## Saturday, January 19, 2019

### Maddow, Mueller and the dems push a dare at McConnell

First announcements: On December 18, my friend Robert Kuhn became only the second American to receive the China ReformFriendship Medal, said to be China’s highest award; it was given by President Xi Jinping and Chinese leaders at the 40th anniversary of 'opening up' in the Great Hall of the People.  Robert is also the host of the future-oriented TV series Closer toTruth, that had me on for topics ranging from SETI to philosophy of science, religion, ESP to human destiny in the cosmos.  See his optimistic appraisal of the likelihood of a positive deal with China over matters like state subsidies and IP protection.

Alas, the PRC is now pushing an initiative for Trump to get crowing points over what doesn't matter -the trade deficit - to distract from what does matter, theft of he West's innovation and invention. And hence -- this is by far the most important article you can read about China's leadership caste, by an Australian diplomat/journalist of immense insight. Join the site (free) in order to read it. Follow this with my own insights, which dovetail with Garnaut's, about Chinese PRC mythologies about central planning and AI. More on this at the end.

And scroll down for links to my latest podcasts.

== An open letter to Rachel Maddow… ==

Now that your ratings have surpassed Sean Hannity’s, may I offer a suggestion? One that could both devastate Fox and spur another ratings boost for you? It’s simple: challenge Hannity to exchange rebuttal segments! Offer him 2 minutes, three times a week, if he’ll reciprocate.

First, it would be a profound statement of confidence that you are the one with facts on your side.

Second, Hannity and his Fox masters know your mere six-minutes-per-week on Fox would be far more deadly to them, hence they will refuse! Whereupon you can call “chicken!” (Note: Fox led the charge to end the old version of the Rebuttal Rule: I wonder why?)

If you had done this in the past, Ol’ Sean (or O’Reilly) would sneer “She’s trying to chase our ratings.” Now you can say – with a sly wink - “I’m taking pity on a failing competitor.”

If they accept, you’d torch Fox to the ground, in just 360 seconds. (It’s also one way to get Donald Trump to watch some of your stuff.) But far more important would be spreading the concept of rebuttal, even challenging opponents to wagers, and the thing that terrifies the Murdochians most… the very notion of “fact.”

Which is why they now wage war on every single fact-using profession, from scientists, teachers, journalists, doctors, economists, civil servants and skilled labor...all the way to the professionals in the FBI, intelligence agencies and Military Officer Corps, whom the cult now derides as "deep state" monsters. (More on this, below.)

Yes, you’d have to be short and punchy. I could offer some one-line zingers. But it won’t come to that. They’ll refuse, in desperate panic. So the only thing you’ll have to say is: “Chicken! B’b’bkaw!”

== What Mueller is really targeting ==

I predicted it will all turn out to be about money laundering. This article by Michael HIrsch - How Russian Money Helped Save Trump's Business -   begins your education about what will soon be emerging as much bigger than anything so far: “in the aftermath of Trump’s earlier financial troubles" (three bankruptcies that stiffed his U.S. creditors) “he could not get anybody in the United States to lend him anything. It was all coming out of Russia.” Officially, his comeback was financed by two German lenders, Deutsche Bank and Bayerische Vereinsbank. But the EU is sifting the former, tracing vast flows of Russian money from Putin allies.

Seriously, don’t skim this. Each paragraph makes clear it’s worse than you thought. Then it gets worse. Then it goes downhill. And somewhere along the way, it stopped being about “deals” or even a “swamp” and almost certainly became about leverage, even blackmail.

“Russian efforts either to recruit somebody as an asset or effectively coerce them into becoming an asset historically typically rely on compromise of either a financial nature or a sexual nature,” said David Kris, a former assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. And no, a "pee tape" would not suffice.

Find someone, anywhere, who was talking about "leadership subornation" and "blackmail as a war weapon" in the 1990s.

== Democrats pick (almost) the right first priority ==

Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) nailed it with #WheresMitch? This was not Trump's Shut Down! He can't veto a government re-start that doesn't reach his desk. This is all stage managed by Putin's real asset in the U.S. Mitch McConnell. (Lefty or not, I'm starting to think AOC may be more than just faddish hype. Pace yourself. But you go.)

As for legislating? The Democrats’ HR1 anti-corruption bill is a litany of desperately needed reforms… their equivalent of a “Contract With America” that I wish were sold half as well as that historic work of razzle-dazzle.

Every one of HR1's many component measures would help restore American democracy and vastly improve accountability. We might quibble or negotiate this or that. But the intent of almost every measure is to restrict or eliminate cheating, from demanding paper ballots to prevent tampering and easier voter registration to applying pressure against gerrymandering (yes, even in Blue States like Maryland); from demanding transparency of large political donors to insisting presidents and candidates release their tax returns and restricting “emoluments; from keeping congressfolk off corporate boards to transparency in the “swamp” of lobbying.

And yes, this utterly refutes any jerk out there who says “the parties are the same.”

DP leaders are right to prioritize these matters ahead of the things the party’s left salivates-for, like “Medicare for All.” Those desiderata should win or lose based on the merits of their case! But that case can never be made, so long as cheating (set up by a whole generation of Republican shysters like Dennis “friend to boys” Hastert and Mitch McConnell) prevails. My only complaints are:

1) Even more important than electoral and ethics reform is re-establishing the very concept of “fact” in American life. The core element of today's confederate cult is to wage war on every single fact-using profession, from scientists, teachers, journalists, doctors, economists, civil servants and skilled labor...all the way to the professionals in the FBI, intelligence agencies and Military Officer Corps, whom the cult now derides as "deep state" monsters. This pattern is perfect and utterly damning. And my FACT Act proposes 12 measures that might end the War on Fact.

2) McConnell’s corrupt GOP Senate majority will ignore HR1, of course. So the House should start sending over the provisions one-by-one, daring every Republican Senator to specifically oppose each, individually. A dozen or so of these goppers will have to find one or two to support… they might do so together, for their own electoral survival… and McConnell may decide to let Trump take the heat, with his veto pen. Fine, this a ground game of yards.

3) Add a measure demanding that all of a president's foreign meetings be witnessed by trustworthy US officials. (See below.)

== Transparency, liberty… and blockchain… ==

I’ve been featured on several libertarian-themed podcasts, lately. This one, sponsored by AEI (American Enterprise Institute) and hosted by Jim Pethokoukis, focused on surveillance, transparency and the future of freedom. I challenge preconceptions, garrulously, of course. And it is always good to help sinners regain both light and loyalty to the Enlightenment.

Another is the “CoinSpice” podcast where I’m interviewed about blockchain, autonomous “semi-AI algorithms” already roaming the web, and advice for a new generation of “ICO” coin hotshots to stay out of jail.

How is it that I give so many interviews or speak at so many libertarian events, when they know I will poke hard at the mistaken directions taken by this once-promising movement? Two reasons. First, I think the underlying themes of individualism and liberty are important enough to try weaning these fellows off the current fad of oligarchy-worship. (Forbes and Koch have spent many millions, subsidizing orgs like Cato and AEI to achieve this hypnosis, kicking aside the once-important word “competition” in favor of idolatry of property.)

Second, they keep inviting me! Of all the political factions on today’s landscape, only libertarians seem passionately interested (well, some of them) in being challenged and facing tough questioning. And yes, I challenge.

==  Finally... Donald Trump, don't eat! ==

We’ve all seen reasons to oppose any further Trump private meetings with communist or ex-communist or mafia foreign leaders. First, nothing good ever came of it — and they stink of being blatant de-briefing sessions, issuing fresh orders to Putin’s agent. But there’s an added reason why Two Scoops should give up this filthy habit. Self-preservation.

He still views himself (delusionally) as an Adonis. But Putin sees an asset turning into a liability, serving to unify the Union side of this civil war that Vlad cleverly helped Rupert to ignite. There comes a point where mafia dons start thinking cement overshoes, and how much more useful their raving “asset” would be, as a martyr

Close your eyes. Picture a silky-smooth President Pence reassuring and luring-back some of the officer corps, while riling the 33% confederates into fury over martyred dear-leader Trump.

Fer crying out loud Donald, when you are with Kim DON’T EAT ANYTHING! Yes, you imagine it is only liberals and western-civilization types and smartypants who have it in for you, and despots are your pals. But remember how rapacious you were, in business, and consider that you may have outlasted your usefulness to your best pals. (God bless the US Secret Service. Pay them!)

Now consider how stupid this plausible scenario actually makes Don and the dons. He won’t be careful, thinking he’s still valuable to them. And they won’t consider the long range, lethal consequences. That there is nothing Mike Pence prays for, daily, more than - absolutely literally - the End of the World

Anonymous said...

66 people carbonized in a lake of gasoline in Mexico.

Usually, gas thieves drill pipes to place valves that allow gas lines to be milked. But when the presidential term of López Obrador came into activity, many pipes were closed and gasoline was transported in pipes. But in many places, the gas lines were not closed. Gas thieves broke many pipes creating huge lakes and rivers of gasoline. Before yesterday, one of those gasoline lakes had about 300 people on it, stealing gasoline with tubs and drums.
Gasoline burst into flames. There are hundreds of burned and 66 dead so far.
I want to assume that a spark of static electricity started everything, but many businessmen linked to mafias were already fed up with the shortage of gasoline, which affects many companies and businesses of all kinds. Perhaps a sewer thug was sent to turn on gasoline, to "teach a lesson in good manners to thieves."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/18/americas/mexico-gasoline-explosion-tlahuelilpan/index.html

Regarding the question of whether the google images are free to use, I have already located the information:

Remember that Republicans have always blocked Democratic proposals. It is time to pay the malice of the Republicans as it should. Do not deliver amazing amounts of money to Donald Trump!

Dr. Brin:
Right, Donald Trump is inept in matters of money, but no doubt, he has Republican advisors who know how to steal hundreds of millions of dollars if Donald gets money for the wall.

Winter7

Mike Will said...

Scientific literacy, digital literacy, computational thinking, the 'maker' movement, even the Raspberry Pi Foundation all contribute to bottom-up rationalism. Enough of that work, and the people will demand the FACT Act.

I'm the definition of average. I'm not well connected, influential, or listened to much (I once was, but that led to a stroke, and I'm not looking to revisit those days). However, I do what I can, and many, many others do much more, and there are elites who do even more from the top. All together, we have a chance, even without formal doctrine or Plan :)

Anonymous said...

