Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Lex Fridman"
channel.
-
31
-
13
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It's not just that Mr "Destiny", it's that Mr "Destiny" doesn't have knowledge, ciritical thinking skill or manners entirely.
Mr "Destiny" is not just regular people, Mr "Destiny" is an immatured, ignorant, inexperienced young kid.
Distinguish that, buddy. I know that with you people, a book is the scariest thing in the world, but books and maybe PhDs, it means knowledge, by the way. It's one thing to be regular people, it's another thing to be stupid people, learn to distinguish the two.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DogshitArgument We don't recognize or engage into conversations with unqualified people. Like how you don't let a kid who's not a doctor operate on your liver.
Buddy, have you no standards?
There's nothing substantive about Burnelli argument, it's not even an argument, he can't even distinguish what is fact and what is not fact.
Here's a clue, an example for you. 15 out of 17 judges on the ICJ ruled for plausibility of genocide, that's a fact.
Plausibility is an extremely low standard, that's an opinion, and furthermore, it's unspported, ignorant opinion because that guy never even heard of that word in any case.
Morris, Rabbini and Finkelstein had no problems discussing all of the issues because they all know about it, and most of the time, these 3 agrees on the facts, they just don't agree on the underlying explanation.
Burnelli doesn't even know the facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nope, there are very big reasons to do so, because unlike YouTube, which is a free platform, a scientific venue is a publisher.
Your work is reviewed and then judged by a board of editor. And those disappointing quality of those articles reflect the competency of board of editor.
Even the most esteemed ones of any business, there are full of holes inside of them. Massive holes, and people just follow the game because that's the game.
Try doing real science, you'll see. Most of those articles are extremely useless.
One can post their methodology and work online for everybody to see, but once you've submitted yourself for review, you've put yourself into the situation where as if you're begging for the board approval.
The board can very much be wrong, they're humans and humans make mistakes, and those journals always make a lot of mistakes.
Once you've started doing it, you'll understand. If you don't understand that designed vagueness in the industry, you're not doing it properly.
Real science stands whether it is published by a magazine, a tabloid, a journal or even on a website.
Show some respect.
The scientific industry works like this, a researcher send a paper to journal where his contacts are editors, and then such journal is ranked by another one of his contacts. It's a gigantic circle of corruption. It's like investment banking but with more complicated issues and a higher proclaimed ethical stance.
Now within such circle of corruption, sometimes a miracle can occur. However, there are also sometimes notable results, not yet to the levels of miracles are ignored.
Once you've published inside an article, you can't post it for free.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2