Sure - either way it's not a "fair" survey. If I were making this survey trying to be scientific and somebody posted it to HN with this title I would be quite upset at them for priming a large number of my participants.
The point is that we can't determine with certainty that cruel and dehumanising behaviour occurred in the first place. Unless you're willing to investigate the issue further it's probably more sensible to suspend your judgement or at least acknowledge that you're interpreting the article literally and assuming that it's factually correct.
It's not really useful, no. But it's interesting. I read the readme and the five lines of code as a blog post. It makes a couple good points. First, there's no need to reset elements that aren't being used. Second, a reset file is redundant by nature since it's overwriting a "reset" provided by the browser, that's subsequently overwritten by any custom styling. But yes, in virtually every scenario it's more practical to not think about it and use normalize.
Philosophy improves critical thinking and reasoning skills but it requires active engagement in philosophical literature and inquiry. I can tell by your understanding of philosophy as "feeling" based that you haven't done this -- and you're missing out on a valuable form of rational inquiry. No it's not scientific. But to sit back, arms-crossed ready to rebuke anything philosophical because it fails to satisfy the criterion of a different discipline is so contrary to a healthy, open-minded, rational way of living.
I guess I'll have to throw away my MA in Philosophy then.
If you read closely, you'll see that I didn't criticize philosophy, only the tendency of philosophers to make empirical statements about the practical value of their discipline without the empirical proof to back it up.
if I understood you correctly, you state that one must have empirical evidence to back up their position. If someone claims something without giving empirical evidence, their claim should be refuted (or at least ignored).
However, your claim that empirical evidence is required to make a position valid, is itself not backed up by any empirical evidence.
I can even give counter-evidence, e.g., mathematics works very well without empirical evidence, so it doesn't seem to be required to gain valid knowledge. (just to back up my philosophical argument with empirical evidence)
Gravity waves don't "go through" the earth but rather the earth expands and contracts in space-time. This contracting and expanding of the earth itself, although minute, is the evidence and detection of gravity waves.
Can LIGO "see" only upwards or it can "see" downwards too? Neutrinos can pass though the Earth because they only interact with week force and gravity, and both have a very small coupling. Can "gravitons" pass though Earth?
As someone noticed in an comment a few months ago, there is no experimental evidence of the gravitons and no complete theory about them, but I think it's a good guess.
So, in other words, the minute contracting and expanding of space inside the Earth while the gravitational waves pass though it must interact with any particle with mass. The coupling is weak, but there are plenty of them. So some of the energy of the waves will be dissipated as heat inside the Earth. How much of the energy of the waves is lost while passing though the Earth?
Yes. And the fact that there is no complete theory of gravitons doesn't really matter. It is sufficient to know that scare-quoted "gravitons" (which may be real fundamental particles or may simply be mathematically convenient pseudo-particles corresponding to a classical gravitational wave) can pass through the Earth.
They must be able to do so, for essentially exactly the same reason that neutrinos can: they couple extremely weakly to matter. Which should not be a surprise, because gravity is such a relatively weak force- weaker even than the eponymous "weak force". The fact that neutrinos couple so weakly to other matter is also why they are so dang hard to detect. Meanwhile, gravitons / gravitational waves couple even more weakly to matter, and thus are correspondingly even harder to detect than neutrinos, and pass through solid matter even more easily.
Annoyingly, if it were easier to detect them, that would necessarily imply that the Earth is less transparent to them, and vice-versa: they harder they are to detect, the more transparent the Earth must be. Because, if the Earth were not transparent to them, then that entails that there are materials in the Earth that interact strongly with them, and we could use those materials to build a better detector!
I don't have the link but I can recommend "The Measurement Problem" by the World Science Festival on YouTube. Really good introduction to the subject and the discussion is among distinguished theoretical physicists -- not journalists.
