To be clear, I don't mean "Can an engineer be a scientist"(Because of course they can, being an engineer doesn't disqualify you from being a Scientist), I mean does being an engineer, by itself, mean you are a scientist?
That(And the fact I've already mentioned it once today) reminds me of something my father(An engineer, among other things) said when I was first thinking about going to university, and trying to select a major. I asked him about the difference(I thought they were essentially the same, at that point) and he said something like: "Well, it's about what you want the end result to be. Scientists look out and discover the unknown, and Engineers take what becomes known, and make it real."
Another way to look at it that just occurred too me - Engineers built the LHC, Scientists used it to discover the Higgs Boson.
Looking at the various commentary about it online, I also noticed something interesting it seems that Scientists are primarily in the "No" group, along with many engineers, however, the "Yes" group is mostly engineers.
Edit - Taken from another discussion of the topic, here's a set of criteria why some people think that engineers are scientists(Specifically, "Applied Scientists") - "(because they are) trained to work with scientific knowledge, to read scientific papers, to study/find sources & get workable results on your own which has been tested and accredited, demonstrated your ability under testing conditions, know how to evaluate what you design, etc.
An applied scientist is just that, an applied scientist, it's a skill which has to be trained."
Second edit - haha oh wow. Looking around at the various debates about this around the internet, there's enough salt flying around that I think you could also start classifying engineers as a mineral.
Second edit - haha oh wow. Looking around at the various debates about this around the internet, there's enough salt flying around that I think you could also start classifying engineers as a mineral.
The applied scientist is what you could also classify healthcare practitioners under however you can flip to write a paper and do research instead of practice if you want (usually it's just boring and not worth the time or effort to read or write). However when I was practising I would always keep an open mind due to the influence of pharmaceutical companies and often of University teaching which.
e.g. Pharmaceutical companies and University : vaccinate your dog every year for their entire life. Real life (Australia): Do puppy vaccinations then vaccinate your dog every 3 years then give up vaccinating after around 8 years unless the owner is super scared and won't listen to your professional opinion or your bosses are ass holes and don't understand that science > ripping clients off.
The applied scientist is what you could also classify healthcare practitioners under however you can flip to write a paper and do research instead of practice if you want (usually it's just boring and not worth the time or effort to read or write). However when I was practicing I would always keep an open mind due to the influence of pharmaceutical companies and often of University teaching which.
I've dipped my toe in the argument by accident elsewhere(which piqued my interest about what the general opinion was around here), and some made that argument (To my surprise, since Medicine isn't usually considered a STEM field in the US) but most of them were less receptive to me pointing out that there's also marketers who do exactly the same thing, and essentially deal in Applied Science. There's even a reasonably well regarded scientific journal that deals pretty much exclusively with marketing and Applied Sciences, so you'd think they'd go along, right?
Nope. At the very idea of a subject that traditionally fell under the umbrella of the humanities/liberal arts subjects to their precious Scientist title and essentially accepting it into the same fold they were trying to include themselves in, they went apeshit. You've never seen a goalpost yanked into motion so quickly.
The applied scientist is what you could also classify healthcare practitioners under however you can flip to write a paper and do research instead of practice if you want (usually it's just boring and not worth the time or effort to read or write). However when I was practicing I would always keep an open mind due to the influence of pharmaceutical companies and often of University teaching which.
I've dipped my toe in the argument by accident elsewhere(which piqued my interest about what the general opinion was around here), and some made that argument (To my surprise, since Medicine isn't usually considered a STEM field in the US) but most of them were less receptive to me pointing out that there's also marketers who do exactly the same thing, and essentially deal in Applied Science. There's even a reasonably well regarded scientific journal that deals pretty much exclusively with marketing and Applied Sciences, so you'd think they'd go along, right?
Nope. At the very idea of a subject that traditionally fell under the umbrella of the humanities/liberal arts subjects to their precious Scientist title and essentially accepting it into the same fold they were trying to include themselves in, they went apeshit. You've never seen a goalpost yanked into motion so quickly.
The likely problem is the people who can have enough time to sit around on these types of forums are those doing the research stuff (however couldn't deal with a day in hospital) and are purely researchers. Those who are practising are either sleeping or fitting all their regular life shit into the short time between shifts and don't really give a fuck (and would likely be bored shitless in a research position).