Anónimo Mike Will:

If you had a stroke, eat guavas; They have the only type of vitamin C that reaches the brain: dehydroascorbic acid.
And take vitamin B

Winter7

Anonymous said...

If Vice President Mike Pence is an imminent danger to the United States, then I suggest that the Democrats initiate a campaign to reveal the background of Pence's religious fanaticism in all media and in a strong and continuous way.
It would not be practical to wait for Pence to become president.
But ... If Pence does not reach the presidency, to whom will Republicans be placed in the white house? Is Pence's rise inevitable if the usurper falls?

Winter7

Anonymous said...

Mike Will:
You should also do a lot of exercise, Mike Will. People begin to die when they stop exercising.
Y come muchas frutas y verduras. Disminuye el consumo de grasas; azúcar y pan. Los derrames cerebrales no son inevitables.

Winter7

Bob Neinast said...

Dr. Brin,

Did you also send your open letter to Rachel, including a bit on who you are and why she ought to listen to you? The "maddowblog" website does have an email address for sending things to her.

I'm afraid Mitch did not merely "ignore" HR1. He wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post, calling it the "Democrat Politician Protection Act". Hardly unsurprising (and of course an attempt to tar the other side with exactly the awful stuff you are already guilty of). Heck it's even an attempt to bolster the "both sides do it" meme Republican efforts depend on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-hr-1-what-it-is-the-democrat-politician-protection-act/2019/01/17/dcc957be-19cb-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html

Jon S. said...

Luis, the US Constitution provides that should the President lose his seat for whatever reason, the VP takes the spot, and can then appoint another VP (subject to Congressional approval). That was how Gerald Ford became President in 1977 (VP Agnew had resigned, so Nixon appointed Ford as his VP, then Nixon resigned), and how Nelson Rockefeller became Ford's VP.

Should both the President and Vice President be removed, the Speaker of the House becomes the President for the remainder of the term. (This particular aspect has never been used - so far - but it was once necessary to remind Alexander Haig, then Secretary of State, of this when Reagan was shot and VP Bush was in the air and unreachable by secure communications. Haig attempted to proclaim that SecState was third in line, but was corrected immediately by other governmental personnel including SecDef Weinberger.)

I don't understand why the Right which fetishizes Ayn Rand is blatantly ignoring one of her statements I don't refute: A is A. A fact is a fact.

Anonymous said...

Jon S:

¿Was George H. W. Bush the vice president? So, if John Hinckley Jr. had managed to assassinate Ronald Reagan, the main beneficiary of that death would have been George H. W. Bush ... Wooow! Those Republican politicians do know how to play dirty!

Winter7

Anonymous said...

The Democrats’ HR1 anti-corruption bill... Yes. It's great that the Democrats try to repair democracy. I hope the Democrats have enough skill; insight and wisdom to achieve locate and neutralize all the tricks used by Republican politicians.

Winter7

Larry Hart said...

Bob Neinast:

I'm afraid Mitch did not merely "ignore" HR1. He wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post, calling it the "Democrat Politician Protection Act".

I suppose he meant that as a bad thing. :)

I'd see that as a reason to support the bill, no matter what it said.

But then, remember the Latino guy who campaigned for Trump in 2016, saying if Democrats were elected there'd soon be "a taco truck on every corner"? My wife and I both had the same reaction: "Mmmmmmmmmm. Taaaaaaaacos!"

Hardly unsurprising (and of course an attempt to tar the other side with exactly the awful stuff you are already guilty of). Heck it's even an attempt to bolster the "both sides do it" meme Republican efforts depend on.

He already had the unmitigated gall to call Democrats "obstructionists". As if that's a bad thing. I mean, his picture is in the dictionary next to that word.

Larry Hart said...

I don't understand why the Right which fetishizes Ayn Rand is blatantly ignoring one of her statements I don't refute: A is A. A fact is a fact.

Probably because they perceive the ones who disseminate "fake news" to be liberals by definition.

But yes, it's instructive the Randisms that Randists like Paul Ryan manage to ignore. Her militant atheism alone.

Mike Will said...

@Anonymous: Thank you so much for the health advice. I'll try.

Good to see the divorce isn't gnawing at Bezos
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/jeff-bezos-going-space-vs-making-earth-better-shouldnt-either/

locumranch said...

In honour of how much our fine host absolutely HATES hypocrites, cheaters & rule breakers, I am currently accepting wagers as to his predicted response to the imminent activation of federal Reduction-In-Force (RIF) statutes next week:

Will he be a good, gracious & rule-obedient little citizen and accept the implacable Rule-of-Law, even when it proves contrary to his progressive interests?

Or, will he whinge, protest & act hypocritically if & when the Trump Administration announces a massive federally-mandated RIF layoff that results in a 30 to 50% redundancy of federal employees (as in the case of agencies like NASA & NOAA) who have already been furloughed as 'non-essential' during the first 31 days of the US government shutdown?

The current odds are 7 to 3 in favour of a full-blown attack of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), associated with the ongoing rebellion of certain rule-disobedient 'Sanctuary Cities', followed shortly thereafter by the deployment of screaming pussy-hatted paramilitary forces intent on the immediate overthrow of the US federal government because FEELINGS.

I'm giving even money on bloodshed, sturm und drang.

Best

Anonymous said...

@Larry Hart

Rand Paul and his father Ron are much more informed by the works of Murray Rothbard than they ever were of the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Murray Rothbard was very accommodating to the influence of religion in society unlike Ayn Rand. His student , Lew Rockwell, heads the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Mr Rockwell is a very conservative Latin Rite Catholic. If there is any religious version of cosplay/Society for Creative Anachronism in the contemporary American scene Tridentine Latin Mass Catholics fit the bill. The Latin Mass Catholics, "trads", I have conversed over the years with are very libertarian and refer more to Rothbard and Rockwell than they do of Ayn Rand. I can't speak about Evangelical Christians, they might be more Randian. I spent a few years as a member of a libertarian group called the Free State Project and there was definitely the Randian and Rothbardian camps going back and forth. The religious tended to be more Rothbardian.

John Fremont

Duncan Cairncross said...

The Chinese stealing western IP

Now who else was it that did that when they were a new nation?

I remember it was the USA!!
For over a hundred years they did not accept anybody else's patents or copyright or anything!

The USA should NOT be throwing those stones!

Larry Hart said...

John Fremont:

The Latin Mass Catholics, "trads", I have conversed over the years with are very libertarian and refer more to Rothbard and Rockwell than they do of Ayn Rand.

Paul Ryan is very Catholic, and he quite specifically worships Ayn Rand, to the point of insisting his aides read Atlas Shrugged.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin in the main post:

And yes, this utterly refutes any jerk out there who says “the parties are the same.”

The parties are only "the same" in the sense that the Allies and the Axis powers were the same, since both sides wanted to win the war.

David Brin said...

The Chinese stealing western IP: “Now who else was it that did that when they were a new nation?

That is why it’s not a moral basis so much as pragmatic. The US uplifted the entire world for 70 years by buying crap. How could we afford it? By inventing whole industries, benefiting for a decade before they were stolen. The AIM of the PRC is to deny us even a year of benefit from any invention. The is stupidly killing the goose that laid their golden eggs.

We must prevent it not for moral reasons but because we can, and the world will thus benefit. If they have their way, the world dies.

After the 1st sentence I shrugged. Someone tell me if locum ever says anything worth a dollop of sidewalk spit.

David Brin said...

Sending a letter to Ms. Maddow via her regular mailbox would be like drying a tear by jumping in the ocean. Alas. My only chance of getting through would be if some one in her work community gets wind of the posting.

Anonymous said...

@Larry Hart

But yes, it's instructive the Randisms that Randists like Paul Ryan manage to ignore. Her militant atheism alone

Paul Ryan and religous affiliated think tanks like the Acton Institute don't ignore Rand's atheism, they respond that pointing out Rand's strident atheism refutes her political philosophy is an example of the logical error of genetic fallacy. Just because a militant atheist said it doesn't make it wrong.

John Fremont

Larry Hart said...

John Fremont:

Just because a militant atheist said it doesn't make it wrong.

But on anything else, "just because Ayn Rand says it" makes it true.
So why do they think they can ignore what she says about God?

Referring to an old Eddie Murphy routine:

...
We like chitlins and black eyed peas.
We like fried chicken and watermelon.
We've got big dicks.
(Pause for nervous laughs)
If you're gonna believe the myths, you gotta believe all them shits.

(Imitating stereotypical white voice: )
"No, they like chicken, but their dicks are normal like ours."

David Brin said...

"Paul Ryan and religous affiliated think tanks like the Acton Institute don't ignore Rand's atheism, they respond that pointing out Rand's strident atheism refutes her political philosophy is an example of the logical error of genetic fallacy. Just because a militant atheist said it doesn't make it wrong."

Yes, and THEY are the hypocrites. Religion means acceptance of a set of obligations, at-minimum from a creator figure who demands gratitude and obedience, in return. All of that is Rand-hated terminology. Moreover, nearly all religions layer on strictures favoring altruism or self-sacrifice and certainly group loyalty-selection.

Randianism styles itself as rooted instead in natural selection... Darwin and Malthus... and well as Adam Smith's notion of positive sum outcomes from fair competition. In fact, her mythology reveals an absolutely stunning ignorance of Darwin, Malthus and Smith.

In fact, the philosophical underpinning of Ayn Rand is entirely Marxist, which should surprise no one who considers her background and when she lived/wrote. Her notions are teleological (history has a direction) and based upon Marx's late-stage bourgeoise capitalist consolidation... that late in the capitalist stage, the master owner-caste would winnow and narrow down due to savage competition in wildly swinging cycles of business and technological innovation, till only a few great lords own everything.

Now, Marx continued this progression, projecting that this late-phase of capitalism would happen at the same time as "completion of the means of production," a stunningly silly notion; we now see that advanced technology means factories must re-capitalize at ever- INCREASING rates. But Marx foresaw the imbalance of power -- a few capitalist owner lords and huge masses of well-educated workers (no longer "lumpenproletariates) increasingly resentful... leading to proletariate revolution and transitional socialism, then communism.

Rand creates EXACTLY the Marxist scenario, with two provisions:

1) The winnowed lordly caste will be determined less by business cycles and cheating than by the competitive rise of genuine mutant-ubermensch Homo-superior creator demigods. Cheater-lords exist, though she overcomes them not via worker radicalism but the rise of super-creators.

