tornpentacle t1_jdhkyzw wrote

If you're using "prove" in the original sense, then sure. But not in the way everyone uses the word today. To prove something originally meant (and IMO should still mean) to test it, hence "the exception proves the rule". I don't know if you meant it in that sense but that's the only way your statement holds true, haha


tornpentacle t1_jadf8w2 wrote

It demonstrates undue prejudice, that's for sure. Is that weird? No, unfortunately, but it's wrong.

The world was different at the time Born to Rebel was written, and even moreso when the author was being brought up. At that time, tattoos were practically anathema.

To dismiss the history of the world like that and how much it impacts today is a bit silly. That generation had their own living ancestors who were just as old-fashioned to them. And if you have grandkids, you'll experience the same prejudice as you are exhibiting toward older people now.

It's just kind of how it goes. There are even 17th- and 18th-century media that demonstrate just how long this has been going on. I'd wager it's as old as civilization itself.


tornpentacle t1_ja0hu4m wrote

Nice racism, really great look. Meanwhile, the entire US is just as polluted and a large share of people don't believe climate change is caused by humans.

Also, carbon pollution ≠ chemical pollution, just so you're aware...


tornpentacle t1_j9xga4f wrote

For those who didn't read the paper (let's be real, that's somewhere above 99% of the commenters on any given post), there was only a 12% reduction in total surplus compared to unlicensed entities. Worth noting that trade unions and licensing go hand in hand (i.e., workers generally fare better when licensing is involved, with a higher than average standard of living than that of Uncle Cletus's ragtag band of corner-cutters). Not to mention the significantly reduced risk of shoddy workmanship (which can cause very serious harm), meaning a higher standard of living for consumers.

Not scientific in nature, but Larry David did a great bit about this in one of the more recent seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm.


tornpentacle t1_j9xeht6 wrote

Suuuuure you do. And I bet you think you'd do a better job too, don't you?

(I did say "healthy" people, mind you. That does include psychological health. Antisocial beliefs like those you appear to harbor don't exactly put one into that category.)


tornpentacle t1_j9xe66s wrote

Absolutely not. Licensing is a matter of human rights. The entire reason trades require licensing is because of how many people were hurt and killed by poor work. Are you some kind of anarchist or libertarian or something?


tornpentacle t1_j9recni wrote

So far the other comments are (for some bizarre reason) pretending robots can actually mimic the experience of companionship by another human. That is simply untrue. There's an untold number of factors that influence hormone releases constituting social bonding, and robots meet none of the necessary qualifications. So far, other commenters have simply been using this post as a vehicle for their detestable ageism and sexism (no better than racism and homophobia, both of which I experience on a near-daily basis [sexism too, but not ageism all the time]), and that's not only abusive to human beings but it's entirely unscientific in nature.


tornpentacle t1_j9maa6n wrote

Hmm, light scattering? I'm not in this field, does anyone mind explaining what that means in this context? It sounds like it wouldn't yield a clear display, but that doesn't seem to be the case based on the context—hence my curiosity!


tornpentacle t1_j8tt6dx wrote

There exist certain antibiotics that do not allow for resistance in the first place—an easy example is alcohol. This concept is not only theoretically possible, it's something that already exists.

Now, if you'll permit me to say so...there's no need to be so cynical. Not only is that sort of cynicism going to bring you down, but it's the entire reason everyone's so anxious and depressed these media amplifies negativity. If you don't have actual criticisms of the science described in this paper, it's probably best to keep the unfounded negativity to yourself.


tornpentacle t1_j875zps wrote

They did have a control group, you is usually best to read the content before criticizing the researchers' basic competency. In fact, assuming their competence is among the subreddit's rules.