https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/711597683107106817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It's gotten to the point where when Person A accuses Source 1 of being biased, I assume, until proven otherwise, what Person A is saying is "I don't like what Source 1 says".

Accusations of bias is also an intellectually weak argument. If Person B points to Source 1 to back up an argument, Person A shouldn't say "Source 1 is so biased", Person A should say "Source 1 is wrong because of X, Y, and Z".

Surprisingly, this didn't work and the kid died.

Thankfully, the Canadian government is prosecuting them.

What really struck me about this article was this:

David has dubbed the proceedings a “vaccine trial,” claiming the Crown represents the “vaccine agenda.” He says authorities are “looking to create the legal precedent through the court system that when a child falls ill, parents who chose not to vaccinate have a greater onus to seek mainstream medical attention sooner than parents that do vaccinate, and if any harm befalls the non-vaccinated child from an illness that there was a vaccine for, the parents can be held criminally liable.”

So, like….yeah, that is the point. It's like a rapist saying "the government is just trying to set a precedent that people like me have to not rape other people".

You know how Lifehacker and those types of sites are always telling us to use standing desks instead of plopping our butts down in front of our computer?

Well, turns out no one knows if that's any better for you!



That was odd, she thinks, though it doesn’t stop her from having another bite. She has absolute faith that it won’t happen again. But it does, over and over.

Seemingly overnight, at the age of 39, Anderson has lost her ability to swallow.

Someone again mistakenly conflates religious faith with probabilistic confidence in future outcomes.

On why humans explaining the reasons for the moves AlphaGo makes are likely nonsensical.

Imagine someone in the 11th century trying to figure out how people in the 21st century might cool their houses. Suppose that they had enough computing power to search lots and lots of possible proposals, but had to use only their own 11th-century knowledge of how the universe worked to evaluate those proposals. Suppose they had so much computing power that at some point they randomly considered a proposal to construct an air conditioner. If instead they considered routing water through a home and evaporating the water, that might strike them as something that could possibly make the house cooler, if they saw the analogy to sweat. But if they randomly consider the mechanical diagram of an air conditioner as a possible solution, they'll toss it off as a randomly generated arcane diagram. They can't understand why this would be an effective strategy for cooling their house, because they don't know enough about thermodynamics and the pressure-heat relation.


"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
_"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?" _

Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish