COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[stef]

Of course I am wrong , I am wrong all the time as far as you are concerned. My concern was not the "peer process" itself, but that PDF that was linked to that "X" link you posted was not considered by the authors themselves as not peer reviewed and therefore not certified, that's all.

So the "peer process" that you subjected your original paper to which was the basis for "Practical Programming for Strength Training" was uncertifed by the NSCA, so what? Is this your example of a good peer review process? BTW I am one of the 500,000 that has "Practical Programming for Strength Training" (an autographed copy BTW) on the bookshelf.

So are we done with this?

wal, lots of people are completely bassackwards about the idea of "peer review" because of how it has intentionally been framed to mislead others and to protect special interests. "Peer review" doesn't certify anything. The dogshit process is simply gatekeeping. It has almost nothing to do with quality. It is not science. It is bureaucracy and control and a little bit of proofreading. That's it. Science isn't consensus. It isn't a clique patting fellow members on the back and trading citations.

Replication is how scientists test others' work. That's it. That's how you do it. You cannot do it by reading over excerpts of methods or by glancing over processed data sets or images or getting sucked in to the stories told in the intro and discussion sections by authors trying to make their work "sexy," exciting, important, and grant-worthy.

Peer review is fake and ghey.

[Matt Jackson]

Watch the video. The week after the election is going to be a very interesting time in American history.

No, it won't. America will continue along the same general course of decline for the next four years, just as it would have with a Xannied-out Harris elected as President. Bar some relatively unimportant and historically irrelevant tweaks to economy or immigration policy.

Nothing. Ever. Happens.

As long as you just turn out to vote and everyone claims to believe in the pretense of electoral politics, & lend the process legitimacy - that's all that matters, and nothing will continue to happen. The entropic shit-show carries on, and you will be managed through the decline of the West, as you were before the election under Biden, and Trump before him.

You, the demos, get to argue and moralise and theorise about what the elites have chosen to ***already implement*** on your behalf - and you are permitted to endlessly converse about the after-effects of these decisions.

Mentally unstable, pink-haired leftard kindergarten instructors and paranoid feminised homosexual men, like in the stupid video, will continue to speak nonsense and LARP as persecuted cultural rebels. And the cuckservative right will drone on about the hypocrisy of it all.

Regardless of all that, the European man still exists. The Englishman is still here, in my country, too.

We're still here but we're psychologically unable to give ourselves permission to organise and act while we engage in electoral politics. Until we decide to stop being gay and break the illusion, nothing will ever happen. The endless conversation will happen the week after the election, just as it did the week before. That's all.

[Mark Rippetoe]

No, it won't.

We'll know pretty soon.

________________________________________

You might find this interesting, Matt: https://x.com/monsoonsharma/status/1...030293/photo/1

[Subby]

I can't understand all these old school, anti-war libs from the 60s and 70s supporting this current regime.

Maybe they're all being blackmailed with "something," and it's either get out and support the kackler "or else?"



I'm seeing political ads now saying DJT will ban birth control pills, eliminate social security, and institute a national sales tax. Unbelievable.

Btw, I've wondered for a long time if there's any correlation between birth control pills and various female illnesses and cancers, but that's a different discussion...

I don't think that's a niche concern. Also the effects on Males, primarily through drinking water containing Female hormones.

Wal:

Peer review is bullshit, I was going to post, but Stef posted pretty much exactly what I was going to post so the only thing I can add is that peer review isn't paid by journals (as far as I'm aware), so it's either treated like jury duty, or jumped on by the people that like anonymously criticising other people's work. And in certain specialised fields, a common complaint is that if there's only 5 people that can be considered "peers" anonymous peer review is kind of impossible.
And in a perfect world "peer review" is meant to be a clarification to people outside the field that's what's being claimed inside the field is in fact based in reality.
It would be like publishing a paper that states a bench press of 1,100 kg's would be performed. Peer review would be from other lifters who would pick up the fact that 1,100 kg's is outside of the barbell reality.

[mkm5]

Gold is pushing towards $2800/ounce today (+60% since January 2024), interesting times indeed...

Also, silver is up 55% ytd.

I read a few articles about how the banksters are positioning over 400 ounces of "paper contracts" for every single ounce of physical silver.

They're getting shorted, and getting nervous about BRICS costing them billions of dollars per day every time silver goes up another $1.

Remember, "if you don't hold it, you don't own it!"

If anyone is interested, I'll dig up the recent articles explaining what is going on with precious metals.

