Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dorlomin last won the day on June 16 2015

dorlomin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,806 Excellent


About dorlomin

  • Rank
    Golden Shoe Winner

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • My Team

Recent Profile Visitors

19,666 profile views
  1. What Kuhn called "incommensurability between paradigms". Perhaps Trump emerged from a general global trends in western democracies as those with " weirdly inflated sense of self importance and inability to construct decent arguments" state, i.e. some political scientists. Or perhaps Trump was created by Obama "on many levels". I have offered my view with explanations. Others have offered their best efforts: Perhaps primate biology is not their strong suite. But hey, every child wins a prize. Was Obama a president constrained by realpolitik of the make up of the legislative and the mood of the nation or was he some kind of wastrel who threw away a golden opportunity and created Trump. My contention is that the political landscape severely constrained the 44th president. His presidency can only be seen in light of the economic and political world it existed in. Others disagree, there argument must be brilliant because you all agree with them without seeing them. Look at you being all clever on the internet. Strutting around like you are Hegel reborn.
  2. The below post will be long and somewhat technical: A lot of nonsense in written about Keto online but it is a pretty good strategy for losing weight. It has been used for people with diabetes and epilepsy for nearly a century. The body changes from using glucose to keytones for its energy. It belongs to a range of diets that target hormonal regulation for their effect. Behind many of them lies the idea of reducing your "insulin sensitivity", that is your cells are resistant to the signalling of insulin. This means cells do not take in glucose from the blood as readily and the body has to produce more insulin to get the cells to absorb the glucose. The problem here is that insulin signals for hunger (its a complex process). So as you become more insulin resistant you feel hungry easier. Diets such as "low GI", that is diets that aim to have your bulk carbs from low gi foods: https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/what-is-the-glycaemic-index-gi/ Diets that eliminate carbs like keto and diet patterns that aim to have periods when your body is not spiking insulin such as intermittent fasting all aim for the same effect on insulin sensitivity. To make matters worse for many, body fat reduces insulin sensitivity so the fatter you are the more you will feel hungry, given that many gain weight with high GI foods like sweets, highly processed carbs, etc then the problems are compounded. High fibre diets (which are low GI, mostly) also help with this but its a challenge to get fibre in with the keto. Another issue not brought up but really important is the role of sleep. If you do not get enough sleep you have less will power and the body is more likely to signal for hunger. So people not getting enough light during the day and too much at night find it hard to drop off. This leads to elevated levels of cortisol which causes some of the aforementioned effects. And there is rhythm. By eating at the same time every day your bodies hunger signalling synchronises to expect food at a certain time (the two most important hormones here are ghrelin and leptin). This is why intermittent fasting can also work, your body is only wanting 2 meals a day, not 3, you are not as hungry at random times so you can consume less calories during the full day. So a short summary: -Being fat makes you more likely to become hungry. -Sweet or processed foods make the body crave food more quickly. -Good sleep builds will power. -Eating at the same time means your body is not demanding food all the time. Or shorter, eating some foods can make the body less likely to demand more food.
  3. You cannot have even mildly complex discussions with people who lack the ability to read more than a couple of sentences. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. Any attempt to produce a more nuanced and detailed discussion is trolled and derailed by shitposters. Thus the gibbering baboons analogy.
  4. "Its complex" Caged baboons trying to sound clever: Cant do complex. There is no single answer. This was discussed to death back in 2016, when this subforum was still vaguely coherent. Much of it was luck, He stumbled upon a formula for appealing to an increasingly disaffected block of the public by accident. But as has been said many times, its part of a much larger global process. Corbyn, Sanders, Bolsonaro, AfD, Brexit and many other political movements emerged at a similar time and with similarities in promising an easy return to a better time, a more simple politics that solves all the complex problems. Reversing some or other aspects of the modern world, be they demographic, especially immigration or economic like magicking jobs lost to China or "off shoring neoliberals" etc. One of the clear indications of a global trend