Bro grow up. The world is not black and white. Literally not a single award on the planet is meritocratic if you insist on dealing in absolutes. Every award is awarded by some committee and there is some room left for human judgement, which leaves room for human bias, which makes it not perfectly meritocratic.
If you want to go an unhinged rant that no one wants to listen to then email the nobel association directly, don’t waste federated server time.
no, because it’s literally what it is, words have meaning. that’s quite a lot of mental gymnastics and insults to defend the legitimacy of a prize that goes to war hawks and fascists for a while now.
it’s being used to push for pretty evil politics right now and should not be taken seriously for that reason. however the fuck you want to define the words i’m trying to use to describe it.
Thank you for finally spewing out the point you wanted to make from the jump. It’s irrelevant in the context of the original discussion, but you got to hear yourself talk.
that’s literally my point the entire time. it’s not meritocratic, it’s political. bother to understand next time. unless you somehow think that these folks deserve any prize.
And your point is wrong because you keep boiling it down to simple black and white.
The Nobel prize is not purely political and is not devoid of merit.
The world is not full of binary systems. It’s made of multi variable systems where multiple influences can be true at the same time.
If you want to make a point about why accurately predicting the structure of hundreds of thousands of proteins doesn’t deserve the Nobel in chemistry then I’m all ears. Please tell us all exactly why you think their prize was political and not meritocratic, and why predicting protein structures automatically is not important?
Because if you can’t answer that very specific question, then you weren’t making a point relevant to the conversation, you were making a snide generalization to hear yourself speak.
if it’s anything other than meritocratic, then by definition it is not.
it’s like saying there’s free speech, but only a select group of people can have it.
Lol if you regidly define things binarily in a way that doesn’t reflect real world systems, then sure they’re binary.
likewise, if you bend words to mean what you want them to mean we don’t have much reason to even be discussing it.
if something doesn’t get primarily awarded by merit, it’s simply not meritocratic.
Lmao, it’s binary cause you say it’s binary.
Bro grow up. The world is not black and white. Literally not a single award on the planet is meritocratic if you insist on dealing in absolutes. Every award is awarded by some committee and there is some room left for human judgement, which leaves room for human bias, which makes it not perfectly meritocratic.
If you want to go an unhinged rant that no one wants to listen to then email the nobel association directly, don’t waste federated server time.
no, because it’s literally what it is, words have meaning. that’s quite a lot of mental gymnastics and insults to defend the legitimacy of a prize that goes to war hawks and fascists for a while now.
it’s being used to push for pretty evil politics right now and should not be taken seriously for that reason. however the fuck you want to define the words i’m trying to use to describe it.
i’m also not wasting any more of my time here.
Thank you for finally spewing out the point you wanted to make from the jump. It’s irrelevant in the context of the original discussion, but you got to hear yourself talk.
that’s literally my point the entire time. it’s not meritocratic, it’s political. bother to understand next time. unless you somehow think that these folks deserve any prize.
And your point is wrong because you keep boiling it down to simple black and white.
The Nobel prize is not purely political and is not devoid of merit.
The world is not full of binary systems. It’s made of multi variable systems where multiple influences can be true at the same time.
If you want to make a point about why accurately predicting the structure of hundreds of thousands of proteins doesn’t deserve the Nobel in chemistry then I’m all ears. Please tell us all exactly why you think their prize was political and not meritocratic, and why predicting protein structures automatically is not important?
Because if you can’t answer that very specific question, then you weren’t making a point relevant to the conversation, you were making a snide generalization to hear yourself speak.