pickabar

The other day someone told me “the problem with life is the small sample size” and I’m starting to think that’s the realest thing I have heard in a long time.

The final word 🎙️ Stream the #SpenceCrawford fight week presser LIVE at 4PM ET/1PM PT: s.sho.com/729PC

All foster kids in California can now attend any state college for free themessenger.com/news/all-foste…

For the 99% that don’t know. They’re not rich, brisket eating, laughing at the rest of us people actors. They go to work everyday and deal with the same stuff that we do. @TheRealKostroff . #TheWire fans will recognize him as Maurice Levy. The man gives a great performance in

Astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell was born #OTD in 1943. As a grad student at Cambridge in 1967, she discovered an entirely new type of celestial object: Pulsars! Photo: National Science & Media Museum / Science & Society Picture Library

@MinnesotaJoe3 @hankgreen You contend that the tweet you replied to is based on facts?

From the Triassic to today, there have always been more dinosaur species than mammal species in this planet. We are, in that way at least, still in the age of the dinosaur.

Happy Flashback Friday y’all!

Listening to Silicon Valley guys talk about how the future isn’t amazing enough while ridiculous shit like this happens in the background is honestly a little pathetic.

@KevinMKruse I love the whole expectation that all white people are just as racist as he is and just pretend not to be.

@jbmp51 @TotalTimWright @MsMelChen I’ve lived here my whole life. Crime is much more in control than it was in the 80s, 90s, or early 2000s.

@TotalTimWright @MsMelChen Ok Tim come walk around NYC ...

What is it about higher education and being a Dem that makes people discount the impact of crime? Only 37% of college-educated Democrats believe that crime is a very big problem compared to 55% of college-educated Republicans and nearly two-thirds of working-class Dems and Republicans

@tahangrant @thequizguy @StewMama71 @mehdirhasan Peer review of well documented research and experimentation by other experts is not at all the same as arguing with random people with zero expertise on a comedian’s podcast.

Step 5 of the scientific method: Draw Conclusions (by "debate"/discussion with collaborators/professor/group/reviewers) Based on whether or not their prediction came true, scientists can then decide whether the evidence clearly supports or does not support the hypothesis. If the results are not clear, they must rethink their procedure. If the results are clear, scientists write up their findings and results to share with others. The conclusions they draw usually lead to new questions to pursue.

Imagine living in a world where you could just go around insisting people debate you. No matter the topic or who you are. And they have to agree to it. Where would it end? Ok, I’ll start. I demand *Martin Scorsese* debate me on Marvel movies: good or bad? ‘Debate me, coward!’

Having been defeated repeatedly by Ukraine, Russian forces have found an easier opponent, one with corrupt leadership, incompetent commanders, and low morale.

@nials53 @wapol_vu @Kasparov63 Again, he directly addressed that point.

@PsySamurai3 @PattyMurray If a woman in the 3rd trimester finds out giving birth will kill her should she be allowed to abort? If so, you’ve just proved that it’s not infanticide because it would not happen to an infant. If not, you’ve proven it’s about control and not some high regard for human life.

PSA: Senate Republicans just blocked a vote to pass legislation to protect every American’s fundamental right to use birth control. Yes, birth control.

Insects have surprisingly rich inner lives—a revelation that has wide-ranging ethical implications trib.al/cz4VIRn

DOCTOR: “I’m sorry. You have cancer.” DORK: “No I don’t. Debate me!” DOCTOR: “I understand if you want a second opinion. In fact, I encourage it.” DORK: “Sounds like you won’t debate the issue because you know you’re wrong.” DOCTOR: “I’d love to be wrong.” DORK: “Then debate me!”

@ADioumaev @robertgraham The audience for these type of debates wants to feel special and knowledgeable despite their lack of actual knowledge. When they also can’t understand the questions from the expert, they won’t see it as their own lack of knowledge, they’ll identify with the ignoramus.

@robertgraham Bad example though Any genuine MD or medical-adjacent professional would know this The way for a specialist to destroy militant ignoramuses in live debate is to make them walk through the details of their claims Taunt them with questions they barely understand, then lecture

You can't live debate crazy, they will always win. Live debate is just performance art. Somebody will make some new claim nobody has heard of before, and it'll be impossible to refute without having the time to go research what they just said. "Samuelsson's study from late 2021 proves you wrong". What study? I dunno, I just made it up. The only rational debate is via the written word. One side writes something, somebody else rebuts point by point, and so on. But for the most part, podcasts are for people who can't (or don't) read, so it's not going to happen for that audience. RFK and Rogan start with rejecting science, so there's really no way their points can be rebutted. If you only speak Japanese, you can't talk to somebody who only speaks French. This is especially a problem when the audience doesn't understand the basics of science, who'll believe that science is what RFK and Rogan claim it is. No, no, I don't mean you should believe scientists or a consensus (they've proven untrustworthy). I mean the science itself. In the end, the winner of the live debate isn't the one who is best at facts, but the one most willing to misrepresent facts. And that's RFK and Rogan. They will win any live debate. Serious debate is written, live debates is for fools (Rogan's audience).

@WesDidier1 @hankgreen @GeorgeTakei Debate is just one form of communication and not coincidentally the form most likely to enable people with that skill in that form of communication to drown out people with actual knowledge and expertise.

@hankgreen @GeorgeTakei Sorry, I must disagree. One of the primary job requirements of a scientist IS communication. Avoiding it because it requires public speaking is not good professional conduct. If you're the expert in your area you should speak out at a minimum when others miss rep reality.

The thing about “debate me” bros wanting to debate scientists is that you can’t effectively argue with a professional public arguer without becoming a public professional arguer, and most scientists are (and should be) professional scientists.

@erasmuse @radleybalko “Why should we believe government claims about another part of the government?”

@radleybalko That's the government claim. Why should we believe it?

DOJ just released the report from its two-year investigation of the Minneapolis police department. Here's a thread of notable excerpts. This first one happened *while a DOJ investigator was on a ride-along.*

"Don't learn to code. Soon GUIs will do it all for you." - 1985 "Don't learn to code. Soon that will all be done offshore for pennies." - 2003 "Don't learn to code. Soon nocode tools will do it all for you." - 2015 "Don't learn to code. Soon AI will do it all for you." - 2023