EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Younger kid starting to age out of pixar, so been a bit, but as I recall team alpha wolf squadron was the cross dressing wolf's initial suggestion in Shrek some number. Which got expanded in the end because of.....concensus.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Younger kid starting to age out of pixar, so been a bit, but as I recall team alpha wolf squadron was the cross dressing wolf's initial suggestion in Shrek some number. Which got expanded in the end because of.....concensus.
How would I know?
Your interpretation of the scaling problem would imply that calculus, and anything built on calculus, will never work. It all relies on adding very large numbers of very small things. Yet we design airplanes using this reasoning, and they don’t seem to fall out of the sky. The world is more complicated than “scaling always makes it less effective.”
In this case, some of the scaling issues help you. There are very large positive externalities: If I don’t get infected, I also do not transmit. Positive externalities make scaling easier. As you get larger, a higher percentage of the positive interactions feed back into your system. In your example, less than half of my interactions are with my ten closest friends. Most of the positive externalities escape. But, for a man my age in Tokyo, almost 100% of his contacts are with other Japanese citizens. Almost none of the positive externalities escape.
The result is that a scaled system can be considerably more effective than a small one.
Something that causes innate sexual arousal?
Wow you'll bend into a twister to defend your talisman, won't you.
As to calculus, it's a perfect example about why they don't trust the hard core STEM people to make the big decisions: it's exactly this kind of narrow minded thinking. The elegance of math is it's perfection. The real world is not perfect. In the real world variables and imperfections creep in. It's funny you mention the airplanes. My son was watching a "Young Sheldon" the other day which illustrates the problem perfectly. Young Sheldon was struggling with his first engineering class because his profe is a hard ass. As part of an assignment, Sheldon was asked to design a bridge. Being a mathematical genius, he designed it mathematically perfectly. But the 10+ times he turned his assignment, the profe kept tearing up the assignment saying it was wrong and to do it again. In the end, the moral was Sheldon was forgetting to factor in wind, which kept crashing his bridge. You are Young Sheldon and looking at the world in the exact same way!!! The best part is that the 10+ times Sheldon couldn't see it either and the profe wouldn't tell him what was wrong.
The idea that a scaled system can be considerably more effective than a small one BTW flies in the face of all economic thought. It's why econ is divided the first year into 101 and 102 and they are taken separately. The relationship between them isn't explored until 202. First the students need to understand how the models work...then they need to understand why those models are limited.
See comedy is your strong suit. Stick to that.
Are you under the impression that you’re the only person on the planet who ever took college economics?
Don’t just regurgitate your textbook. Think. A larger system does a better job trapping any externalities. If those externalities are positive, you are trapping the benefits. As a result, positive externalities improve scaling.
Infectious disease control has extremely large positive externalities. This means that infectious disease control has a major factor which helps scaling. You can’t just say “scaling never works because 202 said so.”.
He is now Mr. Magoon from the movie "Swamp Creatures."
You completely ignore the critique. Man, you really are just like young sheldon. You just see what you want to see and you stubbornly refuse to see it. It is like completely spot on. I'll have to tell my kid that...he didn't believe me that could actually happen and we got into this entire debate about how autism works (not saying you are autistic...but it's a good illustration that it does in fact happen).
Yes, there are positive externalities that improve scaling....of course. The problem, though, is the errors hypothesis....which is why scaling is almost always, when it comes to public policy, a problem. The larger the system, the more errors that creep in. I've outlined for you what those errors are. The same effect as your positive externalities take place...they multiply. Which gives you the real world results: why masks failed to do much of anything in actual practice when it came to national and regional results. Again, your entire assumption rests on a foundation that you think there's no wind. You think there's no imperfections because you want to see your perfect Soviet man, and you time and time again neglect the time factor as well. "That is why you fail"
I have to go. I'll be back to catch up with you all later. It's cool getting to know everyone better through this pandemic. It's been hard for most of us here and especially the kiddos. Let's do our part to make a better tomorrow for our children and widows. I Love you all my friends and even my foe(s). Were in for the coolest show ever you guys and if you stay alive through this crap, you will enjoy peace and happiness.
