The Miscellaneous Thread

This Thread Is a Thread where you can post what ever you want from  **** posting to crazy stuff . Any topic MMA related to what ever you want to talk. Try and not be toxic arsehole. And one rule No Politic allowed because that what made people ****s

Let me Start, I find it insane it like 4 days to Chrismas , Im suprise it so close to the end of the Year,  Fells like Junes.Anyone have anything cool plan for Chrissy, I’m probley just gonna mess around at the gym 

* Edited at 12.21.2020, 8:52 PM ET *

If they book Chandler Tony then Gregor has no one to fight 

Stephens is close to signing with pfl. He might do well there 

I mean PFL or Belator both should be ok doubt he will be making 60gs there but I may be wrong.

Will be funny to see him flatline PFL signees 

Maybe he rematches pettis 

If I was Stephens I'd sign with PFL. Their roster is mostly trash and he'd be in pole position to make a million dollars for beating up some scrub.

No way I'll ever watch a PFL event again though.

Jarzinhio Tybura is at ufc 273 not fight night from what I know

* Edited at 01.27.2022, 9:17 PM ET *

At lightweight there are definitely guys that would probably win against Stephens when we talk about PFL, I mean they would've had big chances imo

* Edited at 01.27.2022, 9:19 PM ET *

I'll never know.

It's got the worst model I've ever seen. Never again will I spend 7 hours sitting through a card that is 85% commercials to watch low-quality fighters put on decisions. I'm not a masochist, sorry.

https://twitter.com/DarlingPlease2/status/1486862509420154883?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1486862509420154883%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriots.win%2Frising


There is far too much emphasis placed on peer review. Obviously, there does need to be some kind of litmus or validation test involving the scrutiny of a peer-body when it comes to anything Academic, but conversely it shouldn't function as a Pythia either.

The truth about peer review is that it is a bit of a circle jerk where scholars--or what passes for them in now--are often kangaroo courts. Groups of like-minded researchers who form kind of ontological meso-lobbies in order to bolster the validity of their own contributions in given speciality field.

The net result is a kind of consensus that is anything but impartial. It is not so different, in fact, from political polling. If consensus is sought from say Democrat voters on an issue that is well understood to be something they favour, it is not intellectually honest to publish the results of that polling as Vast majority of voters agree that x.


That is essentially how peer review still functions. It is...gamed. This is exacerbated by the fact that whenever money is involved in anything, the eye winketh at the hand.



I think this harms what science is and should be. There is a simple part-solution to this as far as I can see; end the networking. Peer-review should be totally randomised. This wouldn't solve the issue completely because in truly randomised systems aggregates form naturally, and the randomisation process would have to be designed at an algorithmic level to ensure the broadest range of academic predilections possible. 

Statements like 'the science' are ridiculous and antithetical to what science is. What science, exactly? I will explain by example:

Let's say Exxon Mobil wants to start drilling for oil in some remote part of the Appalachians. This process will involve, inevitably, an environmental feasibility study which will seek to determine the environmental impacts of the venture in the region. Exxon Mobil will either hire or have on their books a team of scientists to conduct the study. These scientists--biologists, ecologists, Geologists-- will always find in favour of the company's venture proceeding, and their data will establish why very cogently, in neat charts and data tables, because that is what those professionals are paid to do. Only in the instance that there is a grave risk to human life, or the venture will result in a potentially devastating lawsuit (usually a tort) that would outstrip profits gained, will their recommendations be to pull the plug. It's actually the case that companies such as Exxon-Mobil deliberately disregard environmental legislation quite commonly. This is because it is simply good business to do so. If the fine for breaching a statute or some either law amounts to three million dollars, but the profits from the venture will net the company 50-100 million dollars, it is simply the financially salient option to violate Law.

This is actually why mining and drilling companies prefer to do business outside their domestic borders. It isn't that labour is generally cheaper and more cost-effective from a dollar-average standpoint (although it is). It's that it's much easier to....well, get away with it in places (especially Asia, South America and Africa) where there is limited rule of law and governmental corruption is endemic and often a cultural standard. Go take a look at the mining companies listed on the ASX or NYSE. Particularly the penny stocks. The vast majority of them won't be prospecting in the West.

It's important to note scientists hired by large corporations usually have very good academic pedigrees. Many will be ivy-league educated. Science does not pay especially well, especially governmental and interest group placements--but the private sector does. Ergo it is largely the case that companies like Exxon-Mobil skim the cream. They tend to get the best guys.

To get back on point, a special interest group may also conduct a counter-study to Exxon-Mobil's in the above scenario. Their findings will almost always be conducive to the venture not proceeding, because that is what they are paid to find. They will have their own data sets which cogently establish why the venture will be disastrous, and will achieve this by engineering the study at the methodological level to produce the kids of data which bolsters their case.

