skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Lots of people are happy to talk about the problems with science because they want a justification for their desire to keep driving a big car and to keep eating lots of meat.
But they're a lot less sceptical when it comes to science that validates their preferences.
And that is true on the opposite crow also.
Still, my car is very small and has a huge mileage pe gallon (around 60- 70 miles per gallon), I love vegetables and occasionally eat some meat, but mostly avoid it for health reasons, industrial farmed meat is toxic, same for vegetables, but at least I can grow my own without toxines mainly, so I kind of thrust them more a bit.
I don't eat canned food or processed food by any industry, and stay away from restaurants and fast food places.
However when it comes to science...
I trust it even less than fast food, far less...
might be because I know what I am doing, I understand a lot and most of the things I see passed for science is nothing but bad politics shoveled down the throat of dumb masses by a bunch of crooks living on big money to do just that.
Lie to you.
Money is not property of the bearer, money is property of the issuer.
In USA the Federal reserve own the money for example, similar institutions work similarly for other countries, the bearer is only authorised to keep them as accounting method of the value accounted for that cannot be otherwise proven.
Unlike real estate or objects that bear their own value and need no money to express it, other values like intellectual property for instance cannot be given away psically like a house, so they are passed to the next bearer only on paper, using money to ascertain their value in the transaction documents, even if no actual money change hands but an object is given for the said value, like you write me a song and I give you my car for it, so now I own my song written by you for the value of the car, that in the contract we put down in US Dollars becasue that is the money we decided to express the transaction instead of expressing it in Rubles for exmaple, thou we could of, is perfectly legal to express it any way you want.
Money is debt, USA Federal Reserve issuing a debt bond in dollar notes, that the bearer (members of the public, individuals and businesses) handle to account for their un expressable assets (or liabilities) by existing phisical means like property, goods, etc. When the Federal Reserve gets their money back as taxes or by other menas they extinguesh that portion of debt they issued.
You practically hadle as values somebody elses debt to you, that is all.
Scientific consesnus can only be obtained via orchestrated targeted financing with T&C attached, hence scientific consensus is anything but science.
Goodhart's law. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
China, India, Russia, Iran, etc, are merelly catching up with what US and Europe were doing for decades now, if not for over a century, where genuine works never get published because... it contradicts the trend established by the money providers and their politcal minions, while bullshit papers get published because... backed up by big money and a powerfull political machine, and every now and than retracted because too baltantly fake, and now you get angry because the rest of the fake world and their fake as our academia people are competitng with our fake academia and beat us at our own game of faking academic research papers... lol.
University research is a for profit business. They have to give the funders what they want or else they go out of business. "Science" is much more fraudulent than most people have yet understood,
In academia it only counts if it's published in an scientific journal. The more famous the journal the better. It's how you get grants and keep your employment.
Publicly funded research is chosen by committees, who take input from researchers who review the submissions. People who want to challenge current research are reviewed by people who created the current research.
Peer review is not the way things should go, one can always make a pact with other 10 scmamers to peer review eachother and always win, in fact this is how is been working for decades now.
Replicating the experiment with same results should be the way, replicating with the intent to fail it and find if the whole thing is not a scam or plagiarism. Once a paper is pubblishesd everybody in the sector should try to replicate the experiment, just for the fun of finding out if it is a fake paper or not, also everybody should hunt down plagiarism, and those two sectors is where the money should go, unmasking the fake.
Obviously big companies and corporations, and most governments, will never agree to funding that.
Because... poatatoes.
This issue runs way deeper than just "quantity over quality". There is plenty of politics involved here, the least of all people seeking promotions. Corporations trying to insulate their products from contrary research; political parties trying to falsely legitimize questionable public policy; biased scientists steeped in dogma trying to push their own precious ideologies. Science is not as 'objective' as people like to think it is. Never was, never will be.
This is why you should always question the science, not trust it.
Trust nothing, it is just not science, at all... only propaganda, money backed propaganda dressed as science that no one is authorised to question, and if questioning it is a no go, than for me that is a religion, not science, and I am not a religious person by definition.
The interview must be digested slowly.
It is true that Tuckson lost control of the interview in the first phase, but journalism is by no means the hysterical parody of the semi-illiterate "big" media barking pekeneeze at the guest in order to force them to respond according to their expectations.
I admit, at first I also had this impression that Putin did not answer any of the relevant questions.
Later I re-watched the Interview and understood that some complicated questions cannot have simple answers.
It takes a lot of intelligence and a complex rational way to understand the answers.
I think Tuckson was very frustrated that the answers he received were diplomatic rather than direct.
But he did not abandon the journalistic approach and "hung on" to the statements of the interlocutor as any professional journalist would do.
At the beginning of the interview he seemed genuinely disturbed by the way Putin chose to treat the issue from a historical point of view, clearly he had not come there for a history lesson and expected something else.
He later proved his intelligence in that he began to understand that there were no simple answers to his questions.
Above all else he showed patience and tact.
