231–240 of 256 posts
There is a reason why history is called 'his story'. The best and most dramatic story, usually favored by the elites, get tolds. More often than not, historians are commissioned by the elites to write stories. Even today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-mi... > Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims — 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. > “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in a Jan…
That seems more like nitpicking over definitions than anything relevant to this matter. Your quote and several other parts of the story focus on the number being "made up" and yet the same person quoted by you also says: > The problem, according to Bauer, who has debunked the number repeatedly in his writings over the decades, is not that non-Jews were not victims; they were. It is that Wiesenthal’s arbitrarily chose…
> While as many as 35 million people were killed overall because of Nazi aggression, the number of non-Jews who died in the concentration camps is no more than half a million, Bauer said.
... so I can't see a way to reconcile that with the figure for Poles except by considering them overwhelmingly casualties of war, not a policy of extermination.
And so, as far as I can see, the original article is broadly right and your comment is inaccurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are leaving academia and receiving a minimum of double salary in the private sector. Historians? If so, can you name a few example? I find this hard to believe.
In America I can believe it. The US government doesn't fund cultural institutions very much. It's all left to private institutions (who frequently have political and ideological agendas).
Your comment is a little more applicable to museums and the arts, but the US government funds all universities, both public and private, pretty lavishly. Unfortunately the university administrators have a habit of accruing much of that funding to themselves and leaving the academics relatively little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was always dramaticised and perhaps from a certain point of view. But they've taken it to the next level, just look at ancient aliens.
Ancient aliens are myth. As shown, the forst contact we had was in 50s, Jeff Goldblum can testify for that (I saw it on TV and in the cinema). But yes, this whole edutainment thing got way way to far. Edit: Or aren't they? I think there might be an ancient pyramid under some glacier on some antarctic island...
Nowadays it's completely made up reality TV bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The pilots did not diagnose it as stab trim runaway because it's not stab trim runaway Runaway stab trim is uncommanded movement of the trim. MCAS failure exhibits as exactly this. The most likely cause of uncommanded movement is an electrical fault of some sort. Electrical faults are often intermittent. When you don't know why an intermittent fault is happening, you turn it off. This is not rocket science. In the…
Look, take it up with Boeing, not me. Here's the runaway stab trim checklist from 2018, before the accident [1]. Right at the very top, it says: Condition: Uncommanded stabilizer trim movement occurs continuously. MCAS produces an intermittent fault, not a continuous one, therefore you are not supposed to run that checklist. There should be a checklist for MCAS failure, and the system and its failure modes should be…
Again, if you're a pilot and want to live, stop parsing sentences like Bill CLinton and parse them like a pilot. Remember, I worked on the 757 trim system. I guarantee you that everyone there would ridicule your interpretation. Do you really imagine it has to run all the way to the stops to satisfy you that it is runaway?
> they can't keep aircraft systems that can fail and kill you a secret from the pilots!
The pilot had everything he needed to know to save the airplane. He did not need to know the cause of the runaway trim, just how to stop it.
> the overspeed was not caused by the thrust levers being at full
When you're in a dive, it behooves you to pull the thrust levers back (and they were at full). Overspeed can tear the airplane apart. It just takes a second to pull the levers back, and reducing the airspeed would have made their attempts at manual trim workable.
Frankly, if I was teaching ground school and encountered a student who made arguments like yours, I'd wash him out. I'm reminded of that episode of The Office where the characters were driving using navigator software. The software directed them to drive into a swamp, and the characters were arguing over whether they should follow the directions into the swamp or not. There's a reason that airliners still have pilots in them and not have computers run it all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, take it up with Boeing, not me. Here's the runaway stab trim checklist from 2018, before the accident [1]. Right at the very top, it says: Condition: Uncommanded stabilizer trim movement occurs continuously. MCAS produces an intermittent fault, not a continuous one, therefore you are not supposed to run that checklist. There should be a checklist for MCAS failure, and the system and its failure modes should be…
> MCAS produces an intermittent fault, not a continuous one, therefore you are not supposed to run that checklist. Again, if you're a pilot and want to live, stop parsing sentences like Bill CLinton and parse them like a pilot. Remember, I worked on the 757 trim system. I guarantee you that everyone there would ridicule your interpretation. Do you really imagine it has to run all the way to the stops to satisfy you t…
Pilots are not engineers. Airline pilots are not test pilots. They drill the procedures, and they follow them. We'd all like to have Neil Armstrong flying our plane, instinctually solving unexpected problems in seconds, but there aren't enough Neil Armstrongs out there to meet the demand for air travel. The solution that we've come up with is standardized procedures, and to have a procedure for every critical failure mode.