was this a few years ago, the contraction of social democratic parties in Europe. It has been argued by many academics that the electoral alliance of liberal middle class and the working class that held social democratic parties together is now fundamentally broken. The latter see immigration and globalisation as a threat to the economic well being while the latter see it as giving them more economic opportunities and making society more multicultural. This is in itself a heavy oversimplification but this has to be brief and we are discussing very large topics. So the trend in the west against the kind of politics of the Democratic Party is as much at work in the US as the EU. Then there is the role social media plays in training people to be more reactionary, more polarised on issues. Again this has been discussed many times. The political landscape 2008-2016 in the US was one that severely constrained the space in which the administration had to move. It had only so many issues it could push forward on while dealing with the fallout of a catastrophic economic collapse. Understanding that it was constrained requires a level of nuance that we do not do here on P&B anymore. Obama selected health care as his number one issue. It took him most of his presidency to push that forward. The caged baboons will still shriek that he did not do enough or that every other issue on his plate was mishandled, its easy to then say "x,y,z caused Trump". Any Democratic president would have faced the same hostility and had to select a very narrow policy agenda, while fighting against global trends. The loss of The House in 2010 made an impossible job worse. The rise of the Tea Party was a clear indication of the direction of travel. After 2010 Obama could not even get a Supreme Court Justice appointed. Our world is increasingly complex so people now retreat into simplifications. Those simplifications are rewarding and make people feel "smart". They take little effort. So that is where Trump supporters are and that is where most of this politics forum is. When someone points to the complexity, or obvious errors, or nonsense in posts, they simply affect the air of imperious intellectualism and say crap like "well off course that is not what I meant". It posing. Or to be blunt, the gibbering of caged baboons.
  5. Not one of our political heavy weights were able to explain that the powers to set the date for the election lie with the Congress (see article II). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution Instead "Obama cuased Trump because I am tiwtter edumacated". Who needs well constructed arguments when you have empty rhetoric and an angry assertions. The gibbering of caged baboons.
  6. US posts horrible GDP numbers. Dimwit Trump says he will postpone the election. That is the dead cat on the table. Everyone is now talking about how smelly the dead cat on the table is. If he tried to postpone the election, cases would be immediately filed in every state and territory. They would immediately be bumped up to state then federal supreme courts. Federal supreme court would be "ummmm f**k off". Done. Now US GDP numbers.......
  7. Busy week or two in space launch. The Mars window is open for the lowest energy trip to Mars for the next two years so we had 3 missions head out. The UAE launched an orbiter on a Japanese launch vehicle. The Chinese made their second attempt at an orbiter on their Long March 5 with a small rover attached. And the US launched another isotope powered rover based on the Curiosity rover. It includes a mission to do some very small scale drilling in the hope a follow up mission will pick up the drilled samples. All missions are now headed to Mars. On top of that the US has gotten a bit sniffy about a Russian satellite. It appeared to be a spy satellite with a minisat of some sort. The minisat tried to tag behind a US Keyhole 11 spy sat trying for pictures and the like. The US is relatively open that it does have some satellites that are intended to image other satellites. The US then claimed this minisat launched a small object that it took to be an anti-satellite test. It did not destroy anything but it does look like they have such a system. They also have a air launched anti-satellite project based on something the US tried in the 80s. For the US this will mean a few extra kilos of on board fuel. Its pretty easy to dodge these kind of things, when you are banging along at 7000m/s its kind of easy not to be in the same square metre the asat weapon is trying to be in that second. All this arrives as SpaceX and OneWeb are launching clusters in the thousands and tens of thousands. If you are paying $75 million to launch an antisatellite weapon that now has thousands of targets it needs to hit..... your obsolete. The arrival of SpaceX and potentially Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are a huge shakedown of the "militarisation of space" or some kind of new "space race". A report a few years ago put the global space industry at about £300 billion a year. That is things like comms satellites, Earth observation, military sats and the like. Of that about $3 billion is