To all the credentialists, my domain of expertise is generalism. But if we do go by your rules, don't gatekeep unless you have a phd in the field of gatekeeping, if not tenure. I would prefer no human self-limits, but if you are going to, don't push stupid memes on others too.
Wonder why world records get pushed up a little at a time and after a while the qualification is above where the world record used to be? Maybe we found fundamentally better ways to do sport, but it also may play a part that we calibrate self-expectations on what our peers can do
Specialization is a psyop.
The most reliable way to get ahead of your peers is to get good at many domains and transfer insights between them. If you don't trust me on this, trust the person that's founded the most billion $ companies in history, and isn't even 50 yet.
The insight to truly understand is that all true facts click into each other and all form a single reality. Areas of expertise can be a convenient shorthand, but when the turf wars begin, we're lost.
Specialization is like a firebreak, but instead of fire, it stops innovation and human flourishing. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak
We tell ourselves that our knowledge is advanced in an absolute sense, but so did every other era of humanity, and we know for sure they weren't even scratching the surface. Some know more than others in some domains, but none of us knows anything compared to what is out there.
The faster we get over ourselves and stop parading our degrees around the faster we get busy working on the project that really matters. At least peacock tails are waterproof.
Principally, she insists work was done in BSL-4, when in fact Shi Zhengli has clearly said the work was being done in BSL-2 and BSL-3. Who do we believe? sciencemag.org/sites/default/…
Anderson: “If people were sick, I assume that I would have been sick—and I wasn’t,” she said. “I was tested for coronavirus in Singapore before I was vaccinated, and had never had it.”
Koopmans: nbcnews.com/nightly-news/v…
After digging into December 2019 COVID-19 events, a significant cluster of... shadows relating to September and October 2019 emerged. This is the thread in which we'll gather everything unusual from August 2019 to mid-December 2019, just so we've got a net wide enough.
This is a thread to collect all early knowledge western scientists had of the outbreak in Wuhan. I want to try to understand any pattern of information spread that can be extracted, if there's something there.
Ron Fouchier, Deputy Head of the Erasmus MC department of Viroscience in the Netherlands, claims to have known about the virus during the first week of December 2019:
Variants are evolving. It may get better or worse.
Supply chains in chaos. Waiting times for some components now touching 2 years. It may get better or worse. As we hope for the best, let's plan for the worst. What happens to supply chains if a variant mostly escapes vaccines?
If our electronics ecosystem of 2019 was like an animal evolved for times of plenty, what does an electronics ecosystem evolved for famine look like? There will certainly be disruption and short term chaos, but afterwards, I suspect things may not be as bad as we fear.
I've been digging into the hardware supply chain with team balena for a few years and what I saw was disheartening. Many components have serious lead times (dozens of weeks) and high "minimum order quantity". Just this one fact makes hardware incredibly hard.
I can target by all sorts of demographic characteristics: location, language, device, age, and gender. I can target by audience: interests, keywords, movies...🧵
I can literally make a list with the people I want to target, and buy ads to target them. So... what if I target myself?
Like, literally, make a list, add myself to it, and pay twitter top dollar to show me a white banner ad. Or a kitten or something. If that works, I would be paying twitter an amount to *not* show me ads, but replace them with neutral/awwww content. Almost like YouTube Premium.
So, not a doctor here, and I know nothing about Ivermectin. But I have a few questions for anyone willing to engage. I promise I won't press too hard, I appreciate anyone trying to honestly engage.
1. What would have to be true for 60 controlled trials, 30 of those randomized, no matter the size, to all be pointing in the same direction? What's our alternative explanation here?
2. What's the rationale for the FDA controlling use of a substance that's no more dangerous than certain kitchen spices? Forget effectiveness, given that we know it's very well tolerated, what's the rationale for not allowing people to make their own choices here?