Is this something you came up with yourself? Or is it a well known meditation technique? Or derived from one? And for how long do you do this at a time?
Friend of mine did weekly classes, and labeled the classes as "Tantra", but the only interpersonal interaction was a ~5m eye gaze with the teacher sometime during ~1-2 hour class. So I don't have any clue what terms to use to find it on the 'net.
Actually, you can select which Chrome to use for the Webview in Android developer settings if you have Installed multiple versions of Chrome. Chrome stands on its own.
I don’t follow this closely, and this may have changed recently but As of 6 months ago, people have managed to download an unencrypted copy from Google Drive by impersonating the WhatsApp app.
Yeah,
I really don't understand why people are still comparing these numbers like this.
It's much more objective to just compare "excess number of deaths compared to last year per million".
Like the New York times did:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...
the answer is simple: the data is there. you can't compare vietnam and germany on that page - if you can access it. (if i have to signup to read or buy, i'm not really interested. anonymous access used to be possible with paper, and it's still possible today)
I think it's only marginally useful though; for example you can't rationally make personal or policy decisions using this because the distortion Inthe data that the gp flagged is so large, and also we are so early in this event. In 18 months we will see!
In some countries the excess deaths are higher that during a worst flew year in the last 5 years.
But also, since the virus is growing exponentially, differences in countries is by 10-100x, while the differences in the number of tests performed seems to be closer to 2-10x.
I don't buy this. If the article explains it correctly, the argument is that they can show that in place where the climate was stable, and humans were new, the megafouna went extinct. But that implies that they believe that there were places on the planet were the climate was stable. If you look at the greenland Ice core data, you can see extreme peaks and falls around the last quarterly extinction. So sounds like BS to me.
I think you are being downvoted because you are using the appeal to authority: 'trust them, they have credentials that say they should be trusted on this very subject'.
This repurposed quote from the raiders of the lost ark might also work:
I think an appeal to authority is only fallacious when it's an appeal to an authority that has no relevant expertise. Something like "my dentist says that anthropogenic climate change isn't real, you don't think you're smarter than a doctor do you?"
In contrast, when it comes down to John Q. Internet vs a scientist with relevant expertise, I think it's a reasonable heuristic to think the scientist is more likely to be correct.
IMO the downvotes were more related to the delivery than the content.
Interestingly, there seems to be an equality bias[1] where the experts opinions weight no more than any other person's opinion. So apparently the reasonable heuristic isn't always applied in how we perceive and judge information.
Yes, but appeal to authority is still appeal to authority as opposed to discussing the merits of the idea. In this place we are better than that. Or we should be.
If the discussion was "who is more likely to be right", well, that's a different matter and I'd agree with credentials. But that's not an interesting discussion really.
Yeah, I was thinking it was that or my probably-unneccessary flippant attitude. (And btw, I truly do appreciate HN's habit of trying to explain downvotes.)
I just get triggered at low-effort skepticism. Tomsaga read the word "stable" and assumed it meant "absolutely stable", and didn't ask himself "huh, I wonder if the pop-sci article is masking a more complicated concept with an easy-to-digest concept".
To get more into the climate stability: What they're doing is measuring the difference in temperature and precipitation between the Last Glacial Max and the Last Interglacial. And the maps don't even have `0` in their range, they have a small number but not zero. So yes, climate wasn't stable, but they were able to measure "how stable" it was. (Pages 1-3 in the paper.)