2) Hence there would therefore be no further phases. Take the Penultimate Marxian stage of a narrow master-caste, freeze it and call it good.

As I point out in my Atlas Crushed essay, this relies upon Rand's incredible (and incredibly overlooked) conceit that none of her uber characters ever has any offspring. Ever! Anywhere in any of her books! Because, of course, those spoiled offspring would become decadent and guarantee revolution either by prols or new creatives. Either way, can't have that. So just ignore human reproduction, altogether!

http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/aynrand.html

Duncan Cairncross said...

Interesting article from Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-15/china-may-not-be-cheating-as-much-as-u-s-thinks

The actual EVIDENCE that China is "Stealing Western IP" - turns out to be very very thin

More a case of "well everybody knows" than any actual evidence

David Brin said...

What a load of utter malarkey. I know dozens of experts in the field. Forced technology transfers are utterly relentless, thorough and rapacious and matters of central policy. There are open accounts of laughter-derision of how western companies can be made to hand over their crown jewels in exchange for a promise of a 40% share of a local concern that might give market share... then that 40% share becomes worthless through some trick of dilution that's ruled perfectly legal by state agencies.

Why do you think they are willing to promise zero dollar trade deficits by 2024, if we'll back off on demanding IP protection? They know which is more valuable.

Drivel.

Ilithi Dragon said...

Bookmarked the Snopes, NPR, and FP articles. Still need to read the last two, but that'll happen tomorrow (snowed in on a long weekend makes for a great time to catch up on reading - assuming the snowmaggedden of 12-28" I was promised actually happens...), but I know a couple people who might be swayed by them.

On a lighter note, I posted Episode Two!

Hope you all enjoy!

Duncan Cairncross said...

Hi Dr Brin
I'm a few years out of date but my company - Cummins - was making engines in China and I had to visit to work out a few technical issues

We had several plants in China and I visited one of our Japanese plant at the same time

The technological transfers were basically exactly the same as with our other plants - the ones in the UK, Brazil and others

Back then (20 years ago) there were all of these stories about how the Chinese had tried to copy diesel fuel pumps and various other parts and the resultant disasters
But even then this was all "Past Tense" - things they used to do

This was a very interesting couple of months for me - lots to see

The biggest issue that I had was that the senior chinese executives did not understand the concept of maintenance - when I said maintenance they heard "boondoggle"

The Chinese plants were the youngest factories that I had worked in - and felt like the oldest
In one plant there were windows in the roof - which had not been cleaned or maintained so rubbish dripped down onto the workshop floor - maintaining the roof was not on the table instead they built an intermediate floor/roof
That was a temporary problem - the younger engineers all knew what to do but had to wait until their seniors were no longer in charge

As far as the "Forced technology transfers" - yes - but NOT NOT NOT - "FORCED" -
What you see is STUPID executives from the West who don't understand their own business giving away the Crown Jewels for large sums payed to the executives personally

The most valuable IP transfer EVER was when the US Government sent Deming and his group over to Japan to train them in the methods of modern manufacture
So that the Japanese could come back over and teach the West the same stuff

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

But Marx foresaw the imbalance of power -- a few capitalist owner lords and huge masses of well-educated workers (no longer "lumpenproletariates) increasingly resentful... leading to proletariate revolution and transitional socialism, then communism.

Dang if that doesn't sound an awful lot like psychohistory, albeit perhaps a flawed version. The psychohistorical version of epi-cycles or phlogiston theory, perhaps.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

As I point out in my Atlas Crushed essay, this relies upon Rand's incredible (and incredibly overlooked) conceit that none of her uber characters ever has any offspring. Ever! Anywhere in any of her books!

Ahem! Hey, I noticed that even before I heard you mention it.

Because, of course, those spoiled offspring would become decadent and guarantee revolution either by prols or new creatives. Either way, can't have that. So just ignore human reproduction, altogether!

I felt it was more because she was writing boys' adventure stories, which tend not to get bogged down with details that crop up after marriage, children, and old age. That's not to say that both interpretations can't be valid, with one being the cause of the other.

David Brin said...

"The most valuable IP transfer EVER was when the US Government sent Deming and his group over to Japan to train them in the methods of modern manufacture
So that the Japanese could come back over and teach the West the same stuff "

With this difference:
1) Japan is too small to destroy our economy and future prospects with its technology thefts. China can and has openly declared an intent to do so.

2) When Japan bloodied the noses of GM etc in the 1980s with this thing called "quality" it was a gigantic favor. And I said so at the time.

3) Fukushima showed that there is a foolish side to Deming teachings like Just-in-time manufacturing. One break in the supply chain shuts everything down almost instantly.

Alfred Differ said...

Trump does watch MSNBC occasionally. Probably clicks through looking around.

It would be interesting to see Maddow do this, but I don't think it is her style. Watch her read those court documents to us and you'll see an educator/journalist.

The combatant who comes on after her is the one who would be at home going toe to toe with Hannity. Right now, though, I think he is enjoying himself being a thorn the the President's foot.

The last time I saw an MSNBC pundit seriously trading punches with Fox types was Olberman... and that didn't work out well.

So, I think the Vegas line on this challenge would be moderate odds against because I don't think MSNBC wants to mess up what appears to be a winning strategy. It would be fun to watch, though. 8)

Alfred Differ said...

I'm not advocating for IP theft exactly, but I'm not convinced the Chinese can destroy our economy that way.

1. They risk dis-incentivizing us at some point. The situation shifts to a game with more negative payoffs when that happens whether or not our federal government gets involved.

2. ALL innovators lose control over their IP relatively quickly. A patent fully respected slows it down, but knock-off patents emerge if the innovation is worth the attention. This is what McCloskey described in the shift from Act I to Act II, so Chinese cheating is simply speeding it up.

Arguing that the Chinese can destroy our economy requires support for the possibility that they could eliminate Act I on every innovation to be staged here. I don't see it. I think it more likely we will adapt.

______________
There is also the issue of 'be careful what you eat.' If they hasten Act II and get really, really good at it, how long will it be before they are staging their own innovations? We benefit if they do in the same way Europe benefitted as the US became less piratical and more inventive. 'The West' isn't a geographic region. It is a culture of innovation tolerant of certain forms of failure. The Chinese are not members yet, but some of them are getting quite an exposure to it.

So... I'm not convinced it is worth a big fight though it probably is worth some negative sum trade-offs.

Duncan Cairncross said...

I think I have said this before "Just In Time" is a form of Judo

The problem is that manufacturing people - the foremen and managers get incredibly focussed on numbers
You can twist their arms up behind their backs and get them to say that quality is important but in their heart they don't believe it

With "Just in Time" - you go in and steal their "safety stock" - THEN when there is a quality issue the whole line stops
THEN you can get them to improve quality

YES - Just in Time causes problems when disaster strikes - but if you were NOT JIT you would still get the problems when disaster strikes
Before JIT we did have more "work in progress" and "Safety stocks" - but only about two or three days worth so any major disaster would have the same effect

We used to have enough "slack" to allow poor quality but not enough to make much difference if there was a disaster
The worst of both worlds!

The Japanese also teach that we need to leave time and resources for "Continuous Improvement" - and they do

porohobot said...

>> David Brin said...
\\The US uplifted the entire world for 70 years by buying crap.
//We must prevent it not for moral reasons but because we can, and the world will thus benefit. If they have their way, the world dies.

%) Where is Locum when he precisely needed? %)

Though I don't think he will scold you for this.
In his sociopathic hypocrite nature -- that's not a bad thing, but quite the contrary -- go-o-od.
As in hottentots moral -- if I steal cow, it's good.

Russian dems ends on the ukraininan question.

And so it seems, american dems ends on question of IP. %)

\\After the 1st sentence I shrugged. Someone tell me if locum ever says anything worth a dollop of sidewalk spit.

He is right in his own world of thriving sociopathy. %)
And as that parallel world sporadicaly crossing ours, he can spout something looking like truth in it too. %)))

I saw that in vatniks too.

\\1) Japan is too small to destroy our economy and future prospects with its technology thefts. China can and has openly declared an intent to do so.

Then get ready to the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" thing.
Because of sheer demographic.
You need to encourage immigration greatly. And embrace japan(asian)-style of urbanism.
To compete with it.
Else, destiny of British Empire awaits you.

You can stop it, of course.
But only by collusion with Putin... because that's what he see and do all the way.
Perceiving himself as mere brute force servant for master West.

\\2) When Japan bloodied the noses of GM etc in the 1980s with this thing called "quality" it was a gigantic favor. And I said so at the time.

Heh... that exactly what Putin feeds to his vatniks "sanctions is go-o-od!". %)

Ok. Nobody want to evolve of its own will. %)

\\3) Fukushima showed that there is a foolish side to Deming teachings like Just-in-time manufacturing. One break in the supply chain shuts everything down almost instantly.

Then it just must not break. That's the whole point. ;)

porohobot said...

>> Alfred Differ said...
\\I'm not advocating for IP theft exactly, but I'm not convinced the Chinese can destroy our economy that way.

The MAIN question is not in "who win IP... or any other of wars?"... waged today.

But, will we came through Turbulence Time which await us Intact and Sane.

Because... we ARE on a verge of Exponential Techs emerging.
And if that techs will be used for World War Three...
all be as predicted by Einstein.
Next WW will be with pebbles. %((((

Or... more like, by some other specie.

porohobot said...

I just want to share (if here'd be someone to share it) my sheer amusement.
From that AI-related part.

About what AI would be and must be...
whithout a thread of comprehension, that WE STILL HAVE NO definition,
of what is AI, or what our human Reason is, even. %))

\\Do you now understand better the quasi-religious faith that central planners vest in the positive traits of AI?

Is it "centralplanners" only? Or every of us who believe in "shiny reason"?

For everything else. Read Lem's "Golem XIV".

porohobot said...

And that's true. Physics beats metaphysics in every category, every metric, every conceivable spectrum. We are becoming mighty beings. And the path ahead ... well, if there is a God, he clearly wants us to hurry along it.

Yep. But physics can tell only what you CAN do here and now.
For anything else, one need imagination. And imagination it's hardly what one can find in a realm of physics.

So, to be a God... one need at least be able to dream about being one. ;)

Zepp Jamieson said...

Loads of fun watching Pelosi utterly own Trump. When she gets her fur up, she can be very formidable.
AOC's stunt of going to the Senate (@wheresmitch) worked beautifully, bringing public focus on that cowardly party hack.
And now, super cool news: Dragonfly, a drone on Titan. https://www.space.com/43010-dragonfly-mission-would-put-a-drone-on-titan.html

locumranch said...