You claim that you did not understand what was relevant and probably relatively new after this interview.
If you have the patience to watch it again, possibly in bits and pieces, you will have an answer.
Purely subjectively, for me, there were many relevant elements: the first and most important is that Putin understood the current new economic and political realities, in opposition to the Western political class that seems intellectually anesthetized; the second relevant thing is that he understood that in the USA it is not the political class that leads but someone else (he says the elites), so decisions are not made at the political level; another relevant fact is that in light of this, he uses intelligence channels rather than diplomatic channels; that says a lot about who is running the "collective west" today.
The unasked and implicitly unanswered question is who these services answer to, but this topic has not been touched upon.
I did not have the feeling that Putin invited Poland, Romania or Hungary to the dismemberment of Ukraine, the statements cannot be taken out of context as some try.
However uncomfortable the historical truth may be for some, including Russians, Putin did not shy away from bringing it to the attention of public opinion.
This shows that he is a very different type of politician from the ones we have today.
Some see in this interview another way of making propaganda and others see another point of view unknown in the Western environment, as well as another way of doing politics, if necessary including by force.
In any case, the interview is far from trivial or uninteresting.
Not that the old one was broken, just to change something, therapeutical shopping.
- I recommend this one, the seller told me. It is created on the basis of a highly performing revolutionary technology.
- Well, what makes it different from other freezers? I wondered.
- It no longer works on the basis of freon, but uses an experimental substance that enters food and genetically modifies it, suddenly turning it into frozen products.
- Well, isn't it, God forbid, toxic?
- Our specialists assume it is not.
- Interesting! It probably freezes everything quickly and efficiently.
- In principle, yes, but for now it is not known if it can keep the products at the optimal temperature, so you will have to periodically put ice packs in the drawers.
- Do I understand that there is a risk of my food defrosting from time to time?
- There is, but it is quite small. However, for added safety, you should store them once a month in another freezer, which you can rent from us.
Do you think I'm going astray here?
Just see how the Plandemic puncturing mandatory volunteering thing was pushed on us.
You will understand that there are customers in this world for the above freezer any time day or night.
That one is easy, all you need is to beat the piston engines cars at their own game,just like the piston engine cars did when they took over the market from electric cars a century or two ago.
So what made them piston engine so popular? Was it that they were working on internal explosions using liquefied dinosaurs to produce horses (HP)
Not really, it was mostly due to several factors.
-Price was lower, I mean so much lower, some 10% of an electric car of equal capacity.
-Range was bigger, I mean huge in comparison, an electric car was dead in 30KM than it took a night to recharge, the dynosaurus liquefied horses instead could go 300Km with one tank, refilable in 20 minutes.
- Cars were simple to mantain, you neded nearly no education, just a few days with a friend that knew how to trim a carburateur, adjust the steering or the brakes, and for life you were master of your own vehicle. But for the electric ones the battery.... now that was an issue to learn how to understand it.
-If your fuel tank went bad, pierced, rusted, got stolen, etc, the cost to replace it was maybe worth one or two days of salary, and the skills to replace it... not needed any. To replace the battery instead you had to buy them for a few month, maybe 6 or 12 months worth of salary, and they were heavy, so replacing them was not easy.
- not to ignore weight, a liqefied dynosaurs powered car was half the weight of a battery powered one, so for the same air pressure in your tires, you could carry more cargo without popping them with too much weight.
But today electric cars are damn complicated,
-have multiple layers of lines of codes in various computers on board to keep it from going bizark,
-they catch fire out of the blue,
-explode with you inside,
-release toxic fumes in the process so that if the fire does not cook you crisp, or the explosion does not send you stright to heaven, you die regardless, from fumes poisoning in seconds.
-and if your battery goes bust it will cost you the money of TWO piston cars brand new just to change that
-not to mention the Electric Vehicle itself costs to buy like a villa
-takes hours to recharge the battery
-and it lasts you on the roads less time than it took to recharge
-They are heavy like a bulldozer
-and their maintennance... you need a few doctorates in engineering, electronics, computer coding and hacking to keep up with owning an EV.
So to make the Electric Vehicles a success story again, I identify here several simple solutions:
-The acquision cost should be less than 10.000 Euro for the base model, no extras, no luxuries, capable to take 5 pasengers and their lagguage.
-The replacement battery should cost including the batteries themselves less than 500 Euro
-The battery lifetime should be minimum 10.000 discharge and recharge cycles
-Batteries recharging time less than 30 minutes from zero to full
-Bateries should not weight more than 50Kg alltogehter
-Batteries should be safe, no catching fire under any conditions, including throwing a hand greande at them, no explosions, no toxicity released.
-Maintnenance should be doable by any teenager after hanging aroung a friend that knows how to fix it for a weeks or two tops.
-Computerwise, it should have none as a base model, should run analog entirely. Computers for geeks only.
Do that and I guarantee you nobody will ever want to drive with a dead dynosaur liquefied under their seats, trust me.