Seriously over 90% of health care professionals are idiots, all you do in University is memorise bull shit and apply the 10% that is worthwhile from the last 2 or 3 years, the rest of the job is based on the character of the person and the common sense that they have. On top of the latter list, how they deal with emergency situations.
If you are truly a problem solver and have a scientific approach plus can think laterally you will be pushed to the side and unwanted (unless in a Government medical facility) as you don't make as much bank as the sheep who do what their boss or pharmaceutical rep want them to on top of thoughtless pattern recognition (educated pattern recognition is still required but you have to be open to your interpretation being wrong but very few practitioners can do the latter). The most scary head vet I ever encountered spoke of medical reps as if they were a source of information.
Rant because of the recent medical and veterinary practitioners who I've seen in the last few months out of which only my Neurologist is a really smart guy who is socially adept.
Are HDMI jacks on TVs all all orientated the same way? Is the narrow side always on the bottom or does it vary by manufacturer?
I am going to buy a Chromecast but the HDMI jacks are against the wall on my TV and I am seeing right angle adapters that are fixed. I don't want to make an extra trip home to check but I will if I have to.
Are HDMI jacks on TVs all all orientated the same way? Is the narrow side always on the bottom or does it vary by manufacturer?
I am going to buy a Chromecast but the HDMI jacks are against the wall on my TV and I am seeing right angle adapters that are fixed. I don't want to make an extra trip home to check but I will if I have to.
That is a very good question! I do know that the HDMI ports that are on the side of the TV are rotated 90 degrees.
Are HDMI jacks on TVs all all orientated the same way? Is the narrow side always on the bottom or does it vary by manufacturer?
I am going to buy a Chromecast but the HDMI jacks are against the wall on my TV and I am seeing right angle adapters that are fixed. I don't want to make an extra trip home to check but I will if I have to.
IIRC the Chromecast comes with a small HDMI-extension wire in case it doesn't fit right in the port, so it doesn't actually matter.
I suddenly wonder about your opinion on Dr Chris from Bondi vet.
That guy is a fucking joke lol. I watched the first show and cringed all the way through it. I spotted bits of it later and he is just a young version of Dr. Harry. The dude can't do some of the most basic emergency conditions and surgeries on his own. They film him doing things that he should have taught nurses to do for him. Also pretends like easy surgeries are hard or is literally crap at surgery. They never explain why the fuck he has to have a share house with 2 other guys since he's a professional. The show advertises a shitty type of food yet the Hills food that is caught on film when they enter through the front of his practice is blurred out.
I practised down the road from him for a short while and they are literally in an old ass house with tiny rooms and does pretty poorly clientele wise when compared to the surrounding competition.
I practised down the road from him for a short while and they are literally in an old ass house with tiny rooms and does pretty poorly clientele wise when compared to the surrounding competition.
I practised down the road from him for a short while and they are literally in an old ass house with tiny rooms and does pretty poorly clientele wise when compared to the surrounding competition.
But he's so pretty.
Pretty gets you a long way in a profession that doesn't value scientific credibility, problem solving or integrity.
What sort of logical fallacy is it when one person puts forth a stupid idea that the second person is completely against and the first person berates the second for not agreeing with premise of the idea and not putting forth their proposal for enacting the bad idea?
Example:
Person 1 - I want to have buttsex with you. Person 2 - I do not want to have buttsex. Person 1 - well, what is your alternate buttsex proposal? Person 2 - umm... No buttsex? Person 1 - well, if you're not going to propose a solution then my idea wins out. Etc...
No, that's not it. It is more of an issue where one side believes that a certain something has to happen while the other side is not convinced anything needs to be done.
Person 2 doesn't even agree with the premise of what person 1 wants to do yet person 1 claims their way must be accepted because person 2 puts forth no plan to implement the premise that they don't even agree is valid.
Person 1: we must build a vast spaceport for when the aliens arrive. Person 2: dafuq? Person 1: since you offer no plan for a spaceport we will build the one I have designed.
Does "Let's Play" refer to someone doing an entire playthrough, or just a snippet? I sorta just realized that I don't really know what it's supposed to refer to. I'm also not sure where the term came from. I know some video's just used to be called Let's Play and I thought there was a specific group that was using that as their title but then everyone else just started using it.
Does "Let's Play" refer to someone doing an entire playthrough, or just a snippet? I sorta just realized that I don't really know what it's supposed to refer to. I'm also not sure where the term came from. I know some video's just used to be called Let's Play and I thought there was a specific group that was using that as their title but then everyone else just started using it.
