Stack Exchange
log in

Konrad Rudolph

 Discussion on answer by pinegulf: Did…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Feb 11, 2022 15:03
@user2647513 I’d like to see where you got that 2% number from, because that’s very different from numbers I’ve seen. That being said, the virus variant plays a role, and cloth masks appear much less effective against Omicron, in particular. Lastly, since you mention “aerosolised”, just a note that a cloth mask of course doesn’t have to block an aerosol to still be effective: infection is a stochastic game, and even just blocking droplets hugely decreases the concentration of virus particles in a given volume of air, which in turn lowers risk of infection.
Konrad Rudolph
Feb 11, 2022 15:03
@user2647513 If you demand RCTs then you apply unreasonable standards of evidence: performing a large RCT on something like this would — at the moment — be pretty unethical, and generally wouldn’t get IRB approval for that reason (there are smaller RCTs but by their nature they’re inconclusive). The closest to an RCT you’re likely to find is this field study. Formal and informal lab studies on the filtration efficiency of cloth masks abound and hopefully shouldn’t be controversial.
Konrad Rudolph
Feb 11, 2022 15:03
@dan Heck no. The answer is that the evidential situation changed. Back then, there was no good evidence that cloth masks would be at all effective, and some reason to assume that they wouldn’t. In the meantime, studies have repeatedly shown that cloth masks are effective (though potentially less so than medical masks, and substantially less than N95 masks). — Changing your stance in response to evidence isn't “flip-flopping”. It's science.
 

 Discussion on answer by Avery: Did th…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 30, 2021 14:25
Calling the Telegraph “liberal leaning” is also a fairly weird characterisation that requires an idiosyncratic definition of “liberal”. It’s generally recognised in the UK as tendentious/biased and right-wing, and generally of fairly low journalistic quality, though not quite on the level of a tabloid.
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 30, 2021 14:24
@fredsbend Thanks for posting the deleted comments. Apart from that I’ve said what I’ve had to say. And if you’re unaware of the structural problems in journalism and reporting and how the overuse of “anonymous sources” contributes to it, I invite you to go inform yourself, but please don’t expect me to spend my time teaching you. Same goes for the role of editorial oversight and how tweeting is different from vetted reporting.
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 29, 2021 21:26
@MarkAmery Certainly not forever: I used to be a mod here, and I didn’t moderate like this. Anyway, I don’t have an issue with how moderation is currently handled on Skeptics in general, there’s only so much you can do in the face of a huge HNQ wave.
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 29, 2021 14:42
It isn’t my fault (though likely unavoidable) that this comment unfortunately also triggered another discussion.
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 29, 2021 14:42
(To be clear, my now-deleted comment was intentionally not posted in the chat because it wasn’t trying to participate in the existing off-topic discussion, it was doing what comments were designed to do: ask for more information, and suggest and improvement.)
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 29, 2021 14:40
@Oddthinking Since when does “discussion comments moved to chat” mean that no new comments asking for clarification can be posted?
 

 Discussion on answer by nobody: Why a…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 16, 2021 09:16
@schroeder I don’t think that’s generally true … if nothing else that’d be a huge privacy violation issue.
 

 Discussion on question by Ted: Admit …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 4, 2021 20:51
@Leo Thanks, I appreciate the nuance and context.
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 4, 2021 20:51
@Leo That's frankly terrible advice. Offensively so.
 

 Discussion on question by user148813:…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 2, 2021 16:05
What makes you think you were overthinking? Just because you got a definitive answer from faculty? Consider the breadth of the different answers here (most disagreeing with your faculty’s answer), which would indicate that you were definitely not overthinking this.
Konrad Rudolph
Nov 2, 2021 16:05
@JackAidley Contrariwise, I’m baffled that you’re baffled by Jon’s comment: since you can’t conceive of this format being unusual, you seem to be used to it. Then surely you must have seen that students routinely answer more questions, right? ;-)
 

 Discussion on question by user148619:…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Oct 28, 2021 18:29
@jamesqf Your example isn't true as far as I know. Research on mRNA vaccines was certainly badly timed in the 90s, marginal and underfunded. But I doubt that relevant experts at the time classified the fundamental work as crankish. And the same is true for most examples of supposed scientific mavericks, later vindicated, that are routinely wheeled out, with very few legitimate exceptions (Lynn Margulis being one).
Konrad Rudolph
Oct 28, 2021 18:29
@Jasen Who did?! The scientific establishment at the time, at least, was largely supportive of his publications, even though it led to a paradigm shift.
 

