|
Dr_Strangelove posted:GUNS A-GO-GO  
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Saukkis posted:Wasn't large portion of the vietnamese allied soldiers and civilians? I would think only a minority could be counted as enemy combatants. We can't even get our government to pay for our OWN people's injuries and medical care effectively. Nobody's gonna hike up the hill to help the Vietnamese no matter which side they were on. Hell, we might be deporting some of the refugees that followed us out. Edit: That patch is fully sick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Tythas posted:Imran Khan, PM of Pakistan gave a press conference 6 hours ago. Feels like he’s saying “let’s get the horses back in the barn before this escalates to WW3” and is using the fact of nukes as a reason to use diplomacy immediately
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The Sino-Indian War in particular is what I am referring to, as the Doklam Standoff isn't a conflict. The Doklam crisis was a conflict, by definition. Soldiers from both sides entered the contested area and had a (non-lethal) fight. Negotiations were necessary to defuse the situation. It is also dumb as hell to reference a 1962 war as evidence of current policy for either party while ignoring poo poo that happened a year and a half ago. Nothing I've said has been whataboutism. Your argument sucked and your example was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Feels like he’s saying “let’s get the horses back in the barn before this escalates to WW3” and is using the fact of nukes as a reason to use diplomacy immediately I agree. He's not saying "stop this or we will END YOU", he is saying "If this continues, the situation will escalate in a way that neither side can control, and we are both nuclear powers. This political grandstanding is extremely dangerous.", which is a rather reasonable argument to be making.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJ8EoGmLuE This is when you should double up your loving ear pro. In case these guys annoy you, the shot around 14:30 is worth seeing if nothing else mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I agree. He's not saying "stop this or we will END YOU", he is saying "If this continues, the situation will escalate in a way that neither side can control, and we are both nuclear powers. This political grandstanding is extremely dangerous.", which is a rather reasonable argument to be making. It is a very reasonable argument to make even ignoring the nukes. A serious conventional war would be devastating for both parties and neither one can really afford that right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is there any thread consensus about that? I'm under the impression some general made the impossibly bad decision to have large amounts of people chug some magic elixir that could project against bio-warfare pathogens, and the resulting liability from that ill-advised biology experiment decision is like the Hanford Nuclear Site of legal liability. There isn't even a medical consensus on GWS. Like, even on symptoms, let alone causes. I've been following the various GWS legal battles for years (ever since the proposed DU link came out) and my personal opinion as both a non-doctor and non-chemist/metallurgist is that modern mechanized warfare is just an incredibly toxic activity, and exposure to a large number of different toxins is very bad for one's long term health. DU is one of them, but it is really far from the worst. What I don't know, and have never seen any research on, is if the soldiers who fought poo poo like Stalingrad (and the local civilians also) suffered from the same kinds of problems. I personally would be very surprised if they didn't, but there's probably no way to ever know that for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I've been following the various GWS legal battles for years (ever since the proposed DU link came out) and my personal opinion as both a non-doctor and non-chemist/metallurgist is that modern mechanized warfare is just an incredibly toxic activity, and exposure to a large number of different toxins is very bad for one's long term health. DU is one of them, but it is really far from the worst. It's an age-old problem. War before modern mechanization was exceptionally deadly, with infectious disease substituted for toxicity. (Leaving aside the whole "people trying to kill you" aspect of war in both cases, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Gulf war syndrome is statistical noise. If you take, say, 200 super rare diseases, you'd expect about 10 of them to be significantly elevated in any given population at a 95% confidence level. Remember that just because a disease is found to be elevated in a population doesn't mean there's a causal link. Especially with really rare stuff, it's more likely than not coincidental. Suppose you put 1000 people on an island and 3 of them have Wilson disease. That'd be really unusual, but Wilson disease is genetic and the island isn't causing it. Put a different 1000 people on a different island, and test them for enough rare diseases, and you can probably find one disease where an unusually large proportion of the people are suffering from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
How many of those super rare diseases can be explained by heavy metal ingestion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
I know Mortabis may well be for real regarding Gulf War Syndrome or other service-related illnesses, but a person employed to study actuarial data in order to extract maximum profit for a company without getting sued is not one I'd trust to talk earnestly about what's best for someone who's sick. When an actuary tells me to avoid excessive salt and exercise regularly, I trust them. When they say who-coulda-node regarding a medical thing that might cause an employer to pay lots of money, my tinfoil hat goes right on my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I know Mortabis may well be for real regarding Gulf War Syndrome or other service-related illnesses, but a person employed to study actuarial data in order to extract maximum profit for a company without getting sued is not one I'd trust to talk earnestly about what's best for someone who's sick. When an actuary tells me to avoid excessive salt and exercise regularly, I trust them. When they say who-coulda-node regarding a medical thing that might cause an employer to pay lots of money, my tinfoil hat goes right on my head. Mortabis is describing some pretty elementary probability theory here. At CMU we called this "stargazing": Test a bunch of variables in a regression and grab the ones that are 95% confidence. It's a bad (but common) practice. Of course, at 95% confidence, 5% will be randomly spurious. (So called because R signifies factors that are significant with *'s.) Any given subpopulation is going to have some thing that is randomly more prevalent among it--as Mortabis said, statistical noise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
Sure, it's my own bias. I'm just saying I trust someone who is paid to generate profits for insurance companies about as much as I trust, say, the Cold War Air Force when it says it can win wars using only air power or when a coal company says it is offering up a totally unbiased view of climate change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There is also a 2005 Australian study that shows increased cancer risks among their Vietnam vets. On a phone so I’ll leave it to you to google yourself. They are careful to note that there is no simple explanation for the findings, that it is likely multi-causal, but that it is increased over the baseline of Australian vets This included navy vets, which is salient to the USN Blue Water case. That poo poo was sprayed (and also buried, because out of sight is out of mind) in the massive training area in Gagetown, New Brunswick. I seem to recall that a bunch of Canadian vets got compensation for exposure to it incurred during their service and the resulting health consequences. Fearless fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 10:47
|
|
|
Pakistan to release captured IAF pilot on Friday as a peace gesture
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
GW disease might independently sort as noise but if a causative mechanism has been identified...
