All Activity

""A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."" A too narrowly technical definition, besides bulky. What rational individuals share is a non-malevolent universe view, and a commitment to reality and confidence in their reason. From which follows their rational self-interest, the values and virtues (self-esteem, productiveness, independence, integrity etc.) they have in common. Being rational, each is in the full

I have explained to you what the topic is and given you lucid examples. It was like talking past you, because you didn't understand the topic well enough to rationally discuss it. Cretins, I have observed, are unable to conceive what I was talking about, and they are only interested in shouting their own a priori, subjectivist views of the topic.

Rich Lowry ably dissects the latest blatantly dishonest left-wing attack on Ron DeSantis, a 60 Minutes hit piece about his plan to work with the state's most popular grocery chain to help distribute Covid vaccines. We do need someone who fights back, but we don't need another strongman. The media won't help us know the difference, because they'll label either as "combative." (Image by Hermes Rivera, via Unsplash, license.) Florida turned to the widely popular Publix chain because, as Florida's emergency management director (a Democrat) explained, other pharmacies weren't ready to start dis

Of course I think someone else could reach a different conclusion. Anytime anyone gets me to tell this whole horrible story, the conclusions I hear are quite different from my own. But they also tend to be quite different from what your generic Objectivist conclusion might be (at least as far as I would picture it) which is why I'm so curious to hear what the general consensus would be of those who claim to share my same basic worldview. It's not just my own worldview, I might add: one of the explicitly-agreed-on conditions I asked for before agreeing to move back in with Tiffany was th

Do you have any reason to suspect that someone would reach a different conclusion? Or are you just saying it because "what if"?

Great meme, by the way. That was epic. She is, which is how I like it. I can't stand the subtle sorts of games that characterize most relationships (like you mentioned); I like to be direct and I get along best with those who can be equally straight-to-the-point with me. The very first night Tiffany and I met (way back when I was 19 and she was 20) I'd marched into a total stranger's house because a couple of vague acquaintances from high school had invited me there, equipped with a stolen bottle of Bacardi's rum. After several hours of drinking I looked Tiffany in the eye and

I think you are wildly exaggerating. The exchange was unremarkable. It's pretty normal not to answer yes or no to yes or no questions. "It depends" means "sometimes, yes". The wording just reflects how doctors typically think, and how a scientist thinks, where they want to emphasize context even when nobody asked. Nothing sinister or fishy.

Cretins, I've observed, are often unable to conceive of two or more people talking about what they want to talk about, and not what you want them to be talking about. I remember when that issue came out, I felt bad that Biondi and Khawaja even had to respond to Mozes.

Here is the exchange. I characterized it that way because Smock already agreed that he had treated patients with cardiac disease, meth and fentanyl who passed away but not necessarily from those things. Nelson's follow-up question was whether sometimes they do die from just those things. It's a yes or no answer. But Smock, in my opinion, realizes he's trapped at this point, because Nelson is that good of an interrogator. So instead of just answering yes, he tries to wriggle out of the trap and says it depends on the case. Uh huh, what depends on the case? He just didn't want to give Nelson the

I like your summaries a lot. This is the only issue I had. Why do you characterize this as avoiding a straight answer? When somebody asks about multiple things that can cause death, the best answer really is "it depends" because of how many variables were introduced. It's not avoiding because any other answer would be misleading.

At the beginning of the discussion, people explained to you many times that you just don't understand what the topic is. If you forgot, it was like talking past you because you didn't understand the topic well enough to even argue for or against. I read the article you mentioned. It's a pretty poor evaluation. As far as conflicts of interest, it fails to understand the argument Smith makes (that you should calculate gains and losses according to the values you have).