The West doesn't need China or Japan to destroy western industrial competitiveness, thank you, as the western feudal US industrial complex is perfectly capable of destroying its own competitiveness entirely on its own.

The altruistic West has accomplished at least three of the self-destructive goals of globalism:

(1) It has outsourced its industrial technology AND its productive capacity to the third world in order to take advantage of cheap foreign slave labour;

(2) It has subsidized industrial outsourcing by squandering trillion of tonnes of irreplaceable fossil fuels by paying a premium for transport rather than industrial production;

(3) It has bankrupted its people & economy by buying billion of tonnes of cheap disposable industrial products that it doesn't really need & doesn't really want in order to subsidize cheap foreign slave labour.

This is what David calls 'Positive Sum' when the West gets squander its economic advantage, destroy its domestic industrial capacity, burn irreplaceable fossil fuels for the unnecessary transport of goods, cause Global Warming thru spurious CO2 production & perpetuate third world economic slavery in one fell swoop.

It's Win-Win! Yay Globalism!

Best

Alfred Differ said...

There is wide support for 'continuous improvement' (CI) today in the IT industry. It's the book that wraps the ITIL practices in a loop through feedback and some of us take it very seriously. I've been with my current employer about 9 years now. I came in as a software developer, but I spend most of my days now looking at improvement ideas on the services we currently offer. New services enter the mix now and then, but CI never ends.

Alfred Differ said...

that it doesn't really need & doesn't really want

Yah. Sure. I'm certain you have the Truth on what a billion people need and want in that one skull of yours. We want so little and need so little the knowledge about it all would fit in your one skull.

clueless.

Zepp Jamieson said...

Odd. I thought locumranch was pro-capitalism. I guess not.
Well, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Larry Hart said...

As of noon today, we're at the halfway point between inauguration days 2017 and 2021. Well almost. Because of leap years, there are 731 days to go, while only 730 have passed. Still, let it stand. We're (essentially) halfway through the long national nightmare.

Larry Hart said...

Zepp Jamieson:

Odd. I thought locumranch was pro-capitalism.

I don't get a pro-anything vibe. More nihilist than anything else, gleefully anticipating the collapse of civilization with a "Good riddance!". Or maybe more charitably, fervently predicting the collapse of civilization because society doesn't take his advice.

In a way, he reminds me of me, predicting with certainty the collapse of the US dollar back in the 1990s. At least I acknowledge that I was wrong, rather than doubling down on the "Any day now, I tells ya!" or insisting that the financial news of the day must be "fake news" because it doesn't comport to my pet theories.

Mike Will said...

long international nightmare

Larry Hart said...

@Mike Will,

Yeah, can't argue with that.

more weight said...

I think @locumranch is consistently anti-feminist at least? No one can be wrong about everything.

Anonymous said...

@Larry Hart

Well it wasn't just you, after the S&L collapse I do remember articles about the commercial lending market being the next banking crisis. Then there was Dr Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of the 1990's climbing the bestseller lists at the time.

John Fremont

Mike Will said...

@John Fremont: If you're the one who recommended Guavas, thanks very much. They're in season now, so I don't have to pay a 400% markup for importing from far, far away.

Re: prognostications: Economists have predicted 9 of the last 4 recessions.

Larry Hart said...

more weight:

I think @locumranch is consistently anti-feminist at least?

That's still against something, not for something.

Plus, he does it like Dave Sim, not just "Let's recognize there are differences between the genders," but full-on "We never should have let women vote." As if it's a question of letting.

Anonymous said...

Mike Will:
What about the guavas that repair the brain? It was me; the crazy inventor of mexico.(yo firme el mensaje anterior) And here are two more data from my scientific research archives:
Spinach lutein cures damaged veins
The pomegranate protects against stroke.
And of course, the strawberry fisteina repairs the veins, but you would have to eat many strawberries to get good results.
But if you do not exercise, it's over. There are no magic pills to cure the lack of exercise. The fat clogs the capillaries and the organs die one by one.

Winter7

Mike Will said...

@Winter7: Gracias (All these Anonymouses confuse me :)

David Brin said...

Excuse me, that's anony-MICE.

Larry Hart said...

So let me get this straight. According to Mitch McConnell, when one side cheats and then the other side attempts to stop cheating, the second party is "chang[ing] the rules to benefit one party." I mean, technically, that's the case (from a certain point of view), but the sheer chutzpah it takes to advance that as a slam boggles the mind.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/politics/mcconnell-pelosi-government-shutdown.html

As the parties clashed over the shutdown, Mr. McConnell threw more fuel on the fire last week with an op-ed article in The Washington Post assailing the ethics and election overhaul legislation that Democrats proudly designated H.R. 1 to emphasize its centrality to the party’s image and agenda. Mr. McConnell belittled the package as a power grab and “a naked attempt to change the rules of American politics to benefit one party.”

porohobot said...

Yep. I see... you need to be locum, to sprincle your ideas all above peple minds. %)

porohobot said...

>> Larry Hart said...
\\So let me get this straight. According to Mitch McConnell, when one side cheats and then the other side attempts to stop cheating, the second party is "chang[ing] the rules to benefit one party." I mean, technically, that's the case (from a certain point of view), but the sheer chutzpah it takes to advance that as a slam boggles the mind.

That's exactly what vatniks DO saying. %)))
"Your Maidan it's not revolution... because, because... we want it that way". %))

Congratulation!

Now you understand something... John USA. %)

Let's see when and how well you'd comprehend that single possible reaction -- to stand back to back... and fight.

Anonymous said...

At the moment there is a red eclipse at the moment. ¿Are you using your telescopes?

Winter7

porohobot said...

If you saw it once, you saw it all. %P

\\I think @locumranch is consistently anti-feminist at least?
\\That's still against something, not for something.

He's asocial anarchistic schizophrenic, who darily need psychological counseling, at least.
Every his sentences screaming of it.
But there no one beside him, who can help.

So his destiny. Either bombing/shooting/Himeer squad.(as it possible in USA)
Or just downshifting to street prophets of apocalipsis...
heh, there's no fun in it. %(

Larry Hart said...

porohobot:

That's exactly what vatniks DO saying. %)))
"Your Maidan it's not revolution... because, because... we want it that way". %))

Congratulation!

Now you understand something... John USA. %)

We understand already. It's just hard to believe he actually has the nerve to accuse Democrats of exactly the tactics he is proud to make use of himself. Or that a third of the country goes along with it.

When the Republicans were in the minority, McConnell's entire strategy was to obstruct President Obama and the Democrats from getting anything passed in the Senate. Now he has the freakin' nerve to accuse Democrats of obstructionism. That he even tacitly acknowledges obstructionism to be a bad thing takes balls.

porohobot said...

That exact... makes me wonder.
What if "vatnik"'s disease is not from RFia originally.
What if that virus came with the winds of "free world".
And here, in already not so healthy post-soviet body brewed and become more deadly.
And only after that irradiated and back fired. %\
(on account of samples for psychohistory... more like memovirus-tory %))

Similarity quite... with constant flu epidemies... percieve I in it. %)

Not (even closely) enough. %P
And all other world to only sigh "ah, so deeply disturbed we are". %)

\\That he even tacitly acknowledges obstructionism to be a bad thing takes balls.

It's totally not a problem for hypocrite.
That's what keeps me wonder of sisyphus struggles of locum. %)))

raito said...

How about some good news? About the future, assuming we get there.

This weekend, my 4th grade daughter was supposed to take the 8/9 PSAT. For those out of the loop, this is the 8th and 9th grade version of the PSAT which is the preliminary version of the SAT which is used as a college entrance exam. The upper 10% of the students taking the state's standardized test were invited. It does make me rather proud of her academic achievements.

The idea is that the regular standardized tests only work for those within a couple of standard deviations from the norm. Get too far out and the test stops giving you data with any precision.

For Wisconsin those invited have the opportunity to join NUMATS (Northwestern University Midwest Academic Talent Search), a program both providing opportunities to, and researching 'gifted' students.

Well, the test didn't happen because of the weather. Naturally, the only person who knew that was someone from the testing site. The only reason the 50 or so families waiting for the test knew was that one mother's daughter went to school there, and had the number of the person responsible for the test. That person apparently doesn't get the same emails we do, because she though the College Board would let us know the test was cancelled. The CB emailed us last week saying that only the site knew for sure.

So we had 50 of the brightest young people around hanging about with nothing to do. About equally boys and girls (and maybe some in between or outside those lines, but I'm an old guy and I have a hard time seeing those differences). A rainbow of color. And unlike my childhood, where being the smart one was a cause of enough pain to keep you inside a shell, none of these were your classic stereotype.

Within about 10 minutes they started interacting with each other. Mostly on how one might solve the problem of a test being cancelled and no one being told about it.

If we can keep things going until that bunch are in control, things will probably work out OK.

Larry Hart said...

@raito,

My 11th grade daughter and her circle of friends give me hope for the future for reasons very similar to yours.

Our job is getting them there. A certain level of self-sacrifice might be required, and I am totally on board with that. Like Moses, I don't need to enter the promised land as long as I get my kid there.

Smurphs said...

Ratio is proud of his daughter, Yeah! You should be.

LH is proud of his daughter too. Awesome.

Our host has rightly bragged about his kids often.

My son is in 9th grade and I am seeing the same things. When these kids take charge, the world will be a better place.

I certainly hope so and believe it can be true.

Then I remember, I/we are the Woodstock Generation. Look how well we are doing. (Hint: over 45 voted for Trump 52% to 45%.)

Maybe we were not in that 52%, but that guy sharing a joint with me at the concert all those years ago is a MAGA man.

No, I am not dismissing the progress we made, I'm just feeling Contrary today.

Keep on Truckin'

Mike Will said...

Re: kids and skule

The Pareto principle is real; standardized testing only captures a snapshot. I was a top student all the way through school (lazy, but good at tests), but didn't set the world on fire as an adult. I know some even brighter and more disappointing flare-outs; their parents went from prideful to stoic right quick.

I raised kids too (my wife helped a bit). Without going into personal details, the one that nearly got kicked out for years for low performance is today quite brilliant. He learns electronics/physics/math at about 3x the pace that I ever did. Where there is life, there is vast potential. Judge not lest ye be judged.

If we can get past ideocracy, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the measles (sigh), this species has a chance.

Larry Hart said...