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Sure, it's my own bias. I'm just saying I trust someone who is paid to generate profits for insurance companies about as much as I trust, say, the Cold War Air Force when it says it can win wars using only air power or when a coal company says it is offering up a totally unbiased view of climate change. You should probably just pitch this whole thread in the trash then, as a really staggering percentage of its population (including me) is paid directly or indirectly by the DoD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:21
|
|
We can start with your posts 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:You should probably just pitch this whole thread in the trash then, as a really staggering percentage of its population (including me) is paid directly or indirectly by the DoD. That... does not follow
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The Doklam crisis was a conflict, by definition. Soldiers from both sides entered the contested area and had a (non-lethal) fight. Negotiations were necessary to defuse the situation. It is also dumb as hell to reference a 1962 war as evidence of current policy for either party while ignoring poo poo that happened a year and a half ago. Again no, the OP poster sounded like China would just attack out of the blue, this is by definition Clancy Chat and is similar to the line of thought of "Maybe America will attack Venezuela for its oil" even if you think there's some reasonable truth to that idea, it such a fraught political question and speculative that it's tinged with inherent bias. If you're inclined to think China is the bad faith actor and not India, then nothing is really going to convince you so what's the point? I referenced the 1962 war because it was a war, and that is what the thread is discussing, the escalation of Pakistan and India into a potential war; and the OP "speculated" as to whether China would get involved in that war by attacking India. If they meant that instead of China doing airstrikes and sending in AFV's they just build another stretch of road that's unclear to me, but it sounded more like speculation that China would actually attack with armed force, instead of playing games with the border. You seem to be more focused on "games" that I point out the 1962 war in reference to, because both countries have a documented history of playing those games. China and India are equally guilty of, so implying China's worse is just baseless as the foundation of "speculation". But even you're idea that they'd play more "games" is crazy because that's an escalation of tensions when India is probably already hovering its fingers over the nuclear button; it's crazy to think a rational actor would want to get overtly involved in that dispute unless there is no other choice. This is the reason why you're argument is reductionist, you've overly simplified the complex and decades long border dispute to just assume China would just do the worst possible action in any given environment, despite numerous compelling geopolitical reasons why it would be literally insane of them to poke the bear at this very moment. I can see China getting involved to back Pakistan because they're on friendly relations, but its super low risk to just ship military supplies via airlift and truck over to Pakistan to keep them bolstered if the tensions escalate then to get involved themselves and risk making the situation catastrophic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That... does not follow Yeah, I've made most of my money from the DoD and I'll be the first to tell you it's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That... does not follow Well, for instance I'm an optical engineer for a huge defense contractor. One of the items on my performance evaluation is explicitly pretty much "how did you contribute to the financial health of the company”, and the answer to that question affects my pay. So I and similarly situated people are in theory way more compromised than an actuary whose company is presumably not involved in the GWS issue. But that doesn't mean I'm not giving my honest opinion when I post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:..."Maybe America will attack Venezuela for its oil" even if you think there's some reasonable truth to that idea, it such a fraught political question and speculative that it's tinged with inherent bias. I feel like I'm being gaslight here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Well, for instance I'm an optical engineer for a huge defense contractor. One of the items on my performance evaluation is explicitly pretty much "how did you contribute to the financial health of the company”, and the answer to that question affects my pay. So I and similarly situated people are in theory way more compromised than an actuary whose company is presumably not involved in the GWS issue. But that doesn't mean I'm not giving my honest opinion when I post. Again, my personal bias, but I inherently trust scientists and engineers more than the insurance industry. For example, I don’t believe climate scientists are hucksters after that big climate money, but there are ample examples of bad actors such as employers and insurers trying to deny people benefits until forced to do so via law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Again, my personal bias, but I inherently trust scientists and engineers more than the insurance industry. Ok but what you are doing is more akin to saying that because someone is a DA you can’t trust that they will ever in good faith comment on a police shooting video. I get that you disagree with Mortabis and that’s fine, but I don’t think it does anyone any favors to just write his views off because of what he does. What people do and what education they have heavily influenced how they view things, not just in the sense of what opinions they have but in how they analyze them. With my background and training the first tools I reach for are a historians. I want to know the context and frankly I’m more interested in how Agent Orangen became a proxy for all suffering Vietnam vets and a 1980s political football for politicians to try to do right to heal a national wound that was still dividing the nation. From my viewpoint it’s fascinating as part of the historical process of America coming to terms with Vietnam and beginning to come to a consensus that vets