Liberal clásico. Apasionado por la ciencia. "Todos tenemos derecho a nuestra propia opinión, pero no a nuestra propia realidad".
Joined December 2016
- Tweets7.5K
- Following627
- Followers342
- Likes4.9K
Santa Elina la milagrosa.
El poder y el dinero la rodean de gente que, en vez de reírsele en la cara o cortarle el rostro, le sonríen y la escuchan con respeto mientras dice que se comunica con extraterrestres, Jesús y la Virgen. Y cada vez se desinhibe más y expone más su locura
Hay cero evidencia científica de la existencia de la telekinesia. Cero. Aunque faltaría investigar si no es la causa de que se me pegoteen los dedos a distancia del frasco de dulce de leche.
Cuando los k “expropiaron” la 10 no pudo irse a Mitre con el resto. Aceptó la condición para quedarse de pasar de anti-k a k en sus comentarios. Pero no era tan cínico como Duggan o Víctor Hugo y creo que la vergüenza lo carcomió por dentro.
infobae.com/sociedad/2026/09…
Esta simulación sin el humo y la polvareda para entender mejor cómo se derrumbaron las torres es muy esclarecedora.
I find these World Trade Center simulations by Kostack Studio fascinating because they remove the smoke and let you see the collapse much more clearly.
In the real footage, so much is hidden by fire, dust, debris, distance, and chaos that many people come away with the impression that the towers simply dropped straight down into their own footprints.
But that is not really what happened.
These simulations make it much easier to see that the collapse begins in the heavily damaged and fire-weakened region, the upper section starts moving and tilting, and the destruction then propagates downward through the structure.
The towers do not simply disappear vertically into their own footprints. Large portions of the upper structure and exterior are moving outward and to the side as the collapse develops. Much of that motion is simply obscured in the real videos once the enormous debris cloud forms.
And this is also why I find these simulations useful when people describe the collapses as looking like “controlled demolition.”
Strip away the smoke and dust and the resemblance becomes much less convincing.
What you see is a highly asymmetric structural failure beginning around the aircraft-damaged and fire-affected floors, followed by an enormous moving mass progressively overwhelming the structure beneath it. There is tilting, rotation, exterior columns peeling away, debris being thrown far outside the building footprint, and structural failure occurring chaotically as the collapse moves downward.
That is very different from the neat mental image usually implied by “controlled demolition,” where structural supports are deliberately severed in a carefully timed sequence to produce a predetermined collapse.
And importantly, we already know what preceded these collapses.
Both towers suffered massive aircraft-impact damage. Fireproofing was stripped from portions of the structure. Large, uncontrolled fires then burned across multiple floors - for about 56 minutes in the South Tower and about 102 minutes in the North Tower - heating and weakening structural components until collapse initiated.
Once that upper mass began moving, the loads imposed on the floors and structure beneath became vastly greater than anything they had been designed to carry.
The result was progressive collapse.
No, an animation is not proof simply because it looks convincing, and these are not official NIST simulations. They are visualizations built under particular assumptions.
But as visualizations, I think they are extremely useful.
They let you see something the original footage often cannot show clearly: beneath that enormous cloud of smoke and debris was a complicated, violent, asymmetric structural failure - not two buildings neatly dropping straight down into their own footprints.
A note on the simulation: this is not intended to reproduce the collapse down to the exact motion of every beam, floor panel, and fragment of debris. No practical simulation could do that. Its value is in modeling the large-scale structural behavior - how the major sections deform, move, tilt, separate, and progressively fail. Think of it as a visualization of the mechanics and overall collapse behavior, not a frame-by-frame reconstruction of where every piece of steel ultimately landed.
La entrada más barata para el partido de Alcaraz Shelton esta a casi u$s600. Y desde esas últimas filas es como ver a dos hormigas corriendo en un tupper.
Wimbledon tomó nota de la falta de respeto por el tenis de los influencers en el us open.
Wimbledon does not plan on providing credentials to influencers next summer in hopes of avoiding the issues that affected this year's US Open, according to The Press Association.
Players such as Naomi Osaka and Coco Gauff have called for spectators to follow the sport's etiquette after matches were interrupted.
