this is an interesting and in some places eye-opening discussion, for those that can follow the language. i'll admit that they lost me once or twice, but i was able to follow almost all of it. i think that's mostly because the discussion exists in a broader meta-scientific context, rather than a very specific biological one. that is, the primary question discussed is the pros and cons of different experimental approaches to determining the use of specific drugs. "bio-markers", here, is a kind of buzz word; the discussion cycles around it, but it's not really about it.
but, the fact that we're using buzz words in the first place in what claims to be a scientific conference should create a little bit of pause.
in thinking about how to react to this video (and i've had a few days, as it's taken me some time to move through it), something that came up a few times were some comments made by stefan molyneux (somebody i would normally be hesitant to quote or draw attention to) about global warming. now, he didn't make his argument well. but, he said something along these lines (i'm paraphrasing out of laziness, but it's pretty close):
the government program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science
he then used that insight to argue that we should be skeptical about government-funded research on climate change. it was more agnostic than anything else. and, as i say, he didn't make his argument well - partly because this insight, while actually quite astute, doesn't really conform well to what we know about how governments approach climate science. taking his insight and applying it to better to the world around us, i might suggest that he should have said:
the industry marketing program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science.
these two statements are not mutually exclusive. in fact, he might even agree with me in pointing out that both statements are equally valid. or, perhaps he'd throw around some absurd market theory about consumers choosing good science. as though consumers are equipped to do that, right? but, while acknowledging that both statements are valid, i need to suggest that it is the second that is more relevant in the world we live in
i think this conference very clearly demonstrates where the world of "science" as industry marketing interferes and comes into conflict with the world of science as epistemology.
so, here's the thing.
maybe i'm wrong. maybe the russians didn't bomb paris.
but, if the result is that marine le pen wins the election and pulls france out of nato?
then, they bloody well should have bombed paris.
that would be the biggest victory for the russians since stalingrad.
france operates on a run-off. there seems to be three major candidates, right now - the so-called "socialist" party of hollande (which is anything but...), the "republican party" (sarkozy's party) and the front nationale.
if the run-off ends up between sarkozy and le pen, it can be reasonably expected that the "socialists" will probably line up behind sarkozy in sufficient enough numbers to prevent le pen from winning.
it's the possibility of a run-off between le pen and hollande, which forces the conservative republican voters to pick a side, that gives her a distinct possibility of winning.
if you see another attack leading up to the election...
i got some blood test results back today.
the real reason for the blood test was to check my estrogen levels, which was actually done on my request. i've been thinking for a while now that i should get my dose boosted. but, i was running around from doctor to doctor and just didn't really get a chance to get an empirical test done to determine what the levels were and whether they should be boosted. as expected, they're a little low.
that's actually pretty normal. it's an expected part of transitioning to increase dosages after a while. i'm actually way past due on this. so, i've been boosted from 4 mg/day to 6 mg/day. but, i'm going to wait until i quit smoking first before i do it.
i've been stuck on this remix project for months because my machine just won't behave, and have been waiting until i'm done the project before i give myself a few weeks of filing to occupy myself with. for me, quitting smoking is primarily a problem at the mental level. basically, i find myself unable to focus on anything. it's a huge problem for me because i'm always focusing on something or other. the only way i'm going to get over the smoking is by giving myself something menial to do for, like, weeks. i just have to throw that time away. that's really hard for me - even if i get the long term benefits of it - because i interpret time as the only meaningful quantifiable in the entire universe. the filing is the perfect opportunity for this. but i can't get to it because i can't get the machine to co-operate.
i've been getting impatient, anyways. i only budgeted myself $60 for cigarettes this month. that needs to be a hard limit, now. smoking ends when that budget runs out, whether i'm done the project or not. the hormone switch is just an added incentive.
first, nicotine is an estrogen suppressant. second, smoking on estrogen can cause blood clots. i shouldn't be smoking at all, really - well, *at all*, but at all when i'm taking hormones. it's a risk for people on birth control, which is something like 100 mcg/day. i'm about to jump to 6 mg/day. i'm hesitant about the safety of this. i should really be hesitant about the safety of it at 4 mg/day.
but, he also told me that i'm the "healthiest person he's ever seen". he's "never seen lower blood cholesterol". it seemed obvious to him to ask me about my diet, but he seemed rather disappointed in my responses.
in the 96 hours before the blood test, i had consumed 5 rockstar vodkas, several pots of coffee, several packs of cigarettes and had even smoked a couple of bowls. ten hours previous to the blood test, i had a large meal that included a giant plate of pasta with a third of a brick of cheese, caesar dressing (not light.) as an alfredo sauce, eight slices of crumpled salami, tomatoes and green peppers. i also had a smoothie with a banana, five strawberries, two scoops of ice cream and about 500 ml of soy milk. i've actually had exactly that meal almost every day for the last two months - although i got a pizza one day, and have had some doritos in between as well.
i'll post the link to the culinary series in my vlog as a comment.
that doesn't come off as a particularly healthy diet. he liked the soy smoothies, and didn't like the salami and the cheese. he thought i must be eating some kind of miracle foods like quinoa or something.
while my diet is consciously designed to ensure i get sufficient nutrients (the soy smoothies are key to this, but i also would normally eat a lot of eggs to get my amino acids), it is really not designed to minimize so-called harmful foods - except in the sense that i do not eat a lot. i eat, at most, once a day - most days. once in a while, i won't eat at all.
the correct way to interpret the test results is as confirmation of my approach to food, which i've posted here a few times over the last few years. that is, the important thing to realize is that it isn't the content of the food that is important, but the quantity of it that you consume.
basically, your body stores everything almost exactly the same way. it may not be the most politically correct thing to say, but the actual hard reality of it is that if you're too fat or you have too much cholesterol then you simply eat too much. the way to minimize excess fat storage in the various ways that your body stores fat - which includes blood cholesterol - is to ensure that you're not giving your body too much fuel, because it will then store it as some kind of fat.
my blood cholesterol is not low because of what i eat. it's low because of how much i eat.
but, even that said, there is an even more dominant factor, and it's lifestyle. i walk everywhere. i walked about 40 minutes to the doctor's office today, in fact. i then walked to the grocery store to get some more very high fat caesar dressing for my high fat pasta diet. the reason i do this is that i don't have a car.
that is the actual takeaway: i am the healthiest person the doctor has ever seen because i do not have a car. and, if you want to be that healthy, too? then, stop using your car on a day-to-day basis. walk as much as you can.
i'm proof of it. most nutritionists would claim my diet is terrible (but they're wrong, because the quantity of what i consume is low). i smoke two things. i don't drink a lot of alcohol, but i had consumed some within a few days of the blood test. and, i drink at least a pot of coffee a day.
but, my heart is in pristine condition!
and, it's simply because i don't have a car.
well, the government would spend it on weapons.
i'd do the same thing if i were them. they're going to lose a huge amount of it, regardless. their choice is whether they get to spend it on something they agree with, or whether the government gets to spend it on blowing people up.
the ideal solution would be to have some kind of a taxation rule, where tax bills over a certain amount can be directed by the person being taxed into specific directions. if i were them, and i had a 20 billion dollar tax bill, i wouldn't have a problem paying it - so long as i could direct the money into a combination of subsidized housing, primary education and health care.
but, i'd be livid if it ended up in the pockets of raytheon.
geologist
I assume that you mean that the government of Canada should buy the oil. Where would the money come from?
jessica murray
why would the government need to buy the oil?
eastern canada imports almost all of it's oil. western canada exports almost all of it's oil.
i mean, do i really need to explain this? why is it not obvious?
it may be a little fishy to assume that what is essentially good luck will continue forward, for no reason.
but, i think that more than balances itself out with increased revenue from other sources.
but, this is a hypothetical on a hypothetical. pointless.
from a pr perspective, and what else is really valid here, the government should probably not be predicting budget surpluses or deficits five years in advance in the first place. that would shield it from hypothetical criticism on hypothetical outcomes.
jessica murray
love does not exist. it's merely a delusional delve into fantasy, as created by hormones. sorry.
see, this is the media narrative that we've been burdened with for the last several decades and that i'd really like to see just go away.
two $40,000/yr jobs (if that) isn't even statistical error in the budget.
and, i don't say this in any particular defense of trudeau. i state it in defense of rational thinking on the fiscal front - as it applies to a wide variety of things.
if you're angry about this, it's just flat out irrational.
i'd rather flip the situation around.
are these workers getting enough hours to earn a living wage? do they have sufficient benefits - dental, for example?
what's more important, here - that these workers have rights or the couple of thousandths of a cent it would cost you to ensure they do?
hylobates
Yeah, but logic and rational thought never were Con strong points.
jessica murray
well, the reality is that it isn't even that they're bad at logic, it's more that they go out of their way to subvert it.
i still don't know what "legally binding" means, but this is a nice change in language from the messaging over the last little while. good. now, let's hope it gets done. and, let's hope the american people develop some sense in kicking the republicans out if they block it, too.
it may be the case that the rest of the world will have to move ahead without the united states, if that happens. but, i mean, what else are we going to do? we can't just keep waiting.
and, if it gets blocked by some other country, it's fair game to blame that other country for that, too.
this makes sense: there's a fight between the warm air moving up and the cold air moving down and the forecast is that the warm air will mostly win that fight. i concur. but, i just want to add that you have to work in a concept of uncertainty. this el nino has also been unpredictable. this time last year, it wasn't even clear that we were going to have an el nino at all. if various factors lead to a faster collapse. or a longer lingering, this will effect how much warm air is able to move it's way up. there's also uncertainty related to how powerful that north wind may end up. canadians know to never underestimate that north wind.
while i think the idea is correct, i would suggest that you should not be surprised if we get a nasty cold snap or two before february. i would also not be surprised if the el nino stays longer than expected (as this has been the pattern with this el nino up to now - it has consistently exceeded forecasts). the cold snaps may be short, and may ultimately be overpowered by the warm air. but, there's reasons to expect them that go beyond the obvious "well, it's winter".
it's actually a situation, i think, where "a few degrees above normal" is misleading. fifteen days of temperatures that are 6 degrees above normal followed by five days of temperatures that are 10 degrees below normal (maybe dipping over the first day and rising over the last) balances out to "a few degrees above normal". but, it doesn't feel that way. and you won't remember it that way.