Stack Exchange
log in

Giter

 Discussion on answer by Ertai87: Do R…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Feb 8, 2023 09:07
@Ertai87 : But linking neutral or left-wing sources isn't necessarily showing what conservatives are saying about this, and we shouldn't require users to read several articles to confirm. Either those sources are quoting conservatives, in which case you could just use the same quotes, or they aren't quoting conservatives, in which case it doesn't answer the question.
Giter
Feb 8, 2023 09:07
You have a lot of links to a variety of sources, and are summarizing why people might have valid reasons to investigate Hunter Biden. However, the question is asking what 'conservatives' are saying they want to investigate him for, so could you add in any quotes or direct citations to what they're saying specifically?
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe W: Is ove…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Dec 7, 2021 02:29
@tuskiomi: They didn't "suddenly" decide to make a vaccine, Moderna was founded in 2010 with the goal of researching and developing these sorts of things. And they didn't develop their covid vaccine "for no known reason at all", the reason is very much known: they were one of several companies that received funding to develop and test it via Operation Warp Speed.
 

 Discussion on question by user1721135…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Jul 4, 2021 21:08
Since the claim here is just a summary of one article's results section, you might get a more expert answer about how robust the methodology/results are if you asked it on the Medical Sciences SE site. I'm not too familiar with that site so I'm not 100% sure if it would be on topic there, but a quick search of questions having the phrase "new study" shows a lot of questions in the same format as this one.
 

 Discussion on question by productive …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
May 17, 2021 15:43
@productiveperson: I think the comparison to literacy tests is applicable here. Whether the tests prevent a group from voting or whether the tests cause a group's vote to be significantly weighted down, the effect on elections is the same: whoever writes the tests decides who has the voting power. In practice, the type of democracy would depend more on the intentions of the test writers than on the actual specifics of the test system.
 

 Discussion on question by Spirit Real…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Jul 14, 2020 17:36
Sure, I think something like that would be on-topic. The important thing is to have an explicit claim in your question, and quoting someone claiming that it's supernatural should work.
Giter
Jul 14, 2020 17:36
In order to be on-topic, you'll need to quote some notable source claiming that there either is or isn't a scientific for religious shaking (if someone in the one of your examples says something like "science can't explain it", that might count depending on widely viewed the video is). Also, although the question you linked in a comment is similar, that question was made in 2011, and standards for questions here may have been different a decade ago.
 

 Discussion on answer by Giter: Does L…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Jun 26, 2020 07:23
@MatthieuM.: As I said in my answer, the article was published on the same day as the directive was updated, which is why I said there is 'currently' no requirement. Regardless of timing, there was never a requirement like the article claims, as they are guidelines that aren't being enforced. So of the two claims ("there is an exception" to a "requirement") the answers are 'not now' and 'never', so I was comfortable leading with a 'no'.
 

 Discussion on question by matt_black:…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Jun 11, 2020 15:34
But if the answer to the similar question @jeffronicus linked is "there is very little voter fraud at all", why would expect limiting the type of fraud change the answer from 'very little' to 'substantial'? That other question was written almost 8 years ago so things may have changed, but if nobody is claiming something has changed to increase mail-in fraud then I assume the answer now will still be the same as in 2012.
 

 Discussion on question by adamaero: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
May 29, 2020 20:15
Right now, your question doesn't include a specific, quoted claim, but rather a link to an article with a variety of related claims, so it's not clear exactly what you're asking about. For example, your title ('know how food is made') is different from the article ('know how factory farming works'), so maybe you could just ask if it's true that most people don't know how factory farming works, or you could ask if the study mentioned in the article (with a broken link) was a real study that had the results described in the article.
 

 Discussion on question by JonathanRee…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Dec 28, 2019 12:07
Basically the same question about this graph/poll was asked on Politics SE a couple years ago. The accepted answer there gives some background and suggests it's true, but unfortunately doesn't have any sources to back it up.
 

