TreadOnMe

What I mean is that they clearly aren't doing much to actually hide the fact that they don't really care about the samples. Having equipment and testing supplies is not that sophisticated if you aren't bothering with a large public media charade. Hell, I have never even tested positive for THC byproducts on a job screening despite being an avid smoker for the majority of my adult life. People just don't really care as much as they used to about this stuff. It's all very clearly a ruse for rubes and insurance companies.

Not only are they probably aware that many people are doing it, they likely aren't paid enough to care, and if someone wants to slip them more money for something higher risk, why should they care?

Intravenous steroids is not a 'hardcore thing' it is the fundamental basis of pretty much all of amateur and professional body building culture, and much of top-ranked college and highschool athletics. It's basically ecstacy for athletes. Not everyone is on it, but if you are in the scene long enough you will know where to get it if you do want it. Most professional athletic organizations literally have steroid cocktails that they administer to their star players in the event they are injured. It's one of the reasons why ligament and tendon injuries are so prevalent in today's athletes, their muscular development is not in sync with their connective tissue development, which leads to devastating injuries. They are more sophisticated about it than they were before, you will rarely see huge hulking athletes way outside the statistical zones, but they will ride just into the freak athlete territory to be noticed. As well PEDs don't automatically make you a good athlete, you still need to train diligently, especially at a young age, to be really good at the thing you are doing, which is why most players don't really care if you are on them. It's pretty ingrained into athletic culture at this point. It's always 'not everything is as it seems'.

I don't understand how this is any different than what is done with PEDs in the US, where our professional athletes just blatantly cycle through different types of PEDs depending on what is or is not being tested for, they just do it under their teams supervision as to make sure to not run foul of the regulators. Literally the entire upper echelon of the professional biking world (including the entire US Postal service team) was shown to be doping little more than a decade ago, a better question is why should Russia even care other than to just do the bare minimum to pay lip service to western standards of 'fair-play'?

Is it just because it is unsophisticated that it bugs you?

I think part of the problem is that they are so isolated that it is difficult for them to even create a common cultural understanding. It's like the difficulty of Americans understanding of a respect culture, in that you show respect for your elders even if you do not agree with them simply for the fact that they may know something you don't for having lived a long time.

Mind, respect culture developed outside of capitalism, where living a long time was not a given. It also goes against much of the youth fetishization of the U.S. but therein lies the hypocrisy of the American culture, is that it is a culture of youthfulness created by old men for the purposes of keeping you naive and exploitable, not a culture of respect that derives from a level of respect you are supposed to have for yourself.

My point is that that only China has been able to successfully do it, by mimicking and exceeding western standards of success. Other socialist countries likely don't understand it, or if they do, they believe our definitions of success to be silly and short-sighted.

It's like anarchists decrying the DPRK's military parades, which, while understandable, misses that it takes a massive collective effort and culmination of years of practice and setup to pull off something of that. It takes more than the threat of violence to pull that off, it requires massive amounts passion, expertise and belief. Which we know now definitely because we've seen what the U.S. does to try to replicate even a fraction of the theatre.

Ah, I see the Radio Free Asia story is making the rounds of the mainstream media. Once again, I do not doubt there have been prosecutions of queer individuals over pornographic material, and it may even be disproportionally aimed at queer people, but calling it a 'crackdown' when it accounts for 12 books and an undefined number of people in a population that, given statistics, likely reaches into the 10s of millions with probably thousands of publications, is blatant exaggeration.

I will have to start listening again. This is a refreshing change, she may actually be critiquing him from the left.

Good for her! Maybe eventually she'll abandon the idea of congressional electoralism through the Democratic party.

My completely have not been keeping up with her opinion is no, only because she got hella libbed up after Virgil got disappeared. It would be really funny if he actually helped run this campaign. I mean, Mamdani was literally on Chapo, saying some fucking bangers, I didn't take him seriously at all but the dude pulled it off, this shit is wild.

Edit: And for good measure, this is yet another successful leftist campaign that happened likely because nobody has mentioned the 'dirtbag left' yet. They have either forgotten we existed (most probably) or they are saving that for the election (long shot but if I am right about this I should go into politics). Unfortunately I think this means, Mamdani needs to basically do what he did on Colbert until election time, but he didn't have to go on Chapo, but that white male NY demographic is probably a core constituency (what you think they just vanished?).

Honestly dude should go on Rogan if he's gonna run center. (Though I personally will never listen to another episode of Rogan). No no, dude should go on the Adam Friedland Show. They had a Cuomo on! They didn't even endorse him!

