02-02-2020, 03:08 AM
TomK - I'm not going to keep crossing threads with you about this. If you want to talk about Mauna Loa, and what everyone said, it's right here, with links to the ideas, its author, and published information.
http://punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26767
"TomK - I wonder why you would like to know their sources?
Because the article noted a unnamed study and summarized the results. There is lots of info about how WeChat censors its users, but I can't find that specific study. There is world of difference claiming a published study reached some conclusion compared to saying I once had a chat with a scientist who had this idea (which turns out was later published in a journal and could be talked about if you cared about it more than grinding yet another ax)
As to THIS topic, those interested probably saw the "uncanny HIV similarity" paper has been formally retracted. Neat to see the peer-review process happening on the fly, although the fear factor spreads faster than the fact-checkers.
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/202...i-tourism/
HTH noted that tourism from China is only about 1% of the market here. So that direct economic impact is minimal, although the perceived threat of flying, face-masks, and foreigners will likely take its toll.
PaulW - It makes a big difference if a story comes from the Washington Post or the Washington Times.
Yet some of the time the Post gets things wrong and the Times gets things right. There is no logical justification to believe that simply because an authoritative source says something, it must be true (or that truths can only come from authoritative sources). Gotta exercise those analytical skills and spot the questionable evidence and reasoning (spending time on social media like Reddit and PW is great practice
http://punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26767
"TomK - I wonder why you would like to know their sources?
Because the article noted a unnamed study and summarized the results. There is lots of info about how WeChat censors its users, but I can't find that specific study. There is world of difference claiming a published study reached some conclusion compared to saying I once had a chat with a scientist who had this idea (which turns out was later published in a journal and could be talked about if you cared about it more than grinding yet another ax)
As to THIS topic, those interested probably saw the "uncanny HIV similarity" paper has been formally retracted. Neat to see the peer-review process happening on the fly, although the fear factor spreads faster than the fact-checkers.
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/202...i-tourism/
HTH noted that tourism from China is only about 1% of the market here. So that direct economic impact is minimal, although the perceived threat of flying, face-masks, and foreigners will likely take its toll.
PaulW - It makes a big difference if a story comes from the Washington Post or the Washington Times.
Yet some of the time the Post gets things wrong and the Times gets things right. There is no logical justification to believe that simply because an authoritative source says something, it must be true (or that truths can only come from authoritative sources). Gotta exercise those analytical skills and spot the questionable evidence and reasoning (spending time on social media like Reddit and PW is great practice