Did someone claim self defence?

Perhaps the video cuts out before that happened?

Do you have the full vid?

ah, that makes sense.

Does that still apply if the underlying mechanism isn't understood?

I know examples of this exist already , I'm wondering if "proof of effectiveness" really means just the effectiveness in this context.

I was also going to use aspirin as an example, there is also psychedelics as a treatment for various psychological ailments.

I'm also going to post a response i made to a comment further up.

I need to be more specific in how I mean “alternative” here.

What I mean is “not of the current scientific consensus” , which I realise isn’t exactly the same wording as the wikipedia definition

Thats my bad.

I also failed to mention that it also works the other way as well, where current science is discredited(fully or partially) , due to flaws in it’s methodology, reproducibility or some other reason.

In generalities i was thinking more of how certain branches or offshoots of what was considered to be mainstream ( or mainstream adjacent ) science were later found to be scientifically provable.

An example of this is microbes.

They were posited over the years in varied forms by multiple independent people, but they weren't really fully accepted until the invention of a way of actually observing them.

This is largely what medicine was prior to the current , formal scientific method. Local "medicine people" would have salves, cures, potions and other such concoctions passed down to apprentices, they might have some knowledge of how it works, but most of that knowledge would be in the practical application and treatment using said concoctions.

That's not to dismiss this practice, the years of experience and experimentation (of a kind) was, in some cases, essentially a precursor to modern scientific method.

There are ways of analysing effects and positing theories without fully understanding how the underlying mechanism works.

Sometimes that leads to legitimate data around the effects of a medicine or treatment being dismissed as "alternative", at least until formal experimentation is done and verified

As i said in another reply, I'm not saying it's common, all i was saying was that it's a possibility.

Agreed,

I was positing the possibility of a move from "alternative" to "scientifically recognised", not that it was likely to happen.

Yeah, I saw it after I'd posted.

I need to be more specific in how I mean "alternative" here.

What I mean is "not of the current scientific consensus" , which I realise isn't exactly the same wording as the wikipedia definition

Thats my bad.

I also failed to mention that it also works the other way as well, where current science is discredited(fully or partially) , due to flaws in it's methodology, reproducibility or some other reason.

I think thats probably second best.

At best, the cameraperson had warned the guy and they were ignored , so filming it as a future deterrent is the compromise?

yeah, It's not the numbers specifically , it'd be the collection methodology used to obtain those numbers that'd be interesting.

I agree that there is no universally accepted general definition of intelligence , there are some very specific subset that can be somewhat reliably measured but that's not even close to a general score.

Standardised tests measure the ability to pass the tests, last i checked it was mostly rote memorization more than applications of skills learned. ( my info could be out of date or incorrect on this )

When scores are lower is doesn’t mean the students are dumber. It means the school system is failing to teach.

That's not strictly true and it's also not a mutually exclusive scenario.

For a given metric of "dumbness" it is possible for it to go up and down independent of school teaching standards and approaches. or even a combination of the teachings standards + some other things

Also if you are going to argue that perceived "dumbness" can only be attributed to failing to teach , that assumes a usable metric for "dumbness" that can be measured.

I'm mostly agreeing with your points, i'm just not seeing how "can't measure smartness" and "smartness can only be falling due to teaching failures" can be posited simultaneously.

Same, they are currently still working through the 2019 backlog.

There is the option of going through "Right To Choose" system, which is ostensibly quicker but i think you have to pay for things yourself.

GP or doctor can give you proper advice about that though.

Yeah, I'm going with a tiny dedicated infra bootstrapping box with all the tools I'd need to bootstrap the main infrastructure.

Using a hypervisor (proxmox in this case) I have some prebuilt vms's and container images that I can use for the bootstrap instances so i'd not need to completely hand roll it again should it be needed.

I'm looking at cloudinit scripts to see if that's useful for this.

I really like packer but I'm hesitant to rely on anything hashicorp until whatever they have going on shakes out.

Then I just load up the bootstrap box with the main infra code and use woodpecker to deploy.

Code and config backed up, also mirrored to newly created infra forgejo instances, just in case.

If I can get a semi presentable cloud init based bootstrap system working nicely I'll stick it somewhere people can get to it, in case it's useful to someone else.

I know of it but I've not put any effort in to specific practice.

My personal opinion is that most communication between anyone contains manipulation, even if they aren't doing it consciously, it's an intrinsic part of how we deal with each other.

The difference is that i don't have much of a natural instinct for it, i have to practice and be much more intentional, which brings benefits and drawbacks.

I find that a lot of people in general can be manipulated in similar ways (I'm no exception to this) but techniques vary by culture, upbringing, experience, context etc, i don't like to do it , however, for the reason stated a bit further down.

Identifying which markers work for which people is a a lot of the battle initially.

Unfair is relative and heavily context dependent but in some circumstances yeah it can feel a bit like a cheat, what I've found over time is that I'd be cheating myself just as much as anyone else, my goal in general was/is better communication and understanding, if I'm intentionally manipulating outside the norms then the interaction is tainted in terms of learning natural communications patterns.

If they are intentionally manipulating outside of the norms then that's significantly more interesting and useful for gaining samples from uncommon behaviours.

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.