Lol there might be some level of that as well, I am not exactly personally knowledgeable on how these things are done, I am just guessing based on my father's experience with Chinese companies, my personal manufacturing and construction experience with summer seasonal workers, and general economic knowledge of China.

I've had at least two pure mathematics majors people argue strenuously with me that statistics, being applied mathematics, isn't really math, but that isn't really my point here.

The part here is that you completely missed actually reading the Marxism part. Statistics is math that is derived from empirical observations, the actual data you collect in the field. Without that actual data, statistics as pure mathematics is completely meaningless to the engineering process. I'm not saying math isn't involved, though in some areas, I have seen people just eyeball things and nail them due to experience. I'm saying there is a materialist dialectic that proceeds between the empirical, physical, observations made, and how math is then used to then depict, formulate and transform those observations into more empirical measurements, which then continues to transform those depictions. Quite often these days the math precedes the observation, but particularly before the advent of electronic computers it wasn't uncommon for the observation to precede the mathematics. For example, you absolutely cannot have transistors without the Fournier transformation, but you also cannot have transistors without the observed phenomenon and concept of electrical conductivity (or more usually talked about resistance), which was not originally conceptualized mathematically at all, though is now.

Math is not dealing with literal objects, it deals with the concepts of objects. For example, 1+1=2 doesn't have to reference any kind of object at all in order to be self-contained, logical and true. This can be explicitly shown in things like statistics, where you have a mathematically logical statement that is 'people in the U.S. have on average 1.5 children'. A nonsense statement if taken purely empirically, but the idea of how an average is mathematically created can make it logically sound, however it is also completely meaningless to us if that average wasn't generated from real data.

It is in this way that we know all kinds of things, like the tensile or compressive strength of 1045 steel, or the creation of formulas like the amount of time it takes a concentration of carbon to disperse in steel at a certain temperature. It is conceptualized mathematically now, but it didn't start as that, it didn't start as a formula, it came from some other ideas like 'lets make a more durable iron' and through our physical interaction with it has come to a point of conceptualized mathematics, and even then the mathematics doesn't always get it exactly correct, it often represents the ideal situation, which means that there are likely other, more complex methods of mathematics to conceptually represent any specific interaction, or maybe even some other kind of conceptual understanding that we can't even conceive of yet because we haven't encountered it's empirical predecessor (which I doubt, but my point is the current conception of the math isn't actually a perfect representation of the real).

Scientists and their benefactors wouldn't build the Hadron collider if just knowing the math was the answer. Math is not some dictating Hegelian universal ideal that we seek to appease.

I am specifically arguing against the idea of Marxism being opposed to mathematics, but I am also arguing that mathematics likely isn't the end-all be-all understanding of accurate conceptualization, which is why I understand why some Marxist economics people are math adverse, specifically when it comes to economic conceptualization, as economics is notoriously rife with edge-cases, 'rules' that have absolutely no historical statistical backing, and empirical observations that help little with understanding cause and effect, which comes from the problem that economics cannot ever actually isolate it's variables at scale in the way that scientists and engineers can. It can provide insights into human behavior, much like psychology can, and even attempt to model them mathematically, but again, it gives us about as much insight into human behavior as psychology, which is a problem because reading about psychology and economics has a tendency to alter your behavior, thus potentially creating a different outcome from the population should your study become popular and widespread. Hell if this wasn't the case, advertising wouldn't work. I know I certainly approach things economically differently because I have read things like Marx, since it is like playing a card game while having some general idea of the odds. Doesn't mean I will win, but it certainly influences my strategy. It's like how insurance brokers, despite using highly complex statistical mathematics for conceptualizing individual risk and profitability, can still sometimes go bankrupt. They too, are playing the odds, in a conceptually different way than I do.

If ideology is a luxury, then it's no wonder most Americans can't afford it. It's real telling that only the elite get to have an ideology and everyone else just has one imposed upon them.

Likely because most of the year they are laying groundwork for when the large amounts need to be set up, working out kinks with small batches. The end stuff is likely mostly done by seasonal employees, which often come in from the collective and private farms to the city to work (depending on the region) during the off-season.

As well, China has pretty high unemployment rn, especially among the youth, so they can marshall these kinds of labor resources whenever they really want, it is just a matter of the state actually wanting to accelerate whatever 5-year plan targets they are trying to hit.

Also Engineers: Pi and e are the same thing right?