 Discussion on question by fredsbend: …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Aug 3, 2019 04:53
The History of Science and Mathematics site seems like a better place to ask about when/how/if the order of operations has changed over time.
 

 Discussion on question by fredsbend: …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Apr 14, 2019 02:42
The claim in the article is that a poll showed suggests that 51% of Republicans believe illegal immigrants overuse social services. Where is anyone claiming that this overuse is real, or that illegal immigrants' use is causing a strain?
 

 Discussion on answer by Giter: How wo…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Feb 26, 2019 21:39
@FabianRöling: It doesn't have to be an actual, physical box. It can be a website that the AI isn't allowed to scan, a server it shouldn't connect to, a color of paperclip it wasn't told to make. It just needs to be something it was explicitly told not to do as part of its task, monitored by humans for the sole purpose of catching bad behavior.
Giter
Feb 26, 2019 21:39
@forest: Set opening the box to the minimum value for however the algorithm ranks options, so that it always has better alternatives. If it ever tries the box, then it's likely left 'machine learning' and entered 'machine curiosity'.
Giter
Feb 26, 2019 21:39
@cgTag: That's where the "or stop humans from looking at the box" comes in. The AI would definitely have a couple intermediate steps between 'make paperclips' and 'protect box by destroying humanity', so as soon as it starts testing ways to keep the box safe from humans instead of for humans it gets shutdown before it reaches the next step.
 

 Discussion on question by Piomicron: …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Nov 19, 2018 09:16
In a game of chance, does Death control how all of the dice (or whatever) fall or just his own dice's result?
 

 Discussion on answer by Giter: Why ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Nov 1, 2018 19:23
@PoloHoleSet: Oh yeah, this and other things he's been saying at his rallies are (thankfully) just a stunt.
Giter
Nov 1, 2018 19:23
@PoloHoleSet: I meant "Trump's administration arguing the prior court case about kids of legal residents don't apply to this situation" was a legitimate concern, not that illegal immigrants might be considered outside of US jurisdiction(otherwise it's paradoxically impossible for them to be illegal at all). I believe that the Supreme court would probably would uphold the exact same ruling as those prior cases, it's just that there's a possible (and extremely tenuous) argument that could be made to prevent the revocation from just being immediately overturned without a new court case.
Giter
Nov 1, 2018 19:23
@PoloHoleSet: It's a legitimate concern, because I could definitely see the attempt to enact it this go like: exec. order -> challenged based on precedence -> "no, that precedence only applies to legal residents" -> another Supreme Court decision. As for why he has the power: the President has the power to direct the federal government to enforce laws in any way via executive orders, but those orders are subject to judicial review and can be pretty easily halted by courts(like those travel bans last year). So, the revocation would be fully enforceable law until it's (immediately) challenged.
Giter
Nov 1, 2018 19:23
@jamesqf: It's not quite a straightforward reading, the exact wording is closer to "these legal residents were definitely under US jurisdiction and in the US, so their kid is a US citizen". The fact that the parents were legal residents is directly mentioned in the decision, so although it doesn't seem like that was a core reason for the decision someone could try to argue that the decision only applies when the parents are legal residents.
Giter
Nov 1, 2018 19:23
@DrunkCynic: Added that Wong Kim Ark case into my answer which brief explanations of potential interpretations by either side, thanks for the example. Anything more thorough might be better for Law though.
 

