Among health "experts" who tweeted about Monkeypox, there was a dramatic tendency to get basic facts wrong.
For example, many claimed risk wasn't especially heightened among gay men.
PhDs were among the worst misinformation spreaders.
Being an "expert", being "credentialed", having "studied" something and so on, is not sufficient to make someone truly credible, to endow their words with reliability.
Being right is, and most popular "experts" were usually not right.
The picture looks much the same as the one last year🧵
When you rescale these curves by the numbers who took the test, you get this:
If you subset to the states where basically all high school students take the test (the "Representative" sample), the picture looks highly similar to the national one:
I just got done listening to Rogan's interview of Vance
It was substantive, and it is nice to hear that Vance would bring a lot of reasonability to the Trump White House if elected
Due to how long the interview was, it also showed off Vance's unusual-for-a-Republican priorities
To be frank, Vance is a Christian Democrat from 2008.
His views are basically just rejecting recent, wacky things and wanting a state that stays out of the way of the healthy, while providing extensive services for the unhealthy.
Vance focuses a lot on mental health, drug addiction, and people who he believes might only be temporarily struggling.
This makes total sense if you know about how disturbingly bad his early life was, and how it was plagued by drug addiction and poverty problems.
I'm not going to rig an ongoing poll by linking directly to it, but I will say that >90% of respondents so far were wrong:
The answer is climate🧵
Anatomically modern humans first appeared around 200,000 years ago.
After a few false starts, the dawn of man took place with a series of dispersions out of Africa about 60,000 years ago.
By 40-50 thousand years ago, humans had made it most places, and by 10-20, to the Americas
Practically all of that time dispersing took place as hunter-gatherers.
Specifically, nomadic hunter-gatherers. The real advent that made agriculture possible wasn't changing the mode of subsistence per se, but changing to sedentism.
What does labor-saving technology do to workers? Does it make them poor? Does it take away their jobs?
Let's review!
First: Most papers do support the idea that technology takes people's jobs.
This needs qualified.
Most types of job-relevant technology do take jobs, but innovation is largely excepted, because, well, introducing a new innovation tends to, instead, give employers money they can use to hire people.
But if technology takes jobs, why do we still have jobs?
Simple: Because through stimulating production and demand, it also reinstates laborers!
This is supported by the overwhelming majority of studies:
I just read one of the most interesting climatic reconstructions I've ever seen.
This one gives us temperature records for the last 485 MILLION years.
The reconstruction is based on a lot of different methods, but the one that really stood out was the part where they leveraged the shell chemistry of single-celled organisms' fossils.
Wild that this is possible and someone thought of it!
With these little organisms' data in hand, it's possible to obtain a high-fidelity picture of the past in which we emerged on the global scene.
That picture is one that averages much, much colder than basically any other period in time.