Boeing, for commercial reasons, did not want there to be a procedure for this failure mode. 737 pilots run the trim runaway scenario in the simulator, and they could easily have added a scenario for MCAS failure, but that would have cost Boeing considerable cash and they decided not to do it.
The simple fact is that you had two crews that were trained to Boeing standards crash, and as far as we know, only one survive.
If it had been just one crash and many successful recoveries, you'd be on a much stronger footing to argue that "oh, it's just those developing world airlines with their substandard pilots." When it's a 67% fatality rate though, you can't just blame the crew.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems more like nitpicking over definitions than anything relevant to this matter. Your quote and several other parts of the story focus on the number being "made up" and yet the same person quoted by you also says: > The problem, according to Bauer, who has debunked the number repeatedly in his writings over the decades, is not that non-Jews were not victims; they were. It is that Wiesenthal’s arbitrarily chose…
Your count here relies heavily on the 2-3 million Poles, but to the best of my understanding, those were killed in war, either during actual battle or during the Wehrmacht's pillage and destruction. I say that because, according to the article, only ("only" ... yeah) 0.5 million non-Jews died in concentration camps: > While as many as 35 million people were killed overall because of Nazi aggression, the number of non…
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/polish-vic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The article can tell "Cort was informed about the new techniques from a family member back from Jamaica". How do you verify that? The only way is to redo the all work from scratch, refound all the historical references and cross-validate each of them. It's a huge work. You start by going through the citations the author has listed and seeing if those support their reasoning. Sounds like that's what the non-expert in…
I agree with checking the references, but again, my point is that as a general rule it's really not that easy. You can think it's easy because you have had the work done for you for this particular article and that it is obvious in this particular article, but in general, it is way more complicated. Properly checking that the citation is indeed saying that often requires studying the quoted paper quite in details. Ag…
It is that easy to check a reference. The only real obstacle is whether you have access to an article cited, which any reviewer will through their university or organization. Find the article cited by the paper under review as referenced in work using the title, author, and year published. Read article. Done it a million times myself. Books are obviously going to take longer to double-check and very old articles might be hard to access. Studying the "quoted paper" (Although it often won't be a direct quote. That would be even easier to check on.) is an important part of reviewing. This isn't supposed to be a 5-minute read-through to be given a thumbs-up if it seems alright. It should take time to ensure that it makes a valid point using verifiable facts.
>But more importantly, and it makes your point moot: if the article is misrepresentating the reference, then, rather than in the peer-review process, it will be the reference author that will notice it.
The reference author isn't going through every work that cites theirs. It could be they notice, but it's more likely they never see the work. If the paper author is misrepresenting the reference, that's the peer-reviewer's job to catch it.
>The peer-review is the first step before submitting the article to the whole community, and it is then that the majority of the discussion happens.
The peer-review is the last step before submitting the article to the whole community. What do you think the point of the peer review is? It's not a rubber stamp. It's supposed to be other researchers who are capable of spotting a work which isn't supported by facts and the references cited.
>While I agree with the previous things, this bit makes me pause: careful with that, historically, the majority of correct claims were, at first, sounding dubious, and the majority of incorrect claims were, at first, sounding totally not dubious.
So you shouldn't look into questionable claims because sometimes false claims sound perfectly believable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Media or research? These two are very different. Media may sell you canvas bags and paper straws, making you feel good with stories driven from big oil about your personal responsibilities. Climate science on the other hand is well studied and well replicated with lots of validation. But that doesn't mean media won't distort what a work actually says. These things are very different but many confuse the two. Just bec…
It's well studied, but not well studied. Climatology is essentially a branch of history and suffers the same issues with low quality sources that can't be upgraded via experiment because they're recordings of past events, ideological bias amongst practitioners and other issues.
Let's think about academia for a second and the metrics we use. You must publish often and your work most be "novel." The more novel, the more prestige, the more frequent the faster you rise. This is a system that's problematic for science, but crazy in humanities. One reason in science is it discourages replication. But there is a parallel here in something like history, reinvestigation. Something like the Roman Emp…
I often think the same, in fact in my todo list is (in the background) think of more ways to reduce the bureaucracy I face on a daily basis, which takes many forms - from arguing with reviewer #2 over whether or not my finding is notable, to trying to convince a panel that my idea is worth funding. From a system design perspective, alas resources are limited and have to be allocated somehow, and in the absence of any…
Similarly I think we need to recognize academic funding as that of long term investments. You can be highly risky and should be. In reality our total investment into this sector is very low, we aren't even investing a penny from our dollar.
And I could go on about the scam of "peer reviewer" which just seems like a way to extract government money, using another players workforce, and providing at best a trivial amount of utility