Smurphs:

Then I remember, I/we are the Woodstock Generation. Look how well we are doing. (Hint: over 45 voted for Trump 52% to 45%.)

Maybe we were not in that 52%, but that guy sharing a joint with me at the concert all those years ago is a MAGA man.

I'm almost 60 now. As I grew up knowing the "Baby Boomers" as being kids, faulted by our elders for not growing up, I've had a hard time adjusting to the fact that the defining characteristic of "baby boomers" now means disgruntled, crotchety, and old. But maybe the clues were there all along.

With all due respect to us, ours was the "me" generation. Sure, we like freedom and dislike forced conformity, but remember our slogan was "Do your own thing, man." Maybe it's no wonder that our generation was ripe for insularity, Ayn Randism, and pulling the ladder up after ourselves to make sure no one else takes any of our stuff.

When I left for college in the late 70s, I believed that our generation was free of racism, religious bigotry, and right-wing tendencies. It wasn't long before I saw a guy who unironically had a poster of Richard Nixon adorning his wall. Then came the College Republicans, the Campus Crusade for Christ, and of course the years of President Ronald Reagan. "We're not such hot shit after all," was a hard lesson to learn.

I get a completely different vibe off of my daughter's generation. Their moral compass, compassion, and concern for the future seem more genuine than I ever expected. If the whole point of our generation was to produce theirs, I can live with that and die happy.

locumranch said...

This assumption -- that the progressively rule-disobedient are somehow protected by the very rules that they choose to disobey -- is madness.

The following tautologies are true without exception:

(1) Those the who apply race-based criteria practice 'racism' even if they do so in the name of diversity;

(2) Those who disparage the religious beliefs of either the majority or the minority demonstrate religious intolerance; and

(3) Those who demand special protections & exemptions for themselves and others are NOT 'equalists' even if they do so in the name of equality.

And, even when they do so with the best of intentions, those who deny these inherent contradictions do so at their own peril.

Best

David Brin said...

Steve Bannon wants to ignite and provoke a HOT version of the "Fourth Turning" by helping the Boomers to be such assholes that the millennials must fight to survive, like the Greatest Generation. The thing I don't get about Bannon's logic is how HE will benefit when the New Greats take to the barricades blaming HIM and his oligarch masters and possibly teeter into revived Marxism.

Is he really that stupid? Or is it all part of a clever plan to achieve exactly that?

Larry Hart said...

@Dr Brin,

Maybe Bannon thinks that in fighting to survive, the millennials will become his kind of people? As if he's Emperor Palpatine and my daughter is Anikin Skywalker?

Except she'll turn out to be Luke instead. And not crotchety old Luke either.

Arizsun Ahola said...

locumrand said:
(1) Those the who apply race-based criteria practice 'racism' even if they do so in the name of diversity;

(2) Those who disparage the religious beliefs of either the majority or the minority demonstrate religious intolerance; and

(3) Those who demand special protections & exemptions for themselves and others are NOT 'equalists' even if they do so in the name of equality.

1) This is a statement most often used by those who wish to not be confronted with their own racism. Further, it misrepresents "race-based criteria" to be a quota system rather than a check on bias by asking that the candidate selected be the best candidate and if the candidates are equal to pick the minority candidate. Is it perfect or ideal? No. Is it better than doing nothing and pretending the problem will go away on its own? Yes.

2) A tolerant society cannot be tolerant of the intolerant. If a religious person, regardless of their religion's majority/minority status, advocates intolerance based on those religious principals they must be pushed back upon. If they are not pushed back upon and they are able to gain power they will not honor the tolerant society's social contract of tolerance and will attempt to, perhaps succeed at, destroying that tolerance.

3) Those who claim special exceptions are being demanded are, nearly universally, members of a privileged group who are slowly losing their privileged status and are mistaking that loss of privilege for being discriminated against and mistake those "special exceptions" as new things rather than an equalization of status. Gay marriage, for example, is an equalization, not a special right as is often claimed by those against it.

Larry Hart said...

Arizsun Ahola:

locumrand said:
(1) Those the who apply race-based criteria practice 'racism' even if they do so in the name of diversity;

That's the most watered-down definition of "racism", which defines it as any kind of reference to race at all. I used to argue with my sister-in-law (before she was my sister-in-law) when she insisted that even the statement "Black people have darker skin than white people" is racist because it invokes a difference between the races.

So I hope loc is happy that he agrees with a foreign-born, far-left, liberal feminist.

Those who claim special exceptions are being demanded are, nearly universally, members of a privileged group who are slowly losing their privileged status and are mistaking that loss of privilege for being discriminated against and mistake those "special exceptions" as new things rather than an equalization of status

You have precisely nailed what could conceivably be named the "locumranch fallacy"--the assertion that, by insisting that all citizens be treated equally under the law, we liberals are discriminating against the already-privileged. A corollary is that we must hate them in order to discriminate against them so forcefully.

In this view, the KKK is equivalent to "Black Lives Matter", because each is advocating for the rights of a particular racial group. That one advocates for not being killed without cause while the other advocates for the right to kill without cause is merely a simple listing of the individual goals of each organization.

A.F. Rey said...

Or, will he whinge, protest & act hypocritically if & when the Trump Administration announces a massive federally-mandated RIF layoff that results in a 30 to 50% redundancy of federal employees (as in the case of agencies like NASA & NOAA) who have already been furloughed as 'non-essential' during the first 31 days of the US government shutdown?

Nice try, loch, but the Office of Management and Budget has already determined that the statue about RIF layoffs only applies to Administrative furloughs, not shutdown furloughs (AKA emergency furloughs). So RIFs don't apply to this.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-shutdown/2019/01/furloughed-feds-wont-be-rifed-if-government-shutdown-extends-past-30-days-omb-says/

You might want to verify your assertions before making them.

A.F. Rey said...

Rand creates EXACTLY the Marxist scenario, with two provisions:

1) The winnowed lordly caste will be determined less by business cycles and cheating than by the competitive rise of genuine mutant-ubermensch Homo-superior creator demigods. Cheater-lords exist, though she overcomes them not via worker radicalism but the rise of super-creators.

2) Hence there would therefore be no further phases. Take the Penultimate Marxian stage of a narrow master-caste, freeze it and call it good.

As I point out in my Atlas Crushed essay, this relies upon Rand's incredible (and incredibly overlooked) conceit that none of her uber characters ever has any offspring. Ever!

It occurred to me that all these problems are because Ayn made her ubermensch human. Now, if they were non-humans, such as AI, then these limitations wouldn't apply.

Hmmm...someone should write a story about that... ;)

more weight said...

This is one oft he main causes of Trump (and Brexit here), this idea that anti-white racism ,and anti-male sexism, somehow do not count. People seem to think that those on the end of racism/sexism will just accept it for some reason. Many white males have decided not to.

Arizsun Ahola said...

more weight said...
This is one oft he main causes of Trump (and Brexit here), this idea that anti-white racism ,and anti-male sexism, somehow do not count. People seem to think that those on the end of racism/sexism will just accept it for some reason. Many white males have decided not to.

They aren't being asked to accept racism and sexism. They are being asked, and they are rejecting, to accept equality.

In many cases the white men who are complaining about this stuff have done things to make themselves unemployable, or haven't done things to make themselves employable and simply feel entitled to a good job. When they don't get it they assume it is because somebody else, a minority, got it unfairly. They lack the introspection to realize that the white male privilege to a good job has gone away.

I say this as a white male. I am not ashamed to be a white male. I hold no guilt for being a white male. I have also never experienced anything that even had a whiff of discrimination against me when examined rationally rather than emotionally.

These guys are acting like little boys, stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum because they are being asked to play nicely with others.

Larry Hart said...

@more weight,

And I thought you were one of the good guys. :(

Seriously? Saying "You mustn't shoot black men who aren't resisting" is equivalent to discrimination against whites?

Mike Will said...

A.F. Rey: Now, if they were non-humans, such as AI, then these limitations wouldn't apply.

This applies to the ruminations of good guys like Asimov and Brin too. Strong AI (AGI) hangs over Humanity like a sword of Damocles. We like to think that AI can be harnessed and planned. It might arrive at any hour, without notice. How much warning do the ants on the sidewalk get of the approaching pedestrian? Nations and citizens should be putting as much thought into AI as corporations are, and not just the facile machine learning stuff. Of course, the stable genius may have it well in hand.

Duncan Cairncross said...

Re- The Boomers

We are the generation most affected by lead in petrol (along with the first half of Gen X)

We were brain damaged as children and that does not heal - ever
We are short on empathy (brain damage) -
As we went through our "criminal years" (15 - 25) the murder rate DOUBLED
We are past that now but but still short on empathy and low on intelligence
So we are the ones responsible for BREXIT and Trump

The later generations are better - they did not suffer from lead in their breathing air

Duncan Cairncross said...

Re- Strong AI
Intelligence is expensive - our big brains eat over 20% of our calories
We developed intelligence when we discovered a "killer App" that made that cost worthwhile

With us it was "Death at a distance" - a bunch of pre-humans with hard and accurately thrown stones was a real "killer App" - especially when the other animals had no strategies to defend themselves

What would Strong AI have as a "killer App" - what would be the advantage of the strong AI?

David Brin said...

locumrand said:
(1) Those the who apply race-based criteria practice 'racism' even if they do so in the name of diversity;

(2) Those who disparage the religious beliefs of either the majority or the minority demonstrate religious intolerance; and

(3) Those who demand special protections & exemptions for themselves and others are NOT 'equalists' even if they do so in the name of equality.

Did he really? I don't do any more than skim the first sentence, nowadays. Those are common, kneejerk confederate assertions that we actually need to prepare answers for.

(1) A MINORITY OF Those the who apply race-based criteria ACTUALLY DO practice 'racism' even if they do so in the name of diversity; THEY ARE THE POISONOUS EXTREMA OF LIBERALISM AND THEIR FOOD AND DRINK IS THE VASTLY WORSE/LARGER ACTUAL RACISM OF THE RIGHT. I wouldn't mind starving them of that food.

(2) Those who disparage the religious beliefs of either the majority or the minority demonstrate religious intolerance; BULLSHIT WHEN THE ACTUAL DOGMA IN QUESTION SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR THE TORTURE AND MURDER OF MY CHILDREN AND DEATH OF THE REPUBLIC, AT WHICH POINT IT IS LEGITIMATE TO CONSIDER SUCH DOGMAS, AMONG A CANDIDATE'S MANY QUALITIES.