 Discussion on answer by user141592: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on cooking.stackexchange.co...
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 30, 2021 16:39
… even if the grains of rice clump together, it’s still not surprising that it loses heat fairly quickly. And, again, this is completely unrelated to reheating. The exact same happens every time you prepare food, and you must have noticed this, so I find your disbelief odd.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 30, 2021 16:38
And most food has a vastly higher surface area than that: consider grains of rice: ever grain has a very large surface-to-volume ratio, so heat loss is very quick indeed.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 30, 2021 16:38
@Davor I’m sure it depends on the specific heat retention properties of the material, and thus the consistency/water content of the food, but your claim about the baby formula under cold water is hard to believe, unless the bottle is incredibly insulating. Either way, bottle vs open plate makes a huge difference: most of the heat is lost via that surface.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 30, 2021 15:51
The same is true for food you’re cooking fresh, why would it be different for reheated food?
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 30, 2021 15:51
@Davor The food is edible within minutes. By the time I’ve plated the food and moved to the dining room next door, I can start eating immediately.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 29, 2021 13:38
@user3067860 It does if you stir frequently. Furthermore, the surface is the most important area anyway: that’s where most pathogens will be found. Not heating the food all the way through is comparatively much less important (though, admittedly, depending on the food).
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 29, 2021 13:38
@user3067860 Yes, I do. I'm frankly surprised to learn that (apparently) some people don't — not so much due to food safety, but just because it seems entirely natural: regardless of whether I reheat food on the stove, on the oven, or in the microwave, it's just easiest to heat it all the way (that is, until it steams or bubbles). Otherwise, by the time I'm seated, the food will already be cold.
 

 Discussion between Konrad Rudolph and…

Imported from a comment discussion on cooking.stackexchange.co...
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 26, 2021 13:42
But even if we accept this assessment, it doesn’t mean what most people think it means: The IARC rates carcinogenic risk without regard to effect size or dosage. This makes the rating worse than useless. For comparison, consider that the IARC rates sunlight and processed meat as “definitely carcinogenic”, and red meat as “probably carcinogenic”, same as glyphosate. Does this mean we need to avoid sunlight and meat? No! The dose makes the poison.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 26, 2021 13:42
@njzk2 And since this is a frequent (and intentionally engineered!) misunderstanding, let me state explicitly that your opinion of glyphosate is likely baseless, since it’s probably based on its IARC rating as “probably carcinogenic”. This rating itself is controversial and based on only a subset of cherry-picked studies.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 26, 2021 13:36
@njzk2 Studies about the safety of glyphosate (and formulations such as Roundup) have been ongoing for decades, and have demonstrated its safety conclusively. And yes, cigarettes are obviously also a good example since their harm was discovered through studies. People thought smoking was harmless before such studies existed.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:34
(Just to drive this last point home: asbestos had been used for thousands of years before first being investigated scientifically for its health effects, after which it was banned; cigarettes had been around for hundreds of years, and smoking (and tobacco) for much longer.)
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:31
Equating these situations is simply not a good argument, and shouldn’t convince you.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:31
… also, I’m not aware that there was ever an independent scientific consensus for the safety of cigarettes. At most, scientists stated that the evidence wasn’t clear yet. The same is true for asbestos: people thought it was safe, yes, but because they had never studied its safety (or lack thereof). These situations are fundamentally different from the consensus around food safety of (food grade) plastics, and they predate modern regulatory legislation and safety thinking.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:28
@njzk2 I don’t trust industry groups, but I do trust modern scientific consensus and, unless you’re an expert in a relevant field, you should do the same: mistrusting the science isn’t “being cautious”. On the contrary, it’s dangerous (in this case, because it undermines expert consensus in general, and might lead you/others to seek less safe alternatives). BPA (very weakly toxic!) notwithstanding, there’s simply no rational reason to think food-grade plastic, which has been around for a long time in an increasingly strict food safety framework and is well researched, is in any way unsafe.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:28
(@njzk2 In fact, if anything, BPA demonstrates just how well modern regulations in Western countries work, since it got withdrawn from the market out of an overabundance of precaution, not because any actual harm was demonstrated.)
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:28
@njzk2 Glyphosate is another excellent example, since glyphosate is almost certainly completely safe in its regular application: the so-called “evidence” to the contrary is largely (at least party intentionally) flawed, financed by industry lobby groups. The anti-scientific scare-mongering surrounding glyphosate are a prime example why you should listen to the scientific consensus rather than to uneducated peer juries. Ironically the demonisation of glyphosate has the effect of making vastly more toxic and harmful, or alternatively less effective, chemicals be used instead.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 22, 2021 21:28
@njzk2 [citation needed] — or, put differently, please don't rely on hunches when it comes to heath information, and don't create your own facts.
 

