What are they actually up to??!
They say bitcoin mining, but are they actually secretly gearing up for time travel?
I was glancing at the @Core_Scientific Q1 2024 earning call transcript, and this jumped out at me...
https://t.co/gVrnj1963P
@RogerPielkeJr@AlexEpstein I found this odd. I looked it up and the book says "virtually no possibility" about this scenario "...over the next 30 years..." Do you think it's accurate to quote this without including "in the near future" and "over the next 30 years" - which are how the book presents this?
@DanCady@AlexEpstein 2nd article documented in detail how, whatever the merits of Alex's points, Jody's 1st article engaged a set of straw man positions directly at odds with Alex's published positions. Seems clearly so. Do you agree/not? Do you think it would be better to refute actual positions?
@DanCady@AlexEpstein Seems he's aware and his thoroughly documented reply was published in the same legal journal. Did you see that? https://t.co/4V36rRL98W
@AlexEpstein Send one to @garytaubes I think he’ll be interested in your chapter on the structure of how the “knowledge system” propagates (and often errs) in communicating science.
@Trampoukkos1@wizkiddss@MartyMakary@AmeshAA@medpagetoday In that article: “[Long COVID] is noticeably less common than in unvaccinated people,” and, "COVID-19 vaccines...offered about 50% protection against...infection...then further reduces the risk of long COVID in those who develop a breakthrough infection by another half..."
@ShellenbergerMD I always wish these big-picture graphs would break "renewables" into dispatchable and non-dispatchable renewables. This would be interesting and seems enormously important and relevant.
@ClimateActionRI @AlexEpstein@ShellenbergerMD Working as a consultant ≠ being a lobbyist, does it?
(1) Factual disagreement > (2) Ad hom.
(2) Ad hom > (3) false ad hom.
Why not just (1)??
Does that report show these arguments are attracting thoughtful people rather than repelling them?
Yes, a misspelling on Twitter.
@mackinprof Yes, the strange "don't do anything challenging" as the "do no harm" medical advice default. But: metabolism and physical activity never drop to zero, and we have observations that activity levels in space and in bed rest are *rapidly* dangerous. So what is ideal? This matters!
@Gena_I_Gorlin I feel intrigued…and some resonance at the suggestions that maybe I *should* criticize myself, and maybe the ways I *do* criticize myself aren’t best for me. And maybe I can evolve to becoming a better critic (“best” vs. “worst critic” in the title).
Adding to the trend of data that exercise is beneficial to both duration and quality of life; and that higher intensity exercise is more beneficial to both: