Haunted_Cabbage

This seems to be an Appeal to Ethos. I don't think that would be justified. Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim. There's many different ways to support a claim, telling who exactly told you isn't the only path towards supporting a claim.

I see. For instance, it might not have been them who made it up, it could have been someone else.

However, given all of the information known at the time, there's little evidence to suggest that anyone aside from them was responsible for the assertions without evidence, which again leads to the same logical conclusion.

While I understand that you're not equivocally saying that their claims are true, but you are absolutely appealing to someone's reputation as an authority on the topic to suggest what they say is "worth paying attention to in the absence of any other useful information".

Which seems little different to an appeal to authority. Maybe you better understand the nuance between an appeal to authority and an appeal to someone's reputation as an authority.

>No.

>Especially in stories involving classified information it's very rare to get unequivocal proof at first. For better or worse leaks are how stories break, and the leakers are careful about how they do it so to avoid criminal charges.

>Given this, all you have is the reputation of the person doing the reporting. Historically have they shown good judgement in discarding the crackpots and do many of their breaking stories from unnamed stories subsequently turn out to be true?

I think we're back to an Appeal to Authority.

I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?

This looks like an Appeal to Authority.

I think there's a trivial semantic difference between the two terms. The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.

>One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.

Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens? That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

I get really upset when claims are made without evidence to support them. It might be a moral failing of mine, but for some reason I really loathe when assertions are made without evidence.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Do you see any sources for their claims?

Is this about the quack doctor?

I wonder if there's a targeted misinformation campaign.

My point isn't that people forgo resources but better utilize the efficiency and technology we've developed. We can maintain and better the quality of life for everyone. For example, at one point the US was wasting 51% of fresh food that has been distributed. Working on improving that distribution network can reduce food costs and waste. We have the technology.

Those are all great issues that definitely deserve attention. However, they're not problems that are caused by population. Everything you've listed are problems of the economic and cultural systems currently in place. None of these issues improves with a lower population.

Edit: Your comment has radically changed since I left my comment. My point is the same.

Sprout Social - Please ignore.

Shorts don't expire, but the short sellers can call in on that short and there's also interest at exceptionally high rates.

Noticed? Doesn't one need evidence to notice something or does imagination suffice?

Businesses are in no way obligated to not discriminate (so long as it's not a reason that's due to a protected class). It seems like you disagree.

Sounds like an explanation of why labor costs are a employer's largest expense.

Hours of asses in chairs isn't really a measurement of goals being meet. The quality of the time spent is what gets the goals met.

I think the term uncomfortable people is a flippant and trivial term when it comes to the details listed in that link.

A reduction of symptoms but not a statistical reduction in viral load? That's an odd combination of outcomes.

None of which invalidates the importance of peer review. If anything, it means that more should be taking place.

I'm not sure why you're commenting about locusts on a cicada thread.

My intention was to say that the exponent describes the characteristics of a change, not to imply that the effects are only positive.

Given that a negative exponent makes a result smaller, I'd say that it describes rate at which it'll change.

That's a great question. While I'm not the person who you asked, I'd like to get some examples from you. Which other pandemic outbreak are you referring to? Or are you referring to some communicable disease which isn't a pandemic?

How feasible is complete isolation for those who are immune compromised and elderly? How is the national coverage for services relating to basic necessities and the ability to those in this group to access them?

Given that this is a highly infectious virus, a reasonable person will understand that aside from those in this at risk group, every external point of contact is an additional risk. Should they also do the same?

The point I try to make is that with how connected our societies are, the interconnected nature enables the spread to the point where a single group quarantining is ineffective.

Think of it in terms of a spreading fire. The more a fire burns nearby, the higher the chances it will spread even to an isolated area or overcome fire resistance measures.

Does the exponent of a variable make the variable large or does it describe the characteristics of how it gets large?

There's a slight difference between striving to save lives and striving to maximize profits for shareholders.