For more: yhoo.it/4yiGbr9
Viendo el us open. Cada vez peor la distracción para los jugadores. Dejan entrar y salir a la gente al estadio durante el punto, no hacen silencio nunca… es una joda.
El otro día me hizo un arreglo un plomero y quería cobrar en efectivo y llevarse la plata. Le dije que no, que eran mis reservas y no podía fugar capitales de mi casa. Le ofrecí pagarle en empanadas de producción propia o nada.
El tupé. Moreno no hizo suficiente escuela.
Muchos decimos apóstrofe cuando quisimos decir apóstrofo.
Es curioso que tengan la misma etimología de apartarse, en un caso aplicada al signo, en el otro al discurso.
Eso sí, qué feo que suena “apóstrofo”.
El futuro: vacunas mRNA personalizadas contra el cáncer. Ensayo clínico fase 3, en 1137 pacientes, con resultados preliminares positivos.
Por suerte la ciencia sigue avanzando a pesar de sus detractores.
Part 2. The numbers, the limits, and the receipts.
How the treatment is built:
Doctors take a sample of the tumor and sequence it. Software identifies up to 34 mutations unique to that person’s cancer. Those 34 targets get encoded into a single mRNA therapy, manufactured for one patient, and nobody else.
The patient’s own cells read the instructions, display the targets, and the immune system learns what to hunt.
That is not a tweak to an existing drug. That is a new category.
The earlier trial already pointed here. At five years, adding intismeran to Keytruda cut the risk of recurrence or death by 49%, and the risk of the cancer spreading or death by 59%, compared with Keytruda alone.
That was a small trial. Small trials are where promising results usually die.
This one didn’t die. It scaled to 1,137 patients and held.
And melanoma is only where they started. There are nine trials running on this same approach across lung cancer, bladder cancer and kidney cancer.
The honest limits:
This is topline data from a planned interim analysis. The full effect sizes have not been released yet. The treatment is not approved.
And contrary to some reporting, the trial was not stopped. It continues, because they are still measuring whether patients live longer. That is the number that matters most and nobody has it yet.
They announced what they found and said plainly what they don’t know yet. Then they publish and let anyone check it.
Now the other approach.
Ivermectin actually got tested properly for COVID. Three large randomized trials:
ACTIV-6: no clinical benefit.
TOGETHER: no clinical benefit.
I-TECH: no clinical benefit.
Three serious attempts. Three failures. The claims did not change.
For the cancer claims around ivermectin, fenbendazole and mebendazole, there is no Phase 3 result at all. Not a failed one. None.
And here is the detail almost nobody repeating the fenbendazole story mentions.
The man whose remission launched the entire protocol was enrolled in a clinical trial at the time.
A clinical trial for Keytruda.
The same drug that forms the backbone of the trial that succeeded today.
He got real immunotherapy and added a dewormer on top of it. Millions of people were then told the dewormer was the reason.
One of these approaches published its protocol before the data came in, ran a control group, and let the world audit the result.
The other one built a movement on a man who was already receiving the thing that worked.
SOURCES:
Merck/Moderna - Phase 3 INTerpath-001:
merck.com/news/merck-and-mod…
ACTIV-6 - JAMA:
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…
TOGETHER - New England Journal of Medicine:
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE…
I-TECH - JAMA Internal Medicine:
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…
Lo 1ro que pensé cuando decía que se equivocaban los que no aceptaban la apuesta (por única vez) de 50 % ganar $125 y 50 % perder $100. Uno puede declinar, aún sabiendo que el valor esperado es $12.50, porque el riesgo de perder es igual alto.
Poker pro here. I make bets for a living.
This is the correct logic applied incorrectly.
The reason insurance exists is because people can’t afford the variance.
That’s the only reason you buy insurance, which is a losing proposition for the consumer.
The only reason you don’t take a positive expectation bet, like the one he proposed is if you can’t afford the loss.
Most can afford $100 swing. Not taking the bet isn’t mere loss aversion, it’s a failure to understand when to play the game in the first place.
Kurt Larg retweeted
Two of the loudest anti-science movements of our time appear to be fighting completely different things.
One fears vaccines.
The other fears chemicals.
But listen to their arguments long enough and you notice something remarkable:
They’re basically the same argument.🧵1/