A sentence made out of fluff. What technology? AMD took x86 and gave it wings, better efficiency, neither is only negligible iterative improvements. Intel failed to use lower nm nodes as a first fail.
Eximius
joined 2 years ago
"[The paper] admitted that the research did not "prove" an association between the MMR vaccine and autism."
"He was reportedly asked to leave the Royal Free Hospital [around 2001] after refusing a request [presumably around 1999] to validate his 1998 Lancet paper with a controlled study."
You could say it took to long to retract the paper, which was essentially full of data-fudged "maybes". But it supposedly was "science" until it was uncovered as just fraud.
Apart from the data fudging, and intense bullshit and hype-train pushing by the now deregistered "professional" [fraudster].
Sorry, this just shows the resillience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption.
No lmao.
You'll have to actually reference a published paper for that claim.
- You completely disregarded the paper.
- Completely disregarded peer review as a thing without any grounding.
- Went ad hominem as a hail marry.
Bye.
Relying on logic and rationalism is just intelligence. Emotional Intelligence is understanding and to some degree using peoples emotions, if you want to be very correct. You dont use emotions to define social policy, and hopefully, any social policy will be devoid of emotions, because that can only lead towards confusion, biasedness and group mentality.
If you want to define EI as ability to step away from one's own emotions. Sure. We can agree with that. Personally I would just call that intelligence.
That is complete unfounded fluff words. No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say. Look at the paper at least briefly and we can discuss.
I think you can download it here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict
Of interest maybe would be the indicators of a campaigns success:
The outcomes of these campaigns are identiªed as “success,” “limited success,” or “failure.” To be designated a “success,” the campaign must have met two criteria: (1) its stated objective occurred within a reasonable period of time (two years) from the end of the campaign; and (2) the campaign had to have a discernible effect on the outcome.40 A “limited success” occurs when a campaign obtained signiªcant concessions (e.g., limited autonomy, local power sharing, or a non-electoral leadership change in the case of dictatorship) although the stated objectives were not wholly achieved (i.e., territorial independence or regime change through free and fair elections).41 A campaign is coded a “failure” if it did not meet its objectives or did not obtain signiªcant concessions.42
They werent selectively chosen. " An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims." As well as any researcher who isn't a complete buffoon would only look at statistics that has only a 2-3 sigma chance of only being stochastic noise.
I guess that's a fair example. But logically sounds impossible for such control over the population to be had. If a group went out to the streets to oust the government, you would say at least maybe 45% would join.
There is the semi-usually-known research that suggests 3.5% is enough for non-violent protests to reach changes. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/chen15682
0.5% is 1 in 200 people, essentially everyone knowing personally one person who is against the government. Maybe it isn't enough.
But also, 0.5% homogenously (instead of country-wide being concentrated in Moscow), would be 600k people peacefully marching in Moscow streets
It, honestly, is not. If you want to decide what is fair, what is true, what is good, you dont fucking believe the universe god flows through your emotions. Instead, you think logically, and try to analize and understand what in the human world are the concepts of liberty, good life. And also, analizing whether your emotions are dumbly guiding you in stupid directions.
You cannot solve any societal problems with emotional feeling of what is good. That is what republicans do. Empirical bullshit loosely based on their inherent emotional desires of racism, chauvinism and the rest of the assorted bag of megalomaniac insanity pills.
I was agreeing to you and laughing at how downvoted he was.