So which 'science' is right, or wrong? Both, technically. What you define as true largely depends  on your ideological and philosophical perspectives. Both data sets will be more or less sound. It depends on what you define as real in a value hierarchy. And that's the point.

There is no 'the science'. There is almost never any ****genous scientific consensus shared by a supermajority relating to anything. There is simply science--the broad umbrella term for a model of objective inquiry which tries to produce investigative models with the most predictive--not explanatory, power. Science is no more or less corruptible, or more immune to those phenomena, than anything else involving human beings in existence.

If anyone takes anything away from this, it should be this: I promise you that legislation is a marketplace. Legislators--that is, politicians, are essentially self-representing auctioneers who both create and sell policies to the highest bidders. Remember, politicians almost never have their own money. They either have your money (which they bribe you with in the form of tax cuts and benefits to buy your vote) or the money of donors. In return for funds received from corporations, they will write legislation that favours the ventures of those corporations, because that is what they have been paid to do. Think of it this way; the political lifespan of a politician is not guaranteed, and is almost always enormously shorter than that of a company. If a politician takes lobbiest money and does not deliver legislation favourable to them, they will mark themselves as an unreliable partner--which other prospective companies will be made aware of. Their funding will quickly dry up, and they will not have the financial means necessary to run their campaigns.

That is how one hand washes the other.

Before you 'trust the science', do your due diligence. Do not take any advice, recommendation or protocol issued by and bureaucracy on face value. Compare. Contrast. Read the white papers. Ask qui bono: Where is the money coming from? Who stands to benefit and how? What relationships exist between special interest powers, their representatives, and those of other groups? Learn to read data charts, learn to interpret methodological frameworks and statistics. If you don't do this, you will be duped, over and over again. Don't assume you already know how to do this. You very probably do not. Not sufficiently. Reading an article published by some rag, or watching CNN, is not research. You have to read the lab reports, the field reports, the literature--from a variety of sources who fundamentally disagree with one another on any given issue.

* Edited at 01.28.2022, 7:27 PM ET *

That photo of Jake Paul getting arrested is fake btw. Don't ask me why I know that.

While we're talking about Jake Paul, he just released this dis track about Dana White and I honestly quite like it! It's not a good song. It's very bad. But it's catchy and given the subject matter I think it's quite funny! Not hilarious but certainly entertaining. A solid 7/10 from me.

I'm pretty sure UFC does pay for health care and treatment of fighters.

@Baldric Eggling

I'm not a 100% sure but from what I understand is that short-term, yes they do, long-term, no they don't. So they'll pay for injuries sustained in a UFC fight for instance but they wouldn't pay for continued treatment for a long term injury that would affect them for years or if they do then they payments would dry up once they are no longer contracted to fight in the UFC. So if you badly ****** up your knee in a fight and they cut you from the roster 6 months later then you'd get paid for the 6 months but not for the years worth of treatment afterwards. Like I said, I'm not 100% sure but I think that's how it works.

* Edited at 01.28.2022, 10:02 PM ET *

That's what private health insurance is for. It's a couple of hundred bucks a fortnight at worst. Most people could afford it if they gave up something else.

If they paid or fighters health insurance while they were out of contract it would be alimony. It would be totally ******* insane. No company does that.

Is Greg paying your health insurance BTW?

* Edited at 01.28.2022, 10:27 PM ET *

@Baldric Eggling

No, we have the NHS over here.

And it's ****. Same as medicare here.

That said it's still far better than what exists in the US. My conservative US friends and I can never agree on this issue. I've heard the case for both sides. I do agree with them that unless illegal immigration and anchor-babying is sorted out transferring a NHS system or medicare to US wouldn't work. But they definitely need a serious upgrade over there.


You'd have to be mental not to have private health insurance now.

@Stephen how are you with accounting, BTW?

* Edited at 01.28.2022, 10:34 PM ET *

@Baldric Eggling

OK I guess. I've got a savings account that I put a little bit of my payslip into every month so that's my little emergency reserve and I've got enough in my current account to cover my day to day expenses, though I am fairly frugal compared to most people my age, eg my phone is a hand me down from my older brother that I've had for about 2 years, I'm not really interested in fashion so I rarely buy new clothes etc. Still can't really afford to move out from my parents but maybe in a few years it might be a bit more viable.

Nobody ever listens to me when I tell them this, but savings accounts are a really bad financial play. Really bad. Your skrilla just gets eaten away by inflation. It's one of the silliest financial decisions people make en masse.

I wouldn't do it just yet because there's going to be a pretty big market correction at some point this year ( don't ask me when, I don't know) and now is the time it's best to keep your powder dry but you should strongly consider getting a broker and buying stocks. Don't try and beat the market. Just buy index funds--just the SPY. You can do this 100% online.

How old are you exactly, may I ask?