To be clear, these very candidates scream that their dogmas SHOULD be considered as criteria for voting for them. But the insist that such interpretations may only be positive. "I've been saved!" yes. " pray daily for an end to all children, curiosity and the USA." Um... squirrel!

(3) Those who demand special protections & exemptions for themselves and others are NOT 'equalists' even if they do so in the name of equality. LOCUM KNOWS THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEMANDING EQUALITY OF ALL OUTCOMES (EOAO) AND RAISING ALL CHILDREN WITH EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME CONFIDENT COMPETITORS IN AN ACTUALLY FLAT-FAIR-OPEN MARKET.
WHILE THERE ARE SOME EOAO IDIOTS OUT THERE, THEY ARE IMPOTENT AND ALL METRICS OF SMITHIAN COMPETITION DO VASTLY BETTER UNDER DEMOCRATS AND ROOSEVELTEAN SOCIAL CONTRACTS. THAT IS ALL METRICS, OF ALL KINDS. WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO...

... jibbering, fact-hating loony.

But these are three incantations that do need to be raised, from time to time, in order to practice our responses.

"You might want to verify your assertions before making them."

Ahem. He might try it ONCE...

locumranch said...

https://www.jta.org/2018/08/10/united-states/progressives-new-definition-racism-prejudice-plus-power-mean-jews

I'll let this article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (above) 'verify my assertions' and explain why Zepp, Matthew & Arizun are morons.

The New Progressive definition of Racism as "Racial Prejudice + Power" asserts that 'disempowered', 'underprivileged' and 'underrepresented' identity groups cannot be thought of 'racist', the argument being that racial hate & prejudice is acceptable, 'not-racist' & even laudable if perpetrated (upwards) against those 'in power'.

Most certainly, this new definition HAS proved short-term successful against the current (white) (christian) western majority demographic, but it also excuses all sorts of hate (religious, ethnic, sexual) against every other identity group that appears to be arguably 'in power', which means that most of you (if you prove even moderately successful) are 'riding a tiger' of a definition that threatens to devour you whole, pussy-hat & all.

Best
____

AF Rey is either clueless or he holds Trump in high regard, mostly because the current trustworthy OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, is also Trump's White House Chief-of-Staff. LMAO.

more weight said...

Larry Hart

And I thought you were one of the good guys. :(

Thanks, man.:)

Seriously? Saying "You mustn't shoot black men who aren't resisting" is equivalent to discrimination against whites?

No of course not! No one in their right mind thinks that anti-white racism is yet equivalent to anti-black racism, or that misandry is as extensive as misogyny. It's more that it's become clear that it is possible for people, including people with power, to genuinely hate whites/men and use their power to hurt them. The progressive establishment do nothing to allay these fears and continually bang the drum of White Male Tears. What reaction do they expect?

When I was young, for just a moment, it seemed possible that in future we could relate to each other as individuals instead of as members of demographic groups.

A.F. Rey said...

Or, will he whinge, protest & act hypocritically if & when the Trump Administration announces a massive federally-mandated RIF layoff that results in a 30 to 50% redundancy of federal employees (as in the case of agencies like NASA & NOAA) who have already been furloughed as 'non-essential' during the first 31 days of the US government shutdown?

AF Rey is either clueless or he holds Trump in high regard, mostly because the current trustworthy OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, is also Trump's White House Chief-of-Staff. LMAO.

So you're saying that Trump's appointee will ignore the statue as written, and will fire those people anyway, even though it is against law? Then why did you think he (Dr. Brin?) would "whinge, protest & act hypocritically?" Sure, we'll all whinge and protest against a Trump appointee breaking the law. Who wouldn't? But what would be hypocritical about that??

Thinking things through before writing them helps, locum. That way, you might make sense. And people who make sense are much more persuasive in the long run... :)

more weight said...

Arizsun Ahola

I don't agree with the Deplorables either, but, affirmative action exists, the Duluth Model of domestic violence exists, hate crime laws with "protected classes" exist. The double standard regarding female violence against men. (Remember John Wayne Bobbitt? Remember his mutilator being interviewed on national television by giggling hosts? I honestly don't think it would have happened in reverse.).

This sort of thing upsets people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOyrYThlOag

David Brin said...

Ah, at a time when citizens need reassurance that their president doesn't meet secretly with foreign despots in order to receive orders, as their agent, we have Trump revisiting "we-fell-in-love" NKorean Stalinist Kim who won every tangible benefit (we got nothing) from the groovy first date. Next-up: Hanoi. Let's see. Meet a communist dictator who is thumb puppet to communist dictators, in a communist dictatorship... at a time when your value as their asset is plummeting, but when you might be useful to them as a martyr. Again, I urge you NOT to EAT anything they put in front of you, sir.

But we know you won't follow my advice. So here's an alternative! Visibly be seen taking samples of everything you are served and slipping them into your pocket "for later." They will fear that the Secret Service can then test those take-homes, providing a trail of attribution. That alone may deter the commies and (still-Stalinist) Putin from doing the obvious. Moreover, it's entirely in character! We've seen you do it.

Alas, just as Stalin trusted only one world leader -- Hitler -- poor Two Scoops thinks murderous despots are his sole, true friends. The ones he can let his guard down, around.

But then, he may be right! Maybe his usefulness as an asset isn't over. After all, the US still has an economy and we aren't yet in the US-Iran "war" that Putin and the Saudis desperately want. Nor has phase 8 of the Civil War gone hot. Still more work to do.

So maybe you'll be safe in Vietnam, sir. Still, take along the bone-spurs doctor. And several doggie bags.

yana said...

At last we arrive at two full years of the swampcircus. Leave it to others to harangue about this point and that plot, but the real effect is what the clownshow does to the political middle. And there, the osmotic seepage into cloudbrain is that we really didn't appreciate how squeaky clean the government was for eight full years.

And six of those with a hostile Congress, six years of frustrated old white men hangry for a scandal, any scandal at all please baby jesus, like a wormed mutt might obsessively lick it's bunghole for days at a time.

It's not enough that the 2020 Dems offer smarter policy and social advance, they must also offer nostalgia for 2008.

Larry Hart said...

more weight:

It's more that it's become clear that it is possible for people, including people with power, to genuinely hate whites/men and use their power to hurt them.

I don't perceive society genuinely hating whites/men per se. I see it finally turning on those white men who use their privilege to hurt others, and are shocked and mystified that a backlash occurs.

The progressive establishment do nothing to allay these fears and continually bang the drum of White Male Tears. What reaction do they expect?

Well, what reaction did those with privilege expect? And why is the question only posed to our side, not to theirs?

When I was young, for just a moment, it seemed possible that in future we could relate to each other as individuals instead of as members of demographic groups.

Ok, but you don't get there by pretending we're already there.

Black Lives Matter, for example, calls attention to a fact of life for black men--that they're likely to be shot by a policeman for just about any reason or no reason at all. We can't "relate to each other as individuals" until that state of affairs is done away with. And you don't do away with it by pretending "Let's not shoot unarmed black men any more" is a racist statement worthy of the KKK.

yana said...

David Brin thought:

"Sending a letter to Ms. Maddow via her regular mailbox would be like drying a tear by jumping in the ocean. Alas. My only chance of getting through would be if some one in her work community gets wind of the posting."

Try it, you'll be surprised. Her staff is topshelf and she is a naturally detaily producer. You wouldn't even have to trot out your creds, just write like you do and there's hiprob she'll read your mail, or at least get a synopsis from a staffer.

Mike Will said...

more weight said...

Larry Hart

I don't perceive society genuinely hating whites/men per se. I see it finally turning on those white men who use their privilege to hurt others, and are shocked and mystified that a backlash occurs.

I don't think society hates men, and most of the anti-male discourse is actually class signalling, but there's misandry in the culture and media and it frightens and humiliates people who are already feeling vulnerable. Their reaction is not at all rational, but frightened people tend not to be.

The only hope is to treat each other as people. Black Lives Matter is a response to a desperate emergency, but human tribal instincts are just as dangerous as they ever have been. Identity politics from one side provokes id pol from the other.

more weight said...

locumranch

What have you got against pussyhats? It's just a pink hat with cat ears.

yana said...

more weight thought:

"The double standard regarding female violence against men."

Erhrrmm yeah, that's up to epidemic levels. Even today 50% of M->F rapes go unreported, but it's getting better as women at last gain more political power. If one accepts that enough gender equality already exists, and no further legislation is needed to guarantee full gender rights, then one must believe that M->F rape occurs at an equal rate as F->M rape.

The logic is so straight that it's precocious, the idea above forces one to conclude one or the other, of two choices:

1. Either, 99.99% of F->M rapes go unreported,

2. Or, more legislation is needed to unravel androgarchy.

Larry Hart said...

more weight:

No one in their right mind thinks that anti-white racism is yet equivalent to anti-black racism, or that misandry is as extensive as misogyny.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your framing. It's not just that all sides are racist, but one side hasn't yet acquired enough power to do as much damage as the other has.

Advocating for equality is not discrimination against the privileged.

but there's misandry in the culture and media and it frightens and humiliates people who are already feeling vulnerable. Their reaction is not at all rational, but frightened people tend not to be.

People who have done wrong to others tend to be frightened of retribution. So what's the proper response? Amnesty?

The only hope is to treat each other as people. Black Lives Matter is a response to a desperate emergency, but human tribal instincts are just as dangerous as they ever have been. Identity politics from one side provokes id pol from the other.

So, "Leave white privilege in place, and no one gets hurt"?

Or is it "Nice civilization you've got here. 'Be a shame if something were to happen to it" ?

more weight said...

yana

Not really following your argument, sorry.

If one accepts that enough gender equality already exists, and no further legislation is needed to guarantee full gender rights, then one must believe that M->F rape occurs at an equal rate as F->M rape.

What? Why?

Larry Hart said...

The progressive establishment do nothing to allay these fears and continually bang the drum of White Male Tears.

On my planet, the conservative establishment has done nothing to allay similar fears and continually bang the drum of White Male Supremacy. But I suppose that's not something to be responded to, but simply to be respected.

What reaction do they expect?

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
..."

yana said...

Larry Hart thought: "Latino guy who campaigned for Trump... Taaaaaaaacos!"

Sheepish to admit it, don't want to be tagged as fan to some influencer's meme, but it's true. In the past couple years, about a half dozen times caught myself at an intersection thinking: "wish there was a taco truck right here, right now."

