No it doesn’t. I’m not trying to make a point about vaccines, just that the study is a population study and so shows benefits on average to a population.
If the vaccine killed 1/100 people (again I don’t believe this but it’s the internet) but made the other 99 immune to dying over the 4 years, it would look really good on average even if it was directly responsible for the deaths of 1%.
This comment helps me understand how folks see "your taxes will go up $10k but you won't pay $20k in health insurance premiums" as a hit to the pocketbook.
Well, if say the vaccine gave 1/100 fatal lung cancer then a population study would show a decrease in covid deaths and an increase in lung cancer deaths though.
It's only the case if the vaccine gave everybody slightly higher chances of dying from everything that it could hide in the weeds.
So in this specific example we can see from Table 2 that deaths/1 million are just lower for everything in the vaccinated so it's not the case that it lowered one kind of death drastically at the expense of another.
Don't those 99 enjoy being alive despite all of the things that would have killed some of them had they not taken the vaccine? If "some" is at least 1%, that sounds like an individual benefit to me.
If you take the vaccine, you have a lower chance of dying over those 4 years. You also have an infinitely higher chance (specifically 1% vs 0%) of dying from the vaccine, but that doesn't change the previous sentence.
If you look at things like physical strength for instance, the difference is quite marked. That some females can be stronger than some men does not change the fundamental distribution. This is not a construct of the mind.
If male and female abilities differ, it should follow that our social expectations differ.
If you are using "female" as a noun in a sentence to refer to human women, it is a good idea to also refer to human men as "male". It is more consistent and doesn't end up dehumanizing one side.
People seeing this inconsistency may jump to conclusions about your thoughts on men and women.
When the variation within the category is greater than the variation between categories, it's worth asking just how useful or informative the categories actually are.
If by muscular and skinny you mean that one has more capacity for developping strength, then sure, why not ? Should our expectations not be based on ability ?
No, I meant exactly what you wrote. You say that since physical strength of men and women differ their cognitive abilities should differ too. The physical strength of muscular and skinny men differ too, hence, according to your argument, their cognitive abilities should differ too.
I did not say anything about logic or emotions. I'm also not sure I agree with your characterization of Donald Trump.
For the sake of argument, let's say I had mentioned logic and emotions and you were right about Trump. He would just be an example of an outlier (which by the way he obviously is, although not in the way you imply), not an argument against my point which is that male and female distributions are quite distinct for some traits, with little overlap.
Direct solar thermal that would produce 600 C would require expensive tracking concentrators. These lose a lot of energy to reradiation, don't use diffuse sunlight, and now you have very hot fluid you have to convey to your storage mass. With PV, you can just send electricity to resistive heaters in the storage mass.
Sure, humans also use pattern recognition. That's part of intelligence. What makes humans different is subjective, first-person experience.
An LLM is just matrix multiplication. The computer running it is just a very complex electron "flipper". There's nothing in an electron flipper that can give first-person subjective experience.
This is often cited in catholic and orthodox circles to bolster the marian doctrines, as it entails the virgin mary had cells from Jesus in her body for the rest of her life.
Interesting that suddenly they promote one very specific finding from cellular biology so they can say "our religious belief is scientifically proven", but reject much more established understandings of embryonic cells when it comes to questions of e.g. abortion or origins of life.
I'd argue that science is not an a la carte menu where you can pick facts if they happen to support your argument...
Can you share a particular source? I've actually had an idea in the past about changing rigidity in soft armor to reduce trauma. It's most likely unfeasible, but it would be interesting if someone already built something similar (as is the case with every reasonably patentable idea I've ever had).
There are many examples used as limb & joint protection for motorcycling and mountain biking. D3O, xmatter, SAS-TEC: brand-names of various non-newtonian shear-thickening substances used to allow flexibility and conforming to body motion but firming up under hard/sudden impacts to spread the forces. Not quite as soft or flexible as a fancy sci-fi material would need to be for a full-body armor, but certainly much more comfortable than the hard plastic materials previously used for protecting extremities.
These are often demonstrated by protecting a hand from a hammer blow, and I know from experience they are very adequate for protecting knees and elbows from trees, hard ground, and moderately pointy rocks. However, it's unclear if the shear-thickening is significant enough to protect against an actual sword strike or knife stab, and very unlikely that they could withstand a modern projectile weapon.
The idea is proven, but would need some further materials breakthrough to approach the level of sci-fi armor.
Not combat-armor, but a lot of motorcycle protective gear is exactly this. D3O is soft/flexible normally, but goes rigid on impact. I have plates of it in my own riding gear. I believe there's also some progressive versions that harden more or less based on the impact force.
reply