If you're not talking about communism, then don't use one of my trigger words! If you're talking about intervention in a capitalist market, to whatever degree, then it's not communism. Communism is one end of the scale. If you take something that's black, and then lighten it slightly so that it's a dark grey, then don't say that's it's bright white, when it's clearly not. For example, Biden's stimulus* does not involve a complete abolition of private ownership.

I wasn't saying that all intervention is slight, or that the stimulus is slight. I was saying that even when an intervention is only slight, it's still reported as communist. Larger interventions are reported as communist, too. Anything that inhibits the libertarian drive to further enrich the ultra-rich, anything that stands against the laissez-faire bleed-the-population-dry libertarian ideal... is reported as communist.

This is a different argument, it's the Steven Pinker 'better angels' argument. Probably, in general, he has a point. Certainly poor people in developed nations live vastly better lives than they did a century or two ago. However, this can't be taken as justification not to intervene. An extreme example to illustrate the general point: If I work in air traffic control and see two planes that are about to crash into one another, then should I alert the pilots and get them to change course, or should I let them crash and die because there is no need to intervene because air travel in general is so much safer nowadays than it used to be? If one in three people in the world don't have access to safe drinking water, then should we intervene and tax billionaires to better fund foreign aid, or should we do nothing because some poor people nowadays even have cable TV?

Appreciate the discussion, BTW, even though we are always on opposing sides



*'Biden's Stimulus' would be a great name for a caffeinated sports drink

I didn't actually read that far. I stopped at 'UFO flap'. It really confused me and created some disturbing mental images, and I felt that I couldn't continue.



Not that long ago, it was actually February 25th last year. And even after a rigorous and substantial scientific debate that extended to 16,025 posts, it's arguable that we didn't reach a definitive conclusion.

Some of you may have heard about the latest results from the LHCb experiment at CERN, which suggests (currently 3.1σ) a violation of lepton flavour universality and hence of the standard model of particle physics.

I thought it might be worth writing a post to highlight how physics, and science in general, advances. I'll leave it up to you to compare and contrast with how religion and other forms of truth work.

The standard model underpins the modern scientific understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe and all elementary particles. It's the ground upon which everything else is built. However, it's incomplete. There are gaps in the explanation - such as how it describes three of the four fundamental forces, but doesn't encompass gravity.

So the standard model is treated not as an absolute, perfect and inviolable truth. but rather as our best approximation so far. Instead of ignoring or glossing over its imperfections, physicists instead focus their attention on these areas, and work relentlessly to unpick the uncertainties and ambiguities. Essentially, they try to break it, so that its faults can be understood and new understanding can arise.

This can be seen in the way that physicists are reacting to the news. The basis of their understanding and expertise may be under threat, but instead of challenging this and trying to fortify their long-established positions, they welcome the new developments... because the search is for truth, regardless of whether or not it is desired or convenient.

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/intriguing-new-result-lhcb-experiment-cern


... And this is how science proceeds. Previous theories are revealed to be simply approximations. Every advancement that tears down preconceptions is welcomed. Because the search is for truth, not for the reinforcement of an ideology.

https://lhcbproject.web.cern.ch/Publications/p/LHCb-PAPER-2021-004.html


... And here's an image of a high energy proton-proton collision from CERN, producing an explosion of more than 100 particles. Physicists literally breaking stuff in order to see what comes out of it, in an ever-advancing and never-ending search for truth.




edit: typo

Clicked on this because I thought it was a thread about that kid from the Simpsons who didn't want any damn vegetables. Or was that Todd? I forget.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Is this an NSFW thing?

The issue here I think is that outlandish claims really require some evidence, otherwise they undermine the whole argument, and any points that might actually be valid. Not saying anything here is valid, just that even if it was, the unsubstantiated gravity bit is a warning sign.

I don't think that 'Everyone must be forced to' sits very well with libertarianism.
I do think reading is vitally important, and in general I wish people read more. Having said that, I didn't read through your list of recommendations, because I did a CTRL+F for Ayn Rand as an initial quality check.


Evidence? Not saying you're doing this, but I do get a bit sick of the hysterical shrieking of 'Communism!' at any slight government intervention in the markets. Anything that acts as a brake on the libertarian ideal of letting all money flow to the ultra-rich is decried as communist. It's absurd, and not remotely convincing.

I've not considered this before, but I wonder if Islam plays a role here.
Islam is obviously a major influence on Turkish people, and Islam considers betting to be unacceptable behaviour... so if we consider that people often bet to support their own country, we might see a lot of Dutch people betting for the Netherlands to win, and a lot of Turkish people not betting at all. Which could skew the betting heavily towards the Netherlands, which would then be reflected in the odds that are offered.

It might be worth investigating this, if no-one has already. Are teams from Islamic nations always under-estimated in betting odds?

Thinking of poker... it's certainly true that playing online enables you to hide emotions etc much more easily, but it's still possible to read people online based on their behaviour in previous hands. Persistent bluffers can be easy to spot, as can overly cautious players who only ever raise with a great hand. The longer a game goes on, the more obvious patterns of play emerge.

Playing unpredictably is a solid strategy, because if you are predictable, whether in online games or not, you'll lose.

Barca are certainly peaking at the right time. I've just had a look at their last 5 league games: 5 wins, scored 17, conceded 2. And the margins are getting bigger, too. 6-1 last time out. 4-1 before that.
Atletico can't afford any slip-ups now.


