daughart

5 ms·

1.
by daughart 4y ago
All seems sensical to me.
2.
by daughart 4y ago
The RM UP-01 is thinner. "This new ultra-thin timepiece is a mere 1.75mm in thickness beating out Bulgari by a walloping 0.05mm." Source: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/richard-mille-sets-a-new-r...
3.
by daughart 5y ago
Federal patent law defines patent infringement as “mak[ing], us[ing], offer[ing] to sell, or sell[ing]” a patented invention. Not an attorney, but seems like it would be quite a stretch to argue that becoming infected with a virus would fal
4.
by daughart 5y ago
Ideology has been and will always be a guiding force in science. Western genetics was heavily influenced by capitalism. Many concepts in Soviet genetics ended up being closer to correct than competing Western theories, although it took a wh
5.
by daughart 5y ago
Just like Howard Stern (note, SiriusXM also owns Spotify). They traded a broader audience and greater influence for stability and gigantic paychecks. E.g., in Howard's case, even though his personal influence shrunk, his importance to
6.
by daughart 5y ago
Your first two citations merely suggest there would be limited benefits to previously infected getting the jab. Other research disagrees with this. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01609-4
7.
by daughart 5y ago
You know that all US parents are published, after approximately 1 year, in publicly searchable databases, right? I’m sure NIAID had better things to do… like fighting a pandemic. The real question is why you are so afraid of the vaccine, so
8.
by daughart 5y ago
Why take the time to argue a point that's easily disproven? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/12/jerome-cor... Fauci isn't an inventor or owner of any COVID vaccine patents. Even i
9.
by daughart 5y ago
Why in the hell would big Pharma pay any media to promote the vaccines? Most of the revenue is already booked from state actors, and they're literally selling the cure to a global pandemic. They don't need to juice demand - such a
10.
by daughart 5y ago
The thing I don't understand is some people's implied or sometimes explicitly expressed belief that medical researchers are suppressing promising COVID treatments for some reason. Clinical trial research is perhaps the most comple
11.
by daughart 5y ago
Unless I missed where the article revealed the scientist's gender, the interviewee may not be male. I agree it was an enjoyable read, though!
12.
by daughart 5y ago
And the villagers were the ones to blame in "the boy who cried wolf".
13.
by daughart 5y ago
This is a debatable point. Mullis definitely patented PCR, but there's a legitimate argument Har Gobind Khorana (another Nobel winner, for separate contributions to biology) actually invented PCR almost two decades prior. According to
14.
by daughart 6y ago
No citation for the illustration of the mechanism of action, maybe JAMA or NEJM?
15.
by daughart 8y ago
What makes you think sexual selection led to increased intelligence in humans? In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure humans are even that sexually dimorphic TBH, I believe the size dimorphism is actually pretty small compared to
16.
by daughart 8y ago
Maybe something you're missing is the concept of "evolvability". You can see the book "Resolving Darwin's Dilemma" (review here: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/56/9&#
17.
by daughart 8y ago
The article assumes Uber can go on offering cheaper rides forever, but every piece of serious analysis I've read comes to the conclusion that Uber must eventually raise its prices to sustain its business. Nothing in the NYT article att
18.
by daughart 9y ago
$40 Amazon Fire tablet.
19.
by daughart 9y ago
Anonymous participants in genome research have been re-identified in the past [0]. In one of these examples, people were re-identified merely using zip code, date of birth and gender. Everyone should assume that they can be identified once
20.
by daughart 9y ago
Especially given the reporting about him offending his classmates at Harvard.
21.
by daughart 9y ago
Your position is scientifically illiterate but I suppose it's worth pointing out why: It would require basically one gene to control these complex behavioral traits, which is implausible. Moreover, such a strong, population-specific, s
22.
by daughart 9y ago
I insinuated no such thing. Bluster is an appropriate username for you.
23.
by daughart 9y ago
Why could it plausibly explain the differences? Seems like a huge leap to me. Basically there is some evidence that men and women are different, on average, to some extent, at the neuropsychological level. There is no evidence linking sex-r
24.
by daughart 9y ago
I think it's perfectly reasonable to fire someone for expressing personal opinions counter to company policies. How is this not a classic example of culture fit?
25.
by daughart 9y ago
Both of those statements, even if true, say absolutely nothing about the relative abilities of men and women to write software.
26.
by daughart 9y ago
The fact that you equate a few studies with "clinical fact" shows you do not understand how science works. http://retractionwatch.com
27.
by daughart 9y ago
It would truly be strange if genetic divergence over approximately 100,000 years (between these populations) ended up affecting a behavioral trait that has only been important for about 100 years in one of these populations. Well, it might
28.
by daughart 9y ago
You should read a little about the history and sociology of science.
29.
by daughart 9y ago
As said elsewhere in this thread: Anyone who wants to use "science" in this way needs to read "The Golem" by prominent sociologists of science Collins and Pinch. It's a short, enjoyable read. One of the things you&#
30.
by daughart 9y ago
Anyone who wants to use "science" in this way needs to read "The Golem" by prominent sociologists of science Collins and Pinch. It's a short, enjoyable read. One of the things you'll learn is that science can

More ›