 Discussion on question by Franck Dern…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 10, 2021 13:11
@FranckDernoncourt Admittedly I’m mostly going the other way round; “‹drug› US name“ usually shows me an info box with the US name. If not, the Wikipedia link with the relevant information is within the first three hits, and so are other relevant links, including to drugs.com. On the few occasions where I’ve tried this for other countries it also worked.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 10, 2021 13:11
Honestly, Google works unreasonably well for this in my experience. — Mostly, probably, because Wikipedia also tends to have the different brand names.
 

 Discussion on question by hanugm: Do …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 9, 2021 14:01
@hanugm Thanks. That makes it all the more bizarre. This proof is certainly somewhat complex and long-ish, but I know several people without advanced maths degrees who have worked through it (one of them was an — admittedly brilliant! — high school student). At worst it’s a waste of time. Nobody becomes mentally ill as a consequence of reading this proof.
Konrad Rudolph
Sep 9, 2021 14:01
Ok, so what's this proof?
 

 Discussion on question by Mauricio: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on biology.stackexchange.co...
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 25, 2021 17:24
@anongoodnurse Beware of popular science paraphrase of actual research findings. Turing obviously didn’t say that every singly daisy had a Fibonacci number as its number of petals — as you’ve noticed that would be silly. But dismissing Turing based on that would be facile. It’s certainly possible that Turing’s findings really are an urban legend that has taken hold in the scientific community (such cases do exist) but there’s at least some reason to assume that this isn’t the case, unless proven otherwise, and contrary to what you’ve written using such a prior isn’t a fallacy at all.
 

 Discussion on question by Tom: How to…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 18, 2021 14:12
@Tom Don’t be so sure that your PI wouldn’t have faced very similar criticism — it happens, and it’s similarly uncomfortable. But when you’re saying that some of the same PIs were already involved in the planning phase and didn’t voice criticism then, well, that’s a concern. Thanks for clarifying. Of course maybe the level of detail really made a difference for the criticism but, from what you’re saying, it doesn’t sound like it did. Incidentally, I’ve actually been in almost the exact same situation before and it purely sucked, so I feel you.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 18, 2021 14:12
@John_Krampf What are you talking about? “more equitable representation of junior members in decision making”? — the criticism isn’t coming from decision-makers, it’s coming from uninvolved researchers. There’s no indication here of un-equitable representation. There’s no indication that the HR department should get involved (to do … what, exactly?). There’s no indication that anybody is “shielding” their own bad behaviour. What OP has described is a completely regular (albeit admittedly very uncomfortable) seminar (or similar) where colleagues are explicitly invited to provide feedback.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 18, 2021 14:12
@John Factual criticism isn’t “punching down”. On the contrary, it is supporting OP (if done constructively). And while I won’t pretend that the difference in seniority plays no role in such interactions in research, it is obviously a fundamental necessity that senior colleagues are permitted to offer criticism to junior scientists. Science cannot work without it.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 18, 2021 14:12
Could you clarify how the "punching down" occurred? From your question text is honestly not clear that it occurred at all (though it certainly is possible). Any response needs to take that into account.
 

 Discussion on answer by Buffy: Submit…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 13, 2021 18:36
@Nobody You're spot on, and this is standard practice (in my field — though it helps if this is agreed upon in advance). Mind writing an answer?
 

 Discussion on question by Ruslan Oblo…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 18:56
@fredsbend (I forgot to add:) Against the overwhelming consensus of public health and epidemiology experts, and at the expense of the general public health.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 18:49
@fredsbend Against the overwhelming consensus of public health and epidemiology experts. Against which you simply have no weighty argument whatsoever. And that’s precisely why I have no time for your personal, petty gripes.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 18:17
@fredsbend “both-siding” refers to the fact that you insist that both sides here have equal or similar claims to the truth. Not so. The fact that you seem to come down on the side against personal responsibility makes this worse, not better. There’s just no argument to be had.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 18:16
@fredsbend Because I avoid confrontation. And just to clarify: a “militant” is somebody who’s trailing a weapon at you. Not somebody who feels uncomfortable and lashes out because social norms have conditioned them to avoid confrontation, yet they feel the need to break this social norm, heightening their own discomfort even further.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 17:17
@fredsbend Just one final clarification: I am not, and never was, on any “fence” here. And I object to your unbearable both-siding, and the caricature description which immediately poisoned the well of this discussion.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 16:22
@fredsbend You can make the exact same argument for smoking in public. And, sorry, I ain’t got time for that sophistry.
Konrad Rudolph
Aug 11, 2021 16:21
@fredsbend There’s, quite frankly, nothing whatsoever inappropriate about it.