Something to consider for the summer, I suppose. Right now he is in good form and propelling the team up the table.
But at least if they do lose him, it will ease their financial situation somewhat.

The Chinese government don't need to create and fund a global pandemic to do this. They were already quite adept at spreading fear and controlling their own population. And I don't see how it is advantageous for China on the global stage, either. Whatever PR gains they make from their vaccine diplomacy are more than outweighed by setting themselves up as a scapegoat for the poor pandemic management by Western governments. If you are going to damage your enemies with a pandemic, you'd at least make sure the thing doesn't spread around the world by erupting out of your own country. You'd make it start in the US, surely?



This is true. But it is also true that the best way to protect yourself (and others) against Covid is to take the vaccine. It would be quite a logical conundrum were the correct choice not so obvious.

I just have a comment to make on something you said in that linked thread - didn't want to necro-post there, so it goes here instead


A crucial point here surely is that if 34,424 people had Covid, and 107 later tested positive again... this does not mean that 0.31% of people who have Covid are likely to be reinfected.
The reason being that we don't know how many of the 34,424 initial people were subsequently exposed to the virus again. If say only 1070 of them were exposed again, then the reinfection rate is 10%. If 107 of them were exposed again, then the reinfection rate is 100%.

Unless I'm misreading the paper, which I might be, but that is how it reads to me.

Hmm. The evidence of his entire adult life suggests otherwise. I see him as more of a Trump-lite*.


If it's unclear what is happening, then given that people's lives are potentially at stake, it would be sensible for a government to be over-cautious rather than take a gamble.
But in this instance I think it was fairly clear what would happen given the situation in China and, later, as the virus made its way across Europe, Italy. It would be a welcome change if one day governments started to listen to the scientists instead of some lives vs $$$ cost-benefit analysis.

Having said that, I do appreciate that the argument that the UK could just have shut up shop like New Zealand did is overly simplistic, given that New Zealand has a much smaller population and is not a global transport hub.


* but with a Twitter account.

Yes, Atletico have the hardest run-in of the top three teams, and Sevilla will be a big test, especially as it's away.
I do still think Atletico will win the title, but getting a win in this one is really important to maintain the gap over the chasing duo of Real and Barca.

Atletico's next game after that is Betis on 11 April... but by then Barca and Real will have played against each other on 10 April, so one or both of them will have dropped points.
If Atletico can beat Sevilla, they might have a nice cushion by the time of their following match.

When is the right time to gamble on football? It's always unpredictable, partly because scores are often so low - a single fluke goal can decide a match.

But I think the start of a season, when teams are a bit rusty, and the end of a season, when some teams don't have much to play for and lose motivation - these are the times when it is most unpredictable, and we get some strange results. So in general, I think, middle of the season is most reliable for predictions.

... but of course it all depends on what odds are being offered. Odds are of course based on results aligning with expected outcomes, so times of uncertainty (start and end of season) may give you the best chance of beating the odds.

I suspect that this thread only exists because the 25th was raised as a possibility vs Trump.

As for how he'll leave office, probably after one term. Agree that his age is certainly a concern. The main issue for the Republicans in '24 is if Trump has a new party to split their vote, and Harris wins the election with ease.

I'm not convinced by the rumours. I can see why this might be a possibility... but surely Mercedes would actually want to test the car during that limited 3 day window? I can't believe they deliberately created fake problems which caused them to miss large parts of testing.

Yes, definitely. All will become clear soon enough. Not long to wait for the first race now

Nice use of selective quotation to completely misrepresent my point. Thanks. Unless that wasn't intentional, and the issue is simply that you didn't read to the end of my statement. In which case, here it is again:


So, to summarise: Covid19 is like flu in the sense that it will stay with us, and will be controlled through vaccination, updated when necessary to counter new variants.




Bit of a weird non sequitur. Not sure why you are bringing this up as a possibility, or what relevance it has to the discussion.

Well, for one thing it's a novel coronavirus. It's new to humans, so there is no pre-existing immunity, so it spreads rapidly through a population. For a historical example, consider European colonisation of the Americas, and the effects of the diseases they brought with them, diseases that were new to the native populations.

It's difficult to tell just from that short testing window, but Mercedes do seem to have some problems, which could certainly give Verstappen a chance.
From what I've seen though it doesn't seem to be the engine, the issue is about stability at the rear of the car... difficult to tell also, because testing was in Bahrain, how much of this is due to the Mercedes usual weakness in the hotter countries. But as for Honda 21 engine being better than Mercedes 20... I'd imagine the Mercedes 21 engine is likely to also be better than Mercedes 20.

Who knows, though? Just guessing at the moment... but we will get an idea very soon, with the first race of the season. Can't wait

Yes, Atletico have to win, and I think they will. At this stage of the season, we also need to consider goal difference. Real are 3 points behind Atletico, and have played a game more... but even if Real can close the 3 point gap, Atletico will likely remain ahead on goal difference... this could prove crucial as the title race moves into its closing stages. Barca, by contrast, have a superior goal difference to Atletico.

Yes, just like flu. It's a matter of widespread vaccination, updated when necessary to counter new variants. Covid19 will not go away, but it can be controlled, and life can return to normal. Countries with advanced vaccination programmes are already seeing the benefits.