jasory

Wouldn't this just prevent you from allocating more memory (than zero)?

Nope. I only learned to use computers as an adult, and only learned programming incidentally as a tool for other work.

The truth is that it's actually much faster to learn as an adult, you just have more momentum if you start as a child.

Ada particularly the SPARK subset. It's approach is quite different than most languages, focusing on minimising errors and correctness. It's fairly difficult but I like to use it to teach people to actually understand the problem and how to solve it before they ever write the code.

You've had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it's not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don't use your shitty lessons.

"Then we can talk"

You already admitted that you don't understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you're going to talk about? How you still don't understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?

No there is not. There is a few hundred, and most of then don't even cover efficacy in vivo which is the subject matter.

Keep LARPing as an academic, lets see how stupid you really are.

Nope. It's been 2-3 years, but I read every single research paper on the subject.

You're confusing blog posts with actual academic papers. Just a heads up the the effects of medicines are no where near as clearcut as people think. Cannabiniods have fairly weak evidence for efficacy.

Imagine thinking that journalists have the capacity to analyze papers. Try getting a degree or atleast taking some classes on biostatistics.

Hotels are way worse. It's all the same job regardless of how fancy the hotel is, but the more expensive chains like Mariott will have bizarrely elitist staff, mostly front desk and management.

I think people need to actually research THC and cannabinoids. The handful of studies that have been done on them show that it's no better than OTC medication in all but the very rarest cases.

Medical marijuana is a complete hoax, it was always about making money and getting high.

Mathematicians are good at writing algorithms, but not at the development aspect, which is basically building for different systems, packaging software and documentation.

I would disagree on the performance part, the vast majority of software developers aren't writing high performance software and the ones that are tend to be computational mathematicians or physicists.

"no experts"

I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.

Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It's by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don't have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn't cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).

"Some scientists and even Harvard"

You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic "find more information" statements aren't going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can't formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just "it's beyond our understanding", the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.

"An overwhelming body of government documents"

Which you don't understand.

"You're a random internet stranger"

You're a random internet stranger as well (actually neither of us are, both of us have public works that is easily findable, and let's say mine are far more topically relevant). Why on earth are you supposed to treated credibly? Especially when you cite your expertise in QM to explain data, like every single crackpot.

"I am a skeptic after all"

How? If you were a skeptic you would have already been aware of my criticism that the data observed does not match any physical theories, AND that we have no reason to believe that these physical theories are wrong. You are confused by the fact that "diagnostics" merely shows that the software/equipment is working as designed not that it is interpreting the data correctly. (We also don't know what "diagnostics" were performed, in actual physics we don't say "we checked for errors" we give explicit descriptions of what errors we conjecture and how we accounted for to them, so saying "diagnostics were performed" is scientifically worthless).

I've already given several reasons to doubt the results: unreliability of eye witnesses, faulty interpretation of information, and failure to correspond with existing extremely well established theories. All of these are well-established facts and I gave an example of each one, some of which are so common they are open problems in remote sensing, and regularly exploited. The fact that you are so unfamiliar that you just deny them as being irrelevant, is entirely on you.

"Project Blue Book ..."

Sure, there is something of interest in recording UAP, just like any other data. This does not produce any credible theories about them corresponding to the data. In fact essentially every report I've read can be summarised as "we can't determine why we have this data", that's it.

"All of the experts"

You mean the people that agree with you and have decided are "all of the" experts?

So can you explain to me why "Q" is NOT the expert on internal politics, but the handful of organisations and witnesses are the experts even though you admit that their views aren't mainstream in science and can't refute any argument.

It's quite hilarious that you complain about this brother, when you are engaging in the same faulty reasoning to defend a conspiracy theory that you want to believe.

On a similar note, you don't seem to grant parapsychology the same level of credibility even though all the same arguments would lead to conclusions like telepathy actually being real.

Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect. If UAP are really as credible as you claim (convincing military pilots and Congress critters) how come it doesn't convince the actual subject matter experts? Physicists.

If this was even remotely plausible, you wouldn't be having a handful of people looking into it, it would be a core focus of the field.