Day 9 started with Mr. Blackwell calling Dr. Martin Tobin to testify for the prosecution. Tobin is a world-renowned expert in pulmonary medicine. His opinion is that Floyd "died from a low level of oxygen" which caused brain damage and his heart to stop. He said the cause of low oxygen was shallow breathing due to being prone on the street, handcuffed behind the back, with Chauvin's knees on his neck and back. He stated that Chauvin's left knee was on Floyd's neck at least 90% of the time, and his right knee was on the back at least 57% of the time. He discussed in detail how pressure on the h

Somehow I was reminded that Ayn Rand's idea of conflicts of interest was discussed in Reason Papers in July 2013 (link). Eyal Mozes reviewed Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics. In Section 2 of his review, he harshly criticized what Smith wrote about conflicts of interest. Carrie-Ann Biondi and Irfan Khawaja responded to Mozes' review. None of the four indicated awareness of the ordinary meaning of 'conflict of interest'.

According to https://coinmarketcap.com/ there are now 4668 cryptocurrencies. Stunning. Binance is #3 in market cap. Bitcoin is #1 and Ethereum #2.

"Binance Coin (BNB) is currently on a dream run as the digital currency is up by nearly 1,600% since the start of 2021. BNB crossed the market cap of $95 billion on Monday after the digital currency gained nearly 25% in the last 24 hours."

In a recent episode of his show, Yaron Brook commented on an Ezra Klein piece, titled, "Why California Is Making Progressive Democrats Squirm." Brook's consideration of the problem highlighted by the subtitle is worthwhile. The subtitle? "If liberal policies cannot work here, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?" I finally got around the reading the piece myself a day or so ago, and I see another, related problem, this one highlighted by the fact that Klein nowhere questions his own political views. This is the same problem we see nationwide, particularly in the states

John Dewey on rights and government

William, the following may help with our grip on this. “What do touch screens, radiation therapy and shrink wrap have in common? They were all made possible by particle physics research. Discoveries of how the universe works at the smallest scale often lead to huge advances in technology we use every day.” “Today is an extraordinary day.” I think the low temperatures in this experiment have to do with making a setup with high enough sensitivity for our detection of phenomena, rather than production of the phenomena. This present experiment at Fermi uses the same basic way o

I've been watching Jordan Peterson attack atheist governments, and both Sam Harris and another used the above argument that communism was "dogmatic" and in a sense a religion. Nevertheless, the charge that atheist governments have committed awful acts is also true. For advocates of atheism it is a deep blow to their position. It simply highlights that fact that atheism does not give one a moral instruction. It simply eliminates one of the wrong directions to take.

I guess my question is whether the new physics would have to work for events at normal earth temperatures, as well as outer space temps. Or maybe whatever is affecting the muons does not affect other particles, so it's more of a special physical law rather than an overturning of a general principle.

It sounds like she was desperate for you to make romantic moves, and you had trouble handling her. She begged for your attention, and you promised affection. You should have made it happen. It's kind of your job to make it happen, unless you're with a masculine woman who likes to take charge in bed. Maybe she was testing you by focusing on Facebook. Maybe she was playing coy or disinterested, because she wanted you to take charge and make a move. I think some women long for that experience of an aggressive man coming on to them, showing genuine attention and working hard for that sexual r

Yep. Sorry; I can't stay long (I have to go to work soon) but that's exactly right. The reason I chose the name "Tiberius" for my son was in honor of the only StarFleet cadet to ever beat the unwinnable scenario (the Kobayashi Maru); like him, I don't believe in no-win scenarios either - as long as one has a properly calibrated idea of what "winning" means. Mine isn't. Thank you. When the three of us moved back in together in either May or March of 2019 it was with the explicit idea of 50% custody in mind. She'd been saying it wasn't fair to characterize what happened

Here is a discussion of "different types of causality" from Onkar Gate (more that just antecedent factors). I queued it up so when you click it goes there.

Any time an old physics is overthrown, it remains a good enough approximation for many situations. Newtonian physics, which was overthrown long ago, remains a good enough approximation for many situations. The physics which is currently being overthrown will remain a good enough approximation for many situations. It will take time to determine exactly what difference the new physics makes.