"More nihilist than anything else, gleefully anticipating the collapse of civilization with a "Good riddance!""

I said it before, lowsemenherder is is not "pro-capitalism" because it's not pro-anything. Its only game is to be contrary, a very exclusive joke originating from the title of the blog itself. Frightfully witty, and a double-win strategy. Since the campaign does not require internal philosophical coherence, it generates an outsized vitriol in response, a huge emotional jackoffmag. One flight down, lowsemenherder types out a lot of guilt. A larger-than-regular portion of guilt. Don't know about what, will probably never know, but there it is, and it should call out a good person's humaneness in response.

Larry Hart thought:

"a convoluted, just-barely plausible chain of events which would get us from here to there."

Great quote, will attribute if i use it. Read a bunch of history, and that describes a lot of it. So many times, it was a barely plausible chain of events. A typhoon past Kyushu in 1281 led to a Japan of 100 million people occupying 766,000 square miles of land in 1941, several million more square miles of the Pacific.

You're right about misgivings re the movement of heat. Heat does not move. Cold moves. Enthalpy doesn't flow. Just one of those things in science which is true but defies common experience. Touch the stove, you don't get burned by heat flowing onto you, but by the rapid and localized flow of cold out of your hand. We just call it a "burn" because we can see and feel the heat, while the flow of cold is not as dramatically visual.

Cold moves, not heat. Just like the common misconception of electricity: electrons don't move, not more than a few angstroms. What flows is the holes, the absence of electrons. In the idiom of the old copper phone network, it's not the caller who sent electrons on flight, it was the recipient who paid for the call with his or her local electrons.

Walatra Herbal said...

yana said...

more weight thought: "Not really following your argument, sorry."

No argument, just simplicity. If gender equality were a real existant thing at present, then rape would happen at equal rates across genders. We both know that's not true, so your rationalization must be:

1. Either, 99.99% of F->M rapes go unreported,

2. Or, more legislation is needed to unravel androgarchy.

more weight said...

Larry Hart

No, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your framing. It's not just that all sides are racist, but one side hasn't yet acquired enough power to do as much damage as the other has.

Right, that's where we disagree. You've paraphrased my view perfectly, but I'm not understanding yours. Do you believe that left-wing people are actually better, fundamentally?

Advocating for equality is not discrimination against the privileged.

YOU are advocating for equality, not everyone is.

People who have done wrong to others tend to be frightened of retribution.
People who find themselves hated get frightened.

Or is it "Nice civilization you've got here. 'Be a shame if something were to happen to it" ?

No, but civilization is in fact fragile. Most people will support equality if they believe that that really is the goal. Most people will not vote to be discriminated against.

K P in VT said...

Sean Hannity would never put himself in Alan Colmes place.

more weight said...

yana

If gender equality were a real existant thing at present, then rape would happen at equal rates across genders

You would need to get rid of male biology, including but not limited to the higher male level of testosterone.

David Brin said...

Re China trade wars? Sounds like they’re going well - China is giving in to Trump’s demands:

David Brin said...

Guys I've never signed on to "utterly ignore the troll." But this time he's been way overfed.

more weight said...

Larry Hart

On my planet, the conservative establishment has done nothing to allay similar fears and continually bang the drum of White Male Supremacy. But I suppose that's not something to be responded to, but simply to be respected

Racism/sexism is just as bad, whoever does it to whom. I promise I respect none of it.

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

Which the Trumpkins cannot do. There's no hope of them doing that. The reason that you and I must take responsibility for the world is that we are capable of doing so.

locumranch said...

Yana speaks truth and 'more weight' ain't no troll.

99.99% of F->M rapes do go unreported because the law defines rape as a crime that only males commit, as in the case of an intoxicated male & an intoxicated female who engage in non-coercive sexual activity, wherein neither party can consent because 'intoxication' but the law condemns the male for rape & sexual assault.

99.99% of F->M domestic violence episodes also go unreported because the Duluth Model assumes unilateral male predation & female victimisation, even though scientific studies confirm mutual complicity & gender parity in couples violence. Studies also confirm higher rates of F/F couples violence over that of F/M couples.

Also, pussy & genitalia-hats are funny because they give-the-lie-to the myth that women desire gender equality as its wearers demand special gender-specific protections & privileges without accruing additional gender-specific responsibilities.

Gender Equality arrives when society assumes equality in male & female disposability.

Best
____

It's humorous that a racist Larry_H insists that only whites can be racist because of his assumption that whites-in-general are 'uppity', 'privileged' and 'in power', even though the same can be said about any moderately influential, successful, meritorious or wealthy individual who Larry_H judges to be undeserving of said influence, success, merit or wealth which, by no great coincidence, is the exact same argument favoured by both the KKK & Khmer Rouge.

yana said...

more weight thought:

"You would need to get rid of male biology, including but not limited to the higher male level of testosterone."

Yet, there is a spectrum. Nearly all human cultures discourage rape, despite being patriarchal. But in some nations it is a negligible crime per 100,000 and in others it is a persistent plague, and in yet other places, rape is used as a weapon of war, an instrument of repression, or as a prudent and practical softening of product for a man who considers himself a "simple businessman" and will plead so in any court.

It's a different world now, testosterone is no longer an excuse. Boys will be boys, but when boys rape then they're not boys, now they're criminals. Where have you been over the last 15 years?

yana said...

lowsemenherder thought: "the law defines rape as a crime that only males commit"

Try not to post when you're drunk, it dilutes.

yana said...

porohobot thought: "Else, destiny of British Empire awaits you."

Whatever America's destiny, it's not that.

"imagination it's hardly what one can find in a realm of physics."

Say that to a field fluctuation in eleven dimensions.

Alfred Differ said...

yana,

If gender equality were a real existent thing at present, then rape would happen at equal rates across genders.

ummm...

If we were overly concerned with equal outcomes, that would be the case. We are mostly concerned with equal opportunities. In that respect, males and females are different for simple biological reasons. Some guys find it harder to separate fantasy from truth when it comes to sexual interest from a possibly consenting woman than the situation with genders reversed. Testosterone really CAN make us pretty stupid at times.

I get where you are going, though. We aren't even remotely close to equality of opportunity, but many of us are trying to get there. In a future world where gender equality (of opportunity) existed, however, I'd bet there would still be unequal rates of rape across genders.

porohobot said...

>> Larry Hart said...
\\My 11th grade daughter and her circle of friends give me hope for the future for reasons very similar to yours.

You need to teach that bright kids, too:

that there will be tenth of not so bright, but they will be on positions more higher and powerful, and ever read "to show to that damn nerd their place"

there'd be hundreds of not bright, who would not give a shit about what you think

and there is thousands of that, who wouldn't even think long to push triggers of their AK...

and what's more... there'd be that ones of a million, who can make fucked not only whole nation, but even Earth... because of techs and power levels.

And that it's normal... as in normal distribution.

Alfred Differ said...

Duncan,

What would Strong AI have as a "killer App"

I imagine some of us would be better at reproducing them and maintaining them in a world where there are many biological hazards. Since I don't think it will be ONE AI, I suspect they'd pick and choose us according to their needs. WE would be the app at some point.

Alfred Differ said...

If there is one thing people are not (when it comes to what we think and believe) is normally distributed. 8)
Varied? Yes.
Long tails? Sure. Funny too since the great apes supposedly lost their tails. 8)

porohobot said...

>>Anonymous yana said...
\\porohobot thought: "Else, destiny of British Empire awaits you."
\\Whatever America's destiny, it's not that.

It was rhetoric. Of course not. There is nothing that happens twice in history. ;)

\\"imagination it's hardly what one can find in a realm of physics."
\\Say that to a field fluctuation in eleven dimensions.

Do you mean that that "field fluctuation in eleven dimensions" came from resolving of mere Newton equations? %)
And NOT from imagination... often mystical/metaphysical... of theorist?

\\I suspect they'd pick and choose us according to their needs. WE would be the app at some point.

We picked and chosen and serve to non-material entities as corporations, for example.

>> Larry Hart said...
//If the whole point of our generation was to produce theirs, I can live with that and die happy.

That is the problem. %((( Why progress stalled.

>> Mike Will said...
\\This applies to the ruminations of good guys like Asimov and Brin too. Strong AI (AGI) hangs over Humanity like a sword of Damocles.

Et tu, Mike. %(
AI is not a magic. AI is hard work. Basically the same as rising that kids.
If one raised one's kid foul so they turned to that one and hurt him... who is to blame in such scenario?

>> Duncan Cairncross said...
\\What would Strong AI have as a "killer App" - what would be the advantage of the strong AI?

>> locumranch said...
\\Most certainly, this new definition HAS proved short-term successful against the current (white) (christian) western majority demographic... pussy-hat & all.

Visibly... it means to ask you too much... to understand that it's ever existing situation.
Of course, any good stuff, any progressive definition -- can be used for wrong doing.
One can mount combustion engine on track, to deliver goods to starved ones.
Or mount it on the tank, to squeeze that starved with its tracks.
And of course its mechanics and personally Rudolf Diesel to blame for such use. %)))

Dialectica in action!

>> A.F. Rey said...
//Sure, we'll all whinge and protest against a Trump appointee breaking the law. Who wouldn't? But what would be hypocritical about that??

//Thinking things through before writing them helps, locum. That way, you might make sense. And people who make sense are much more persuasive in the long run... :)

Man... he's trolling you. Like in "I like when liberals suffer".
And you do feed him. %)
DON'T FEED TROLL. MAKE HIM AT LEAST WORK FOR HIS FOOD. ;)

>> Anonymous more weight said...
\\locumranch
\\What have you got against pussyhats? It's just a pink hat with cat ears.

Its name. Are you not accustomed with locum enough, to know that he obsessed with names? %))

porohobot said...

>> Alfred Differ said...
\\yana,
\\If gender equality were a real existent thing at present, then rape would happen at equal rates across genders.
\\If we were overly concerned with equal outcomes, that would be the case. We are mostly concerned with equal opportunities.

What we need to be strong with on this topic is with stupid feminist rant that "it's all that male swines to blame"...
like there was such a meeting in paleolite, when just recently became sentient male australopithecuses gathered and developed THE doctrine of "patriarchy" or how they want to enslave women. %)))

Meh... it's Mother Nature's doing. Sexual dimorphism.
If female was the same or bigger than male -- there'd be no progeny.
Because it's evolutionary UNEQUAL position: of ones who impregnate and ones who bear children.
That's why we have such late fixup stub as LOVE. Do You have something AGAINST Love? ;)

So... let's be fair, and let's make artificial womb.
But then... why we need females and their specific needs and demands?
We need to cope with em only because...
So... I see it... when feminist terrorists starts bomb out artificial womb facilities...
to save their fading "women rights, women power". %)

yana said...