BTW, bit of an egg headed tangent here, but there is an entire field of economic study loosely grouped under the theory of "economies of scale" that generally studies efficiencies that can macroed up and multiplied. The counter to that, and the caution students learn, is the errors hypothesis: the larger the system, the harder it is to scale, the more errors that creep in. Business school is essentially, when you think about it, geared to achieving some of those efficiencies. Law school is geared to poking holes in them (except those frustratingly dogmatic guys in the "efficiency of capital markets schools"...I get the theory but they always always neglected the errors hypothesis which drove me nuts and which explains why the efficiency in capital markets schools is so bad at predicting bubbles and crashes). Most top tier law schools in the first year have something called "The Rounds" (or in some schools other names like "The auction") where employers show up and try to woe law students (portrayed in the movie "The Firm"). Consulting groups make the rounds trying to woo law students off the law firm track. I did the "Rounds" (since my Soviet ventures having fallen apart, I was looking for a new way to pull myself out of the particular alley I had taken). I asked them...so why you guys solicit lawyers for those jobs and don't just go across the river to the business school....the answer: 1) lawyers are particularly good at firing people, and 2) lawyers are particularly good at seeing the problems with the efficiency schemes of the business schools. End of tangental story.
whatithink
GOLD
Its written by some dude who is not a scientist, but who says he's read a lot of science stuff since March 2020, so that apparently gives him expertise (in his mind). His (scientific) contention is that there's a new paradigm (he believes in) and society as we know it will collapse if its not embraced. Doom and gloom merchant if everyone doesn't get on board with his view basically.
My take anyway ...
Wow this one really did ruffle the Covidian feathers. You've all come out for it. Really did hit close to home which tells me it's not just a yawn...interesting...move on.
the problem he's outlining isn't a scientific problem: it's a historical and philosophical one. He isn't contending that he believes in the new paradigm....he says there's a paradigm shift happening which he doesn't believe in. The result isn't society collapsing on itself, but it explains why on the new paradigm they seem to attack everyone outside of it as fringe or heretical. It's not doom and gloom for society, but he's explaining why he, a previously political centrist, feels lost, and why we can't seem to communicate with each other (because we are speaking from two different paradigms).
Hüsker Dü
DA
She is consumed with herself, the narrative she writes. Like a female Aff-leet aka the plumber. The Id is winning with that one.
whatithink
GOLD
His conclusion is below - "our paradigm" points to more than one. He then makes reference to "the new scientific paradigm", so I'm going out on a limb and saying that he is contending that there is a new paradigm. His last point is "the future of both medical science and society are at stake", so his take seems pretty doom & gloom to me.
Its fascinating to me how first world problems seem so catastrophic to first worlders, and would be absolute bliss to literally billions around the world. If the last couple of years are the worse "hardships" our first world countries have to endure in our lifetimes, then we will have been blessed.
"We anti-lockdown centrists are fully prepared to argue on both facts and principles, and we continue to hope that our paradigm will win out. We believe that the new scientific paradigm fails even on Kuhn’s own terms, because it provides no better model for understanding the phenomena. But, beyond that, we maintain that the old paradigms – both scientific and social – really are more true to the natural world and to human nature. So we hope that our communities can be convinced both that most anti-Covid measures have proved ineffective, and that their social price is far too high. Such arguments will not be easy, because dialogue between paradigms never is. The first step is for both sides to see that the debate is indeed between rival paradigms, and that, consequently, the future of both medical science and society are at stake."
even comparing your 2 responses back to back, he does it better.
Hüsker Dü
DA
That’s hockey.
well, I'll give you this...I agree the closing rhetoric is overblown. But i do agree with his point: that how the paradigm plays out will determine how medical science and society evolve.
I'm actually more optimistic than he is for one simple reason: The Europeans seem to be much more restrained than our blue checks, and given the political wave that is building in the US (again, short of Trump or some other factor derailing it), the Ds are in for a spanking of epic proportions which will (one way or another) end this (or at least substantially shift it). in the long run, though, I have faith truth wins out. Prediction 5-10 years from now we'll be having self-reflexive articles wondering what did we do (particularly to children as those children grow up into adult hood).