 Discussion between Drunk Cynic and gu…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Oct 24, 2018 14:44
@guest271314: So, when people close a question because they don't believe it is a good faith effort to learn, that's what they mean: that you aren't honestly trying to learn more about politics. And when many of your questions are 90% citations and discussion about sources that aren't in any way applicable to the topic you're trying to learn about, it's easy to see why they might think you aren't acting in good faith.
Giter
Oct 24, 2018 14:41
@guest271314: You only talked about one of my points but said you disagreed with both and I had three, but I digress. Either way, not only are we not talking about religious faith here, we're not even talking about secular faith(i.e., strong conviction or belief). We're talking about 'good faith' as a single term, which is, as the Cornell Law page I linked would've told you,"A term that generally describes honest dealing", nothing religious about it.
Giter
Oct 24, 2018 14:18
@guest271314: "What they thought is irrelevant", since you were wondering why that reason for closing was used their thoughts seem very relevant. """faith" is for religious adherents", yes, but again irrelevant since good faith is very much for politics and law. "The content of the question goes to exactly how persons can become U.S. citizens", yes, in various ways between the 1850's and now, which means it's completely unrelated to people living 70 years prior.
 

 Discussion on question by elliot sven…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Oct 14, 2018 18:27
Your title is asking if limiting climate change would benefit people/ecosystems, but your question body asks if governments are capable of making the changes. Which one is your question? The latter seems to be lacking a clear claim, and the former seems trivial: since it lacks any quantifiers, it would just need a couple benefiting people/ecosystems to be true.
 

 Discussion on question by user55717: …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Sep 27, 2018 04:39
If we could tell you how an your average-John could take realistically take over the world, why would we be writing that answer here and not, you know, ruling the world ourselves?
 

 Discussion on answer by Giter: Did cl…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Sep 14, 2018 04:31
I enjoy mathy discussions as much as the next guy, but I think this comment thread is starting to get away from the actual question/answer. If there's some notable person saying that this type of death estimation is too inaccurate to be used or has some major flaw not accounted for in the report, then I think that would be a great(and separate) follow up question if someone wants to ask it.
Giter
Sep 14, 2018 04:31
@Underminer: Nobody is saying that it's perfectly predictable, and it's obviously counting more than just age-related deaths. The 2975 number is simply the center of the 95% confidence range from their estimates, which itself is still just their best estimation using statistical methods that I don't have enough statistics degrees to understand. It could be much higher or much lower, but those are the numbers that showed up when the appropriate available data was plugged in. Also, the island still hasn't fully recovered, so saying that conditions didn't improve isn't unreasonable.
Giter
Sep 14, 2018 04:31
@Underminer: Not necessarily. Let's say that according to past death rates, 100 people were expected to die from age-related issues in January. If the actual number of age-related deaths in January was 125, then it's reasonable to say that 25 people probably died as a result of some unusual factor that isn't in normal death statistics. In this case, the unusual factor was recovery from a particularly bad hurricane, so we can reasonably say that the hurricane caused those 25 extra deaths.
Giter
Sep 14, 2018 04:31
@Oddthinking: Added in a lot more info about how the numbers were actually estimated.
 

 Regarding the Russian "Humonculus vid…

Giter
Aug 16, 2018 16:00
@MichaelK I think I understand your point now, and I agree. Some sort of notable source discussing the claim would definitely show that it is believed widely enough
Giter
Aug 16, 2018 15:52
@MichaelK But doesn't the last sentence of the Meta post cover this situation? The idea here is that once a large number of people are exposed to the claim, it is of general interest to validate the claim and either confirm or refute it.
Giter
Aug 16, 2018 15:43
@MichaelK I don't think a question needs to show that a notable claim is widely believed, just that it is widely seen. I don't know how someone would go about proving widespread belief in something without a large population poll, and the majority of questions here don't have anything like that.
Giter
Aug 16, 2018 15:13
@MichaelK Good point, that's why I asked if the OP had any better sources for the claim. From a quick look, there are several videos debunking the linked Russian video and other similar ones, which I suppose shows that enough people believe it to be worth the effort/ad money to make a debunking video.
Giter
Aug 16, 2018 15:06
If the entire post was edited down to just "this popular video claims a living creature can be made by injecting non-chicken sperm into a chicken egg, is there any way that could possibly happen?" then it might clear up all the confusion.
Giter
Aug 16, 2018 15:03
It does the cooking-show style "here's how to prepare it, and here's one we've been baking for a while" to show the prep and final product, with no claim on how it actually works.
Giter
Aug 16, 2018 15:02
Yeah, I think there was a lot of confusion about what the claim actually is. Youtube has a transcription feature for videos with captions. The entire explanation, for the first video at least, is "inject sperm into a chicken egg yolk, seal it up for freshness, and have a homunculus eventually", and at no point does anything like somatic fusion get mentioned.
 

