I don’t think that’s true. I noticed. I took it seriously. The problem is Nigeria didn’t have enough people producing papers with data. (Or I didn’t see them.) I take Nigeria and Ghana pretty seriously.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-20 15:56:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1241030973803892742
Reply addressees: @OgbeniDipo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240677417225728002
Of Patients. Of Patients. Of Patients.
What % are coming in contact? (tiny)
What % of people are catching it? (tiny)
80% don’t need hospitalization.
20% need hospitalization
The vector? Old age homes, hospitals, medical offices, care-workers, and those in contact with them. https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1240414403197112321
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-19 00:58:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240442397257019392
Apparently you can’t tell the difference between frequencies of visible light, auditory frequency, gdp, or rates of filth. 😉
Either that or you’re a simpleton or liar. 😉
Or all three.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-17 18:29:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239982239892623361
Reply addressees: @matt_cyprian @UNESCO
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239981802170679297
The camel’s nose. But interesting. It would also give us an opportunity to run and end a test, ending the debate. $1k/adult=247,813,910,000 or 2.5 Billion/Month and 2,973,766,920,000 or 3.0 Trillion/Yr, against existing budget of $3.438 Trillion and $4.829T spending w/ 1.4T Debt.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 18:09:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239614813703192577
Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239612192061865989
—“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adversarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said. In general, i have found that the first and most significant hurdle that people have trouble with – at least those not educated in the sciences – is that all propositions are contingent and all truth propositions are achieved by falsification. And P articulates the METHOD for universal falsification. ==== Afterward: Chomsky was trying to bring Turing to language. His original paper is simply pulling Turing into language. Chomsky’s contribution – from my understanding – is correctly stating that: (a) the brain produces experience by continuous recursive disambiguation. (b) linguistic thought consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (c) grammar regardless of language consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (d) language serves as a system of measurement for thought – albeit we use many different paradigms (metaphysics) within each human language, and these paradigms vary according to the correspondent vs the three non-correspondent (fictionalisms). (e) there appear to be higher demands on cognition for higher levels of thought. And we should expect aliens if there are any to use simpler or more complex grammatical structures given their abilities.
—“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adversarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said. In general, i have found that the first and most significant hurdle that people have trouble with – at least those not educated in the sciences – is that all propositions are contingent and all truth propositions are achieved by falsification. And P articulates the METHOD for universal falsification. ==== Afterward: Chomsky was trying to bring Turing to language. His original paper is simply pulling Turing into language. Chomsky’s contribution – from my understanding – is correctly stating that: (a) the brain produces experience by continuous recursive disambiguation. (b) linguistic thought consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (c) grammar regardless of language consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (d) language serves as a system of measurement for thought – albeit we use many different paradigms (metaphysics) within each human language, and these paradigms vary according to the correspondent vs the three non-correspondent (fictionalisms). (e) there appear to be higher demands on cognition for higher levels of thought. And we should expect aliens if there are any to use simpler or more complex grammatical structures given their abilities.
[I] disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen. As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason‘. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it. Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature. For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy. Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons. So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good. See what I did there? 😉 10John Ma
[I] disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen. As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason‘. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it. Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature. For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy. Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons. So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good. See what I did there? 😉 10John Ma
I was too conservative because I expected the rates outside of China to be lower, and they’re coming in the same @ 20% of Spanish Flu’s 10-20% mortality rate, 1% european, 3%+ world population loss. So will cause contraction b/c hospitalization, work disruption, zero inventory. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1232465743729442816
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 01:01:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232470690806128640
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1232465743729442816
Simplified Map of The Grammars https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/simplified-map-of-the-grammars/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 21:39:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232419802620350464