A Let's Play is pretty much any stream where you just watch someone play through a game. As if the person streaming is saying "Let's play game X" and then you watch them play it.
A stream that's not a let's play would be where the person is doing something more specific. A speedrun, a competition, a strategy walkthrough, etc.
Comments
To be clear, I don't mean "Can an engineer be a scientist"(Because of course they can, being an engineer doesn't disqualify you from being a Scientist), I mean does being an engineer, by itself, mean you are a scientist?
Engineers apply scientific knowledge in developing solutions to problems.
They may investigate alternative solutions via experimentation, which may be scientific. However, being a scientist is not necessary for engineering.
Another way to look at it that just occurred too me - Engineers built the LHC, Scientists used it to discover the Higgs Boson.
Looking at the various commentary about it online, I also noticed something interesting it seems that Scientists are primarily in the "No" group, along with many engineers, however, the "Yes" group is mostly engineers.
Edit - Taken from another discussion of the topic, here's a set of criteria why some people think that engineers are scientists(Specifically, "Applied Scientists") - "(because they are) trained to work with scientific knowledge, to read scientific papers, to study/find sources & get workable results on your own which has been tested and accredited, demonstrated your ability under testing conditions, know how to evaluate what you design, etc.
An applied scientist is just that, an applied scientist, it's a skill which has to be trained."
Second edit - haha oh wow. Looking around at the various debates about this around the internet, there's enough salt flying around that I think you could also start classifying engineers as a mineral.
e.g. Pharmaceutical companies and University : vaccinate your dog every year for their entire life.
Real life (Australia): Do puppy vaccinations then vaccinate your dog every 3 years then give up vaccinating after around 8 years unless the owner is super scared and won't listen to your professional opinion or your bosses are ass holes and don't understand that science > ripping clients off.
Nope. At the very idea of a subject that traditionally fell under the umbrella of the humanities/liberal arts subjects to their precious Scientist title and essentially accepting it into the same fold they were trying to include themselves in, they went apeshit. You've never seen a goalpost yanked into motion so quickly.
Seriously over 90% of health care professionals are idiots, all you do in University is memorise bull shit and apply the 10% that is worthwhile from the last 2 or 3 years, the rest of the job is based on the character of the person and the common sense that they have. On top of the latter list, how they deal with emergency situations.
If you are truly a problem solver and have a scientific approach plus can think laterally you will be pushed to the side and unwanted (unless in a Government medical facility) as you don't make as much bank as the sheep who do what their boss or pharmaceutical rep want them to on top of thoughtless pattern recognition (educated pattern recognition is still required but you have to be open to your interpretation being wrong but very few practitioners can do the latter). The most scary head vet I ever encountered spoke of medical reps as if they were a source of information.
Rant because of the recent medical and veterinary practitioners who I've seen in the last few months out of which only my Neurologist is a really smart guy who is socially adept.
I am going to buy a Chromecast but the HDMI jacks are against the wall on my TV and I am seeing right angle adapters that are fixed. I don't want to make an extra trip home to check but I will if I have to.
The dude can't do some of the most basic emergency conditions and surgeries on his own. They film him doing things that he should have taught nurses to do for him. Also pretends like easy surgeries are hard or is literally crap at surgery.
They never explain why the fuck he has to have a share house with 2 other guys since he's a professional.
The show advertises a shitty type of food yet the Hills food that is caught on film when they enter through the front of his practice is blurred out.
I practised down the road from him for a short while and they are literally in an old ass house with tiny rooms and does pretty poorly clientele wise when compared to the surrounding competition. The wooden recyclable ones.
Example:
Person 1 - I want to have buttsex with you.
Person 2 - I do not want to have buttsex.
Person 1 - well, what is your alternate buttsex proposal?
Person 2 - umm... No buttsex?
Person 1 - well, if you're not going to propose a solution then my idea wins out.
Etc...
Person 2 doesn't even agree with the premise of what person 1 wants to do yet person 1 claims their way must be accepted because person 2 puts forth no plan to implement the premise that they don't even agree is valid.
Person 1: we must build a vast spaceport for when the aliens arrive.
Person 2: dafuq?
Person 1: since you offer no plan for a spaceport we will build the one I have designed.
A stream that's not a let's play would be where the person is doing something more specific. A speedrun, a competition, a strategy walkthrough, etc.