're part of the conspiracy? /s

The climate wars of the 2050s will destroy a lot of shareholder value. Especially if they go nuclear.

The fact that he just concluded "it must be detrimental" without any reasoning for it just shows how little he knows. You don't use animal analogies to make engineering decisions. Not good ones, anyway. Running a richer mix and increasing the power output is actually more detrimental to the lifespan - the engine runs hotter, wear is higher (due to moving parts running outside nominal CTE) fatigue cycles are also hit much earlier. Comparing his truck's exhaust to a jet's exhaust is laughable too. Does it have Mach diamonds? (one of the ways fighter jet engine lifespan is extended is lowering the power output, but he probably doesn't know that either)

If it's blowing black smoke, it's definitely not stoichiometric. Did you win any races then? Because you're definitely not winning any intelligence contests as far as I can see... He's also breathing it since he shares this planet with the rest of us. As I said, not winning any intelligence contests...

What would be the evolutionary basis for this?

Yep, you have no idea about making machines run optimally.

Crack some jokes then, so far you've just been raging incoherently. In terms of the funniest person here you're probably dead last. Winsor reminds me of Markharju. Remember how angry he was?

As opposed to...the lack of data analysis that you posted here? When someone asked you for supporting evidence, you responded with insults. Just saying.

Actually I'll go further - things shouldn't be preached to them. What students need to learn is how to think, not what to think. Teach them how to do statistics. Teach them the scientific method, and how biases can affect experimental results, and the different kinds of biases. Teach them proper history, then give them current demographics, statistics, etc. of minorities. They'll put two and two together by themselves. Look at this guy, he's here to preach, not to discuss. What does he and another troll here have in common?

I'd simply be thankful if the scientific method was taught better, and students taught the sources of experimental bias a LOT more. Maybe the more intelligent ones will start making a link to social biases. That's a bit like saying "it's too difficult, let's just give up trying to correct for these biases". Carefully controlled, biases can be overcome. In science, it might mean being more careful about taking samples. It might mean you need to improve your technology, like making better telescopes. Or, focusing on a particular area slightly more - in a carefully calculated way - more than the others. Giving up is not an option, otherwise scientific progress would just stop. Social biases can also be corrected for, but we'll need a more scientific studies and data to figure out exact mechanisms and then to develop corrective strategies. I'm pretty left-leaning, but a lot of leftists do scream about this issue without having a clue about what bias is. To me the most interesting people are the ones who ask good questions. Those who claim to have all the answers usually say the stupidest things.

So CRT is probably something that everyone has their own definition of, so I went to wikipedia to read up on what the consensus actually was. The guy in the first clip was concerned that Grade school and High school teachers were not qualified to teach it properly, and because they were not properly qualified, they were teaching their own random definition of what it was, which of course turns out to be rubbish. Anyway, CRT says that simply adopting "colour-blind" laws might not be sufficient to prevent discrimination because it is based on a complex combination of social factors. As someone in the fundamental sciences, my take on that of course is, "no shit, sherlock". Why do we do double-blind tests for medical drugs? Why not just single-blind? As also demonstrated by the AstraZeneca vaccine, even doing double-blind studies aren't completely immune to bias. Pop quiz: what kind of bias did the AstraZeneca vaccine fall into? Now that bias is just for a faceless, colourless vaccine. Now imagine trying to eliminate bias for actual people. Whoever thinks it's just merely saying "I don't see colour" has never done a proper scientific experiment past grade school.

Libel suit, dismissed.

Yep, liberals were first to this antivax idiocy. Same here in my area. Funny how crazies on the right are trying to catch up on this. Despite RonD's beliefs, at least he and those around him got vaccinated...

According to Winsor's logic: Apple is a joke because of apple-product scams Performance Designs or [insert skydiving brand here] is a joke because someone pretending to sell one of their products scammed someone on Facebook once

and doctors need diseases to keep themselves employed, etc etc. ...and you're the only one who genuinely does their job to help people, right? The only one. Everyone else just cares about money right? Because you're special. Very special. /s