need more than basic care. Without the ground broken by Agent Orange it’s debatable, for example, if we would be in the same place discussing VA benefits for PTSD, or if soldiers today would be left to treat it with a priest and a bottle like their grandfathers. Note that this doesn’t make how I does see the issue correct or wrong. It’s just one approach to looking at a large subject. I get why Mortabis approaches the problem with an actuary’s eye. That’s what his training is and the toolset he’s most familiar with. It’s also an important toolset for the people who actually assign benefits because they need some way to calculate scope and potential impact. Ultimately it’s just another form of analysis. That’s doesn’t inherently make him disingenuous. You can object to the substance of what he’s saying. If he argues that Agent Orange isn’t worth covering and you disagree by all means engage on that. It’s just kind of bullshit to write him off because he’s an actuary and you don’t trust them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Again, my personal bias, but I inherently trust scientists and engineers more than the insurance industry. I'm a mechanical engineer and I don't trust engineers worth poo poo. Every time there is a open letter by "experts" discounting climate change here half of the signatories are engineers stepping outside their field. Supposedly we're also overrepresented among terrorists and religious extremists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Supposedly we're also overrepresented among terrorists and religious extremists. I wonder if that’d due to having useful skill sets that are actively recruited? A disgruntled, alienated history grad student might be able to be radicalized but no one is going to seek him out more so then any random boob. A guy with that basic know how to turn a cell phone into a remote detonator is a lot more attractive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
I've got background in manufacturing QC statistics and what mortabis said is completely reasonable. I don't admit that lightly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Tythas posted:Imran Khan, PM of Pakistan gave a press conference 6 hours ago. He (or she) is not wrong Computer: get me the original Deus Ex text/script quote:Vishnu's Fall
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:My guess would be that your dad was able to prove exposure. If you could prove exposure, especially if you could show you had gone ashore in an area where it was used, you would be taken care of. He often mentioned being stationed off Da Nang, so yeah, Yankee Station should cover that. I also think he did, in fact, go ashore and even had to do a couple of river patrols. He was a Radarman who was later converted to an EW when that rating was created. He told stories sometimes about doing air traffic control for F-4s and the like and how he lost a lot of them simply due to running out of fuel  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:I'm a mechanical engineer and I don't trust engineers worth poo poo. Every time there is a open letter by "experts" discounting climate change here half of the signatories are engineers stepping outside their field. Supposedly we're also overrepresented among terrorists and religious extremists. Should’ve clarified “within their field.” STEM dudes love to pontificate on poo poo they know nothing about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Should’ve clarified “within their field.” STEM dudes love to pontificate on poo poo they know nothing about. I sat with a bunch of cab and chassis engineers are a very large reputable vehicle manufacturer and i was regularly treated to discussions about how seatbelts don't actually work and are more dangerous because you can get thrown clear of the cab. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Should’ve clarified “within their field.” STEM dudes love to pontificate on poo poo they know nothing about. I think that's a human thing, not limited to STEM. I know if you check my posting history ITT you can find me ripping into some paper a psychologist wrote on nuclear weapons (part of a forthcoming book!), where the guy clearly didn't have the first clue about the topic except for "nuclear weapons be bad" John Rosten Saul was a famous academic in Canada, but I had to stop reading Volotare's Bastards because despite having a solid thesis he then proceeded to plow into military issues that was so illiterate I found it actually insulting, basically because the guy had clearly done zero research but was feeling very free to write chapters about the wrongs in military thinking over the 20th century and reduce them all to his little thesis statement
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Re: my earlier biases, my job today is going through massive amounts of medical processing where every other brief is about how the government and insurance are actively trying to gently caress you over if they can shed any speck of doubt on injuries being service related or can blame you for the injury/ill ess somehow. These briefs are from the government, lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Yeah in any field you want to at least start by looking at the current consensus of experts. The field CAN be collectively wrong but it's less likely than one person or organization going "No I know the real answer!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
I had a quiz question last week that was "Explain why Dr. That Works is a valid authority on the electoral process of Rhode Island." (I am a microbiologist). Only 1 out of 35 students answered "he's not" I'm still bummed about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
That Works posted:I had a quiz question last week that was "Explain why Dr. That Works is a valid authority on the electoral process of Rhode Island." (I am a microbiologist). Only 1 out of 35 students answered "he's not" this is insidious
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037 A good starting checklist of "is someone likely bullshitting me on a health or science topic?" Agent Orange and GWS are probably a bit outside the bounds since they are fairly complicated with a lot of history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
A saying my old man always used, "an expert talking outside their field is an idiot"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 18:13
|
|
