NielsBohron

You’re absolutely right; I meant to reply to the other comment, but you already corrected them

Unless the view point is from the north looking south

I’m not sure if you’re joking or not (Poe’s Law and all), but Norm MacDonald told this joke (word for word) in 1996 on SNL’s Weekend Update. Some social media account added the transcript of the joke to an old photo of Norm to post it as a meme. That says nothing about whether or not North Carolina is currently executing people; it’s just someone retelling an old joke.

Considering this is a Norm MacDonald bit from Weekend Update, I’m pretty sure this is from the 90’s.

Kerbal Space Program has tons of mods that add realism, including a “realism overhaul” and a “Real Solar System” mod that also adds a realistic sky box

“Linked to,” though; don’t mix up correlation with causation yet. The article also talks about how the cognitive unloading caused by AI use is also negatively correlated with age, and while I don’t want to let AI off the hook (or the corporations pushing it), critical thinking skills in general aren’t the strongest within the 17yo-25yo age bracket.

Then again, I’m more than a little high, so maybe I’m totally missing something here.

Why is every fucking headline written like click bait?

I was gonna say, the next few in line could George W. Bush, George Bush Senior, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.

I’m sure someone will come along and point out that the 90s were no more or less peaceful than any other decade

Not to be that guy, but there was the whole Bosnian Genocide thing from 92-95 and the Gulf War from 90-91 that really legitimized the US practice of inference in the Middle East in the eyes of many US citizens. Up until then, most Americans still saw intervention a la the Iran Contra Affair as a negative.

Plus, the Troubles in North Ireland were still in pretty high gear until 1998, most of Africa was involved in civil wars and ethnic cleansing for a large chunk of the 90’s, and the collapse of the USSR, which was viewed as a positive in many parts of the world, did leave a power vacuum that resulted in numerous civil wars and militant separatist movements throughout eastern Europe and western Asia

I think that’s a “santoku” knife, but I’m not an expert. And I think it’s the style of knife, not a brand, but it works pretty much just like a chef’s knife as near as I can tell (as a home cook that pays attention to techniques but hasn’t sought out training on knife styles before)

If you’re cutting soft soft bread, then a plain blade is fine, but if it’s a crusty bread like a sourdough, the serrated blade is much better at cutting the crust without crushing the soft interior (IME, not a chef)

Except the antagonist of the Muppets movie knew Kermit was a frog, which is why he wanted to kill him and eat/sell his frog legs at his frog leg restaurant. You’re right that no one saw anything unusual about a talking frog (and that is part of the humor), but at least some people recognized that he was a frog.

Luke isn’t even the best plagiarist in the Gospels (because Matthew is a more direct adaptation of Mark than Luke)

In order to practice medicine effectively, I need to know almost everything about how humans work and what they get up to in the world outside the exam room.

This attitude is why people complain about doctors having God complexes and why doctors frequently fall victim to pseudoscientific claims. You think you know far more about how the world works than you actually do, and it’s my contention that that is a result of the way med students are taught in med school.

I’m not saying I know everything about how the world works, or that I know better than you when it comes to medicine, but I know enough to recognize my limits, which is something with which doctors (and engineers) struggle.

Granted, some of these conclusions are due to my anecdotal experience, but there are lots of studies looking at instruction in med school vs grad school that reach the conclusion that medicine is not science specifically because medical schools do not emphasize skepticism and critical thought to the same extent that science programs do. I’ll find some studies and link them when I’m not on mobile.

edit: Here’s an op-ed from a professor at the University of Washington Medical School. Study 1. Study 2.

they are definitely not taught to use critical thought and source evaluation outside of their very narrow area of expertise

All of your examples are from “their very narrow area of expertise.”

But if you want a more comprehensive reason why I maintain that MD’s and engineers are not taught to be as rigorous and comprehensive when it comes to skepticism and critical thought, it comes down to the central goals and philosophies of science vs. medicine and engineering. Frankly, it’s all described pretty well by looking at Karl Popper’s doctrine of falsifiability. Scientific studies are designed to falsifiable, meaning scientists are taught to look for the places their hypotheses fail, whereas doctors and engineers are taught to make things work, so once they work, the exceptions tend to be secondary.

exactly. For writing emails that will likely never be read by anyone in more than a cursory scan, for example. When I’m composing text, I can’t turn off my fixation on finding the perfect wording, even when I know intellectually that “good enough is good enough.” And “it’s not great, but it gets the message across” is about the only strength of ChatGPT at this point.

It’s decent at summarizing large blocks of text and pretty good for rewording things in a diplomatic/safe way. I used it the other day for work when I had to write a “staff appreciation” blurb and I couldn’t come up with a reasonable way to take my 4 sentences of aggressively pro-union rhetoric and turn it into one sentence that comes off pro-union but not anti-capitalist (edit: it still needed a editing pass-through to put it in my own voice and add some details, but it definitely got me close to what I needed)

As a college instructor, there is some amount of content (facts, knowledge, skills) that is important for each field, and the amount of content that will be useful in the future varies wildly from field to field edit: and whether you actually enter into a career related to your degree.

However, the overall degree you obtain is supposed to say something about your ability to learn. A bachelor’s degree says you can learn and apply some amount of critical thought when provided a framework. A masters says you can find and critically evaluate sources in order to educate yourself. A PhD says you can find sources, educate yourself, and take that information and apply it to a research situation to learn something no one has ever known before. An MD/engineering degree says you’re essentially a mechanic or a troubleshooter for a specific piece of equipment.

edit 2: I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with MD’s and engineers, but they are definitely not taught to use critical thought and source evaluation outside of their very narrow area of expertise, and their opinions should definitely not be given any undue weight. The percentage of doctors and engineers that fall for pseudoscientific bullshit is too fucking high. And don’t get started on pre-meds and engineering students.

I hate how accurate this feels

What do these pictures have to do with round bottomed flasks?