 Discussion on question by doplin: Hel…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Aug 10, 2018 19:48
You may want to add some more constraints/info on how answers will be judged. For example, your association of iron with strength sort of makes sense but why did you choose iron instead of steel or tungsten? What historical/cultural traditions led you to choose tin as the metal associated with absorbing elements? Is there a specific culture you're pulling from?
 

 Discussion on question by sehew: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Aug 2, 2018 15:10
Yeah sehew, I think that'll clear up the confusion. Good job catching that @OttoAbnormalverbraucher.
Giter
Aug 2, 2018 15:10
@OttoAbnormalverbraucher: I didn't realize that until you pointed it out. Yeah, I was reading fix as in 'fix in place', i.e. make the changes permanent, not fix as in 'correct' the changes. I think sehew meant the first one, though you're right that it could be causing the confusion.
Giter
Aug 2, 2018 15:10
@RonJohn: I think the year is 800 + (number of generations * about 20). The question isn't "did it happen yet" but rather "how long will it take", so the current year doesn't seem decided yet. Also, welcome to the site sehew!
 

 Discussion on question by Ash: Write …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Jul 30, 2018 15:55
Unless you broaden your options to allow destruction/erasure of the data, then I don't think it's possible. In order to use written data it must be readable, in order to be readable in must be accessible, and if it can be accessed then it can be destroyed unless the material itself is indestructible. However, having data be unable to be overwritten without destroying the data/storage system is definitely possible.
 

 Discussion on answer by sempaiscuba: …

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
Giter
Jul 29, 2018 16:21
@guest271314: By your reasoning, what were the boundaries of so-called sub-Saharan Africa and ancient "Egypt"? There certainly wasn't an "Ancient Egypt" until pretty recently. You are dismissing and challenging commonly understood terms while offering no reasoning behind your own terms.
Giter
Jul 29, 2018 16:21
@guest271314: What do you mean by Europe and the Middle East 'not existing' at the time of Ancient Egypt? Sure, those places weren't called that at the time but following that reasoning Ancient Egypt didn't exist at the time of Ancient Egypt. People were living in ancient Europe at the same time people were living in ancient Egypt, so saying it didn't exist doesn't make any sense.
 

 Discussion on question by pat3d3r: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Jul 2, 2018 19:19
This is definitely off-topic for this site, though I'm not sure where you could find an answer(StackExchange doesn't have a comedy site, unfortunately). The gist is: "We heard you threatened to do X and Y, did you?", and the response "No, and Y is impossible anyway" implies the person asking the question is ill-informed.
 

 Discussion on question by Paran Bhara…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Giter
Jun 13, 2018 15:09
Generation ships are always an option no matter how slow we go, and I'm sure we can build some pretty snazzy ones with a billion years of prep.
 

 Discussion on question by guest271314…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Giter
Jun 10, 2018 21:59
Many words aren't mentioned in the original question, not just privilege. And if you believe that the people who may answer this question need you to tell them that history then I'm not sure why you also believe they're qualified enough to make their answer.
Giter
Jun 10, 2018 21:59
This seems like a very long winded way to ask to what extent white privilege applies to politics. I'm not sure if the whole rigmarole about a history of the concept of race is really needed in order to ask that.
 

 Discussion on question by HannesH: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
Giter
Apr 3, 2018 08:15
@HannesH: Got it, mind if I edit the question to clear that up? It should help with people's confusion as to what you're asking exactly.