is he a schizo too /sci/?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RNA_vaccine#Malone_deleted?

https://gloria.tv/post/jy37UfG7yV7Q2LUmRhq2iM3Q9

/sci/ told me vaccines have >90% protection against all infections.
When that narrative fell apart, they told me vaccines have >90% protection against symptomatic infections.
When that narrative fell apart, they told me vaccines have >90% protection against moderate illness.
When that narrative fell apart again, they then told me vaccines have >90% protection against serious illness.
Now it turned out even that wasn't the case. We're literally seeing provaxxers moving goalposts yet again. When will it all end?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-severe-covid-cases-could-reach-400-by-mid-august-researchers-warn/

/sci/ humor thread

>The notion of Mengele as unhinged, driven by demons, and indulging grotesque and sadistic impulses should be replaced by something perhaps even more unsettling. Mengele was, in fact, in the scientific vanguard, enjoying the confidence and mentorship of the leaders in his field. The science he pursued in Auschwitz, to the extent that we can reconstruct it, was not anomalous but rather consistent with research carried out by others in what was considered to be the scientific establishment. That research was criminal—and monstrous—because of the absence of all barriers that ordinarily serve to contain and regulate the temptations and ambitions that can push scientific research across ethical boundaries. Relegating Mengele and his research to the ranks of the anomalous and bizarre is perhaps more palatable than understanding that he was the product—and promise—of a much larger system of thought and practice. It is easier to dismiss an individual monster than to recognize the monstrous that can emerge from otherwise respected and enshrined institutions.
>Mengele: Unmasking the "Angel of Death"
Why should I believe in science again? Why shouldn't I be sceptical of vaccines?? When science is responsible for the most disgusting cold-hearted atrocities in the past? Kuhn already dismantled this notion that science is about some linear progress rather than changing/competing paradigms.

Why did biology settle on five fingers per hand?

climate change is fake

Hi. i once found a website that had tons of books and study material for free, but i can't remember the name. anybody got a clue?

This is a game theory/marketing question. Lets say you have two possible advertising campaigns to run. Your lifetime value of a NEW customer is $150.

Normally, you spend $100 to acquire a new customer. While acquiring these new customers, you gather data on everyone that was interested, but ultimately didn't buy(call them prospects).

But you can also spend $70 to target these prospects again, and convert them into customers.

Does it make financial sense to do so? From my perspective the answer is absolutely because you effectively have three options

1. No advertising spending(obviously bad)
2. Only do the first advertising, in which case your benefit is $50 from the first customer
3. Do both advertising, in which case the benefit is $80. $50 from the first customer $30 from the second customer.


I was told by someone, that the cost of acquisition for the second customer is $170, and since the lifetime value is $150 it's not worth running the second campaign. But from a math perspective, you have already spent the $100 either way because you are ALWAYS going to run the first campaign because it is profitable.

Am i missing anything here? Who is right?

Does /sci/ play games of mental skill? I stopped playing vidya years ago but I recently read Moonwalking With Einstein and realized I need to do something.

stem is a meme all they want is software engineers someone give me a jerb aaaaaaaaaaaaaa