[Mark Rippetoe]

This is funny in an uncomfortable way: https://x.com/WomanDefiner/status/1850952653012181097

[golftdibrad]

I don't think I've ever heard / read Tucker curse; he must be truly pissed.

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1851078772327661601

[wal]

wal, lots of people are completely bassackwards about the idea of "peer review" because of how it has intentionally been framed to mislead others and to protect special interests. "Peer review" doesn't certify anything. The dogshit process is simply gatekeeping. It has almost nothing to do with quality. It is not science. It is bureaucracy and control and a little bit of proofreading. That's it. Science isn't consensus. It isn't a clique patting fellow members on the back and trading citations.

Replication is how scientists test others' work. That's it. That's how you do it. You cannot do it by reading over excerpts of methods or by glancing over processed data sets or images or getting sucked in to the stories told in the intro and discussion sections by authors trying to make their work "sexy," exciting, important, and grant-worthy.

Peer review is fake and ghey.

Wal: Peer review is bullshit, I was going to post, but Stef posted pretty much exactly what I was going to post so the only thing I can add is that peer review isn't paid by journals (as far as I'm aware), so it's either treated like jury duty, or jumped on by the people that like anonymously criticising other people's work. And in certain specialised fields, a common complaint is that if there's only 5 people that can be considered "peers" anonymous peer review is kind of impossible.
And in a perfect world "peer review" is meant to be a clarification to people outside the field that's what's being claimed inside the field is in fact based in reality.
It would be like publishing a paper that states a bench press of 1,100 kg's would be performed. Peer review would be from other lifters who would pick up the fact that 1,100 kg's is outside of the barbell reality.

It is my fault that I don't understand the "peer review" process. I worked in a highly regulated industry for over 30 years where every thing I did was scrutinized every document that I wrote or read was checked then checked again because we were working with such dynamic forces that if there was failure in procedure or equipment the results could be catastrophic. If you have ever seen a zone substation on fire you know what I mean. All equipment that we used was constantley checked for integrity and tested and re-tested especially safety gear such as PPE. We were not allowed to work alone and had to carry Personal Locator Beacons when we were in remote areas, We had safety inspectors, asset inspectors, state inspectors who would come and verify what we were doing was safe. Any operation that required a written instruction to remove or replace any equipment had to be reviwed until it was verified. That is how it was and still is.

So probably a weak argument, but peer reviewing for me was just a quality control check or in my case safety checks. The peer review process cannot be total bullshit or ghey as Mark would have never subjected his study to the Strength and Conditional Journal for their appraisal many years ago. Just to repeat myself again this whole question of peer reviews was due to the medical PDF that was linked to the "X" link that Mark posted. In that document itself stated that the authors considered their work as uncertified and therefore from my understanding it should be considered as unsubstantiated until someone else reviewed it.

What ever Mark has written or published I have never looked for a confirmation of a peer review as I considered his word was enough. As far as these forums are concerned there has to be a some sort of mediator to control over what is posted otherwise any sort of nonsense would end up here.

That is all I am going to say about it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It is my fault that I don't understand the "peer review" process. I worked in a highly regulated industry for over 30 years where every thing I did was scrutinized every document that I wrote or read was checked then checked again because we were working with such dynamic forces that if there was failure in procedure or equipment the results could be catastrophic. If you have ever seen a zone substation on fire you know what I mean. All equipment that we used was constantley checked for integrity and tested and re-tested especially safety gear such as PPE. We were not allowed to work alone and had to carry Personal Locator Beacons when we were in remote areas, We had safety inspectors, asset inspectors, state inspectors who would come and verify what we were doing was safe. Any operation that required a written instruction to remove or replace any equipment had to be reviwed until it was verified. That is how it was and still is.

So probably a weak argument, but peer reviewing for me was just a quality control check or in my case safety checks.

You are confusing the concept of "peer-review" with "supervision," and they are not the same thing. Not the same thing. Get this idea out of your mind.

As far as these forums are concerned there has to be a some sort of mediator to control over what is posted otherwise any sort of nonsense would end up here.

I moderate all the posts on this board. And this is also not the same thing as "peer-review."

[Yngvi]

No, it won't. America will continue along the same general course of decline for the next four years....

As you have learned in Britain, legal immigration is much more dangerous than illegal immigration.
As we have learned in the US, the Boomer generation does not care about the future of its children.
Demographics is destiny.

We also might go to war with Iran at israel's insistence, but we are voting for Trump anyway.

We'll know with certainty by July 2025 on both of these issues.