launches, split about $1.5 billion commercial and about $1.5 defence. Most of the defence is US. This is why Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin do not launch commercial payloads. The margins are way too tight compared to the US Defence industry while Arianspace, Roskosmos and the bit part players like India, Japan and RoK try to pick up the scraps in the commercial launch space. China does launch a lot but that is Chinese companies locked into Chinese government rules plus some heavily subsidised commercial win. That was your basic global space launch market until Musk hired Glynn Shotwell. She plus a few very smart people prevented SpaceX from being yet another flabby and failing US "new space" startup into being the titan it is today. Now they charge what they like (no one knows that their actual costs are) and have had to djinn up launches using their new Starlink network satellites. Russia relies heavily on NASA and the ISS contract. Europe is nailed on efficiency and punctuality for 2010, but its not 2010, the others are deader than ducks. (Ariane 6 has a chance) So all the hubub about a new space race amounts to political analysts who could not tell a prograde orbit from a sustainer engine. The new space race is the Russians and Chinese catching up with 1980s America (China is finally ditching hypergolic propellants in their new generation rockets and going for RP1 just as Arianspace and the US ditches RP1 for Methane\Oxygen). Sorry some of the hyperventilating news this week on space is just fucking dumb.
  8. Me Thank you for confirming what I said. Kind off. It was withdrawn in February 2010. I did not say "fine" but I am sure that nuance is not the objective here. I will explain (and be ignored). Science is not someone produces a paper and suddenly everyone agrees (no matter what our wanna be clever posters say). When people disagree they produce contrary papers. These fight it out until a consensus appears. (See Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). What we had here was a controversial paper that the press had to report on. Then after it was released more science was released that challenged it In 2010 this was withdrawn. I am sure that the 20 plus posts a day types will be convinced they win. But they are buffoons out their depth on science.
  9. Thank you for repeating what I already said. It helps the slow ones keep up.
  10. I have not seen peer reviewed science "getting pelters" before. Can your describe the great many fields you pretend to be an expert in and your long history of identifying which "pelters" are good science and which are just poorly constructed critiques.
  11. Malfoy with one of the Harry Potter kids.
  12. The BBC killed children did it. If only they had listened to you. Wakefield et al was published in 98 in The Lancet. (the original study that claimed to find a link) It was officially withdrawn in February 2010. Reporting between those dates would have been on very safe ground stating a study in a high profile journal had raised an issue when explaining why there was as controversy. Virtually no reporter would have been qualified to read research and state that it was wrong. They could report on the issue and state that the vast majority disagreed with it. Reporting by credible news sources after this point would be on solid ground to point out there was no credible research suggesting a link between MMR and Autism. If you can show when the BBC reporting a credible link after February 2010 then the floor is yours. I bet you have never read a single science paper in your life, let alone have to follow as contradictory evidence is worked through in a contentious topic. Lancet referees let the paper through. Lancet, BMJ and NEJM are the top journals in medicine (although Nature, Science and PNAS will take medical papers). Papers appearing in those journals have met the fields highest standards for entering the scientific discussion. The fault lies with and has been acknowledged by The Lancet (in that the paper was withdrawn). Reporting research of interest to the public from the very top journals in the world is acceptable. So long as you explain there is a body of opposition. We live in a world where people want simple stories that make themselves to be the heroes who can see through the dumbarsed scientists giving out dangerous vaccines or dumbarsed science reporters who's weeks of research into a complex topic where there is contradictory evidence can be attacked with self congratulatory smugness by people 15 years later who's sole understanding of the 22 year long controversy is they can spell MMR. Welcome to our future. Dumb and dumber.
  13. There were a number of posts on here back in late February early March to that effect on this forum on the Covid 19 thread. Including by some well known individuals.
  14. Wind is going to be gusting at up 35mph. Its going to be a day for extras, long hops and utterly unplayable swing.
  15. Broad took 6 wickets in 7 overs for 22 runs today. Some of the balls he was delivering were unplayable. He can be an annoying shit, but when it clicks for him its unreal.
  • Create New...