« first day (3750 days earlier)      last day (1035 days later) » 

uhoh
uhoh
4:24 AM
1
Q: What aircraft equipment produced the three recordings of unidentified aerial phenomenon released by the US Pentagon in 2020? What does black signify?

uhohI don't follow these things closely and my question is carefully scoped to ask ONLY about the type of aircraft equipment used and what the various gray levels in the images indicates. In CNN "The Point" Video Barack Obama just said something very interesting about UFOs by Chris Cillizza, there ar...

military aircraft-identification flight-instruments
of possible interest; asked in Aviation SE and I've just added a bounty
 
 
6 hours later…
LаngLаngС
LаngLаngС
10:09 AM
@fredsbend That's a number we should try to have! As in: 'know', so that the ratio may be improved? My feeling is: the ratio is not good enough, and actively bad on some topics. But that' a personal observation on a perceived pattern, no hard numbers.
What's more: You are biased, pretty much so. That's an accusation. Odd is biased, pretty heavily. Likewise. Hell. I am biased as well. Thing is: everyone is biased. That cannot be helped, ultimately. It's a fundamental fact. One of the first things we learned in uni aboout science philosophy, scientific method and methodology. But we have to account for it, and try to minimize that, driven home in the same lecture. And it does so on S:SE-meta. In a way.
This seems quite sub-optimal to me that on meta and in boiler-plate mod-comments ("remember: we don't care about…") it is displayed as if t…
This is clearly not the case.
Some bias is unavoidable, some is acceptable, most is or should be neither.
If I see the comments below the a here and how they are voted, and how the 'matching' Q fared for itself here I find it hard to counter my confirmation bias tendencies for the above theory.
In the comments for the first linked answer (which itself got the love for being within the lines of now common orthodoxy, despite being 'very suboptimal' for the question as asked, if not 'not answering it') we see them devolve quickly towards claimed morality issues in extremis, personalised arguments, dubious claims about 'general relativity' (?), etc. And we see upvotes for that?
@fredsbend On the other hand, I really am quite delighted to see my mind changed on something (not anything 'new, who would have thought', but: ''know it' & convinced it is so') or imagine to read between the lines or openly how others do likewise. Overcoming bias is a daily battle. Not something we have ever guaranteed here.
@fredsbend BTW: your initial comment below the mask-A is exactly the carry home message for the terribly flawed Chu et al study as well. The number needed to wear a mask for the alleged results (alas, unusable, but let's run with it) is abysmally bad. It seems strange that all those calculations all only work if the equation is kept simple and the 'costs' have to be assumed to be zero.
 
 
5 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
3:35 PM
@LаngLаngС I'm pretty sure it's published somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment and I got to go for now. Start here maybe skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4704/…
 

« first day (3750 days earlier)      last day (1035 days later) »