Alfred Differ thought:

"If we were overly concerned with equal outcomes, that would be the case."

That's the shorn heart of it, we should be. If all people are born equal, then the best version of human is someone who works towards all people dying equal.

"Testosterone really CAN make us pretty stupid at times... I'd bet there would still be unequal rates of rape across genders."

It's just one of those stark examples, you can't breed out the animal from even the highest ape, and even if you could, you'd be left with an eventual sexless flix-addicted foodtube. Luckily, it doesn't have to come to that. All women want, at this point, is just not to get raped and not to get smacked around. Men, real men, all over the planet are slowly coming to realize this, and in tandem with more women leaders in politics. Not coincidence.

yana said...

porohobot thought: "It was rhetoric. Of course not."

Place a wedge with enough wiggle room, we see that in politics quite commonly. Resist the hypercompetitiveness.

"Do you mean ... came from resolving of mere Newton equations?"

Newton was limited to three dimensions. Every physicist past him was brimming with imagination, simply because of Newton. Here's what you said:

"imagination it's hardly what one can find in a realm of

physics.
"

Rather, i submit that the physical sciences are today, the conclave of the most imaginative people alive. Why eleven dimensions and not twelve? When we can't touch five? If the meek are to inherit the Earth, it'll be because they weren't invited out on Saturday nights, so they stayed home and studied math. Or maths, i forget who hates which term.

"often mystical/metaphysical... of theorist?"

No, not often. For every Bohr swayed by theoretical similarities to religion, there are a hundred hard-nosed and analytical physicists who simply want to know what nature is telling us.

yana said...

porohobot thought:

"If female was the same or bigger than male -- there'd be no progeny.
Because it's evolutionary UNEQUAL position: of ones who impregnate and ones who bear children.
That's why we have such late fixup stub as LOVE.
"

Are you fucking kidding? Three thousand years of post-polytheism and some men are still at this point? Didn't any man in your life tell you? Didn't anyone mention that there's a third communication revolution about to happen?

What do you think is going to happen in this communication revolution, is there going to be less or more communication among women, duh? Did you think that they won't talk, about who's an overbearing asshole of a man, and who is a decent hardworking fellow? Sooner you accept the inherent equality of women, the sooner you can join the rest of humankind on our path.

porohobot said...

>> Alfred Differ said...
\\If there is one thing people are not (when it comes to what we think and believe) is normally distributed. 8)

Yep. I know such erroneous notion is widespread. %)
That we are not some physical beings. Without soul. %\
But we are children of some Heavenly Godly father. %P

\\In a future world where gender equality (of opportunity) existed...

That term. "gender equality (of opportunity)"
That can harm us in future.
Because there is the difference that not shown enough.
Between "give to all ability and possibility to entry, if they want it" and "make them all clones-equal"... which can be MORE easily achieved, and as such substitute that goal, with equalizing oppressing process.

I keep saying it. Because, yet one time, been there, saw that.(tm)
It exactly like it was achieved that "equality" in USSR.

And many are still sobbing for that sweet dreamy ignorance.

>> yana said...
\\Its only game is to be contrary, a very exclusive joke originating from the title of the blog itself.

It's not that simple.
To find it so interesting to play in it for YEARS...
one need some special screw loose in his mind.

I seen exactly that behavior in one vatnik, literary twin of this locum... with "kouzdra" nik.
And it correlate with himself talked story of his relationship with his mother.
So, it's definitely asocial type.
And his behavior -- it's screams of help. From his not damaged part of the brain. %)

>> Arizsun Ahola said...
\\Those who claim special exceptions are being demanded are, nearly universally, members of a privileged group who are slowly losing their privileged status and are mistaking that loss of privilege for being discriminated against and mistake those "special exceptions" as new things rather than an equalization of status.

Exactly that vatniks and their mourning about "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of them all". Thank you.

porohobot said...

>> yana said...
\\Are you fucking kidding?

Yep. Science is hard. %) To comprehand.
And. Read it. Slowly. Till full understanding. %P

\\"often mystical/metaphysical... of theorist?"

\\No, not often. For every Bohr swayed by theoretical similarities to religion, there are a hundred hard-nosed and analytical physicists who simply want to know what nature is telling us.

It seems to me that you unconsiously substitute "imaginative" with "spiritual" here, isn't it? %P

\\"If we were overly concerned with equal outcomes, that would be the case."

\\That's the shorn heart of it, we should be. If all people are born equal, then the best version of human is someone who works towards all people dying equal.

What an utter bulshit. "all people need to die" is old-fashion beardy-on-the-claud crap. %)))

And "born equal" it's just rhetorical hyperbola, not meant for immediate corollary "dying equal".

That's why I trying to say it... without hope of understanding -- that our means of communication, our language, are deeply flawed. %(((

\\All women want, at this point, is just not to get raped and not to get smacked around.

I wouldn't be so sure of it.
Looking at locum-like.
Women (some of them) do like bad guys... to bear children from them, at least.

That there still is such flawed genes in our genes pool... women also partially (see, how generous I am) to blame.

yana said...

porohobot thought:

"That term. "gender equality (of opportunity)"
That can harm us in future.
"

You really must be fnacking kidding. This is 2019.

It will not harm anyone but rapists. If one is afraid of accountability for rapists, then one will be made more afraid, as civilization progresses under their feet. Just treat women as equal human beings, and no need to fear. Past actions might still come back to haunt you, but at least you will know that your future actions will not compound any previous failings.

yana said...

porohobot thought: "It seems to me that you unconsiously substitute "imaginative" with "spiritual" here, isn't it? %P"

No.

""born equal" it's just rhetorical hyperbola, not meant for immediate corollary "dying equal"."

Wrong again. The rest of the the human race is leaving you behind.

"That's why I trying to say it... without hope of understanding -- that our means of communication, our language, are deeply flawed. %((("

At this point, you don't get to play the incomprehension card. You said that gender equality "can harm us in future" and you claim an "evolutionary UNEQUAL position: of ones who impregnate and ones who bear children." Even translator apps can't rub out bad ideas.

I said that women want: "just not to get raped and not to get smacked around."

You reply: "I wouldn't be so sure of it."

An unpolite person might say you're a sick fnck, but i promised Larry H, so simply enjoy your corner of the ash-heap of history.

porohobot said...

>> yana said...
\\Just treat women as equal human beings, and no need to fear.

Just try to answer it. Honestly.
Do woman treat her own child as EQUAL to any other children? ;)

\\The rest of the the human race is leaving you behind.

The rest of the human race can eat shit. It doesn't mean to me that I need to eat it too. %)))

\\You said that gender equality "can harm us in future"...

More then it.(if you wanna quote me... give FULL quites, with context.)
I said that shiny goal of "EQUALITY for ALL" WAS in the past TOO.
And it was TWISTED and TURNED into "_equality_ under oppression".

\\you claim an "evolutionary UNEQUAL position: of ones who impregnate and ones who bear children."

Its scientific FACT. It's, if your flawed common sense do not allow you to understand that simple observation right away.

\\I said that women want: "just not to get raped and not to get smacked around."

Even if they'd be given position of money and power after that?
If they'd be married into wealth... that they and their children will enjoy?
And what is little spanking in compare to wellbeing of her child?
Of ALL women. Of ALL of the times. Have had NO such thoughts? %)
Honestly? %P

\\An unpolite person might say you're a sick fnck

It's not I. It's Mother Nature (also female). It's her dirty tricks. To make more progeny to have its experiments on it. %(

PS I see. You are (desperately?) seeking some strawman punchbag for stress relief. Well. Be my guest. %) (especially if it gives more attention to my words)

yana said...

porohobot thought: "The rest of the human race can eat shit. It doesn't mean to me that I need to eat it too."

Because you are special. I see, you desperately need to be special. Be my guest, punch at me, as straw there can be no more than chaff to blow back at you, just as the female half of humanity will forever put up with rape and slaps, right? Have you read "The Postman"?

"It's not I. It's Mother Nature (also female). It's her dirty tricks."

Your English has been improving steadily over several weeks, so you no longer get the benefit of claiming misogyny as just a misunderstanding.

"her dirty tricks"?

Really? Is it all women who have wronged you, your whole entire life, so that your aggreivance can be distilled to an antagonism of nature itself, simply because some people refer to it in the female idiom? How small must one's vision be, to accomplish that? How much hatred of women does it take, to translate a few boyhood spankings into revenge politics against 51% of humanity and 100% of the Earth?

The women in your life will soon seem to be more "uppity" by your viewpoint. Not your fault, there is after all, a communication revolution going on. Then they'll start getting mad, it will seem to you for no reason at all, other than you claiming to be in charge because you have a penis. Silly women, right?

After that, the women you know will drift away into relationships with men who grok their natural rights. You know, the right to not be raped and the right to not be slapped around. Silly women, eh?

Dig a deep foxhole in your corner, for comfort, in the ash-heap of history.

porohobot said...

\\Because you are special.

No. It's just my attitude... toward different street prophets/adverisers trying to succumb me to their beliefs/sell their smelly merchs. %P

\\Your English has been improving steadily over several weeks, so you no longer get the benefit of claiming misogyny as just a misunderstanding.

Women can be villians too. Or not? %)))

\\Really? Is it all women who have wronged you, your whole entire life, so that your aggreivance can be distilled to an antagonism of nature itself, simply because some people refer to it in the female idiom? How small must one's vision be, to accomplish that? How much hatred of women does it take, to translate a few boyhood spankings into revenge politics against 51% of humanity and 100% of the Earth?

Yet one stanning proof.
Feminists (women?) cannot (and/or doesn't care of) understand scientifical explanations.
And they ask me why I'm so sure...

\\The women in your life will soon seem to be more "uppity" by your viewpoint. Not your fault, there is after all, a communication revolution going on. Then they'll start getting mad, it will seem to you for no reason at all, other than you claiming to be in charge because you have a penis. Silly women, right?

Strawman, strawman, strawman-man-man. (singing) %)))

\\After that, the women you know will drift away into relationships with men who grok their natural rights.

More like... sleazed em better. %P (need you to have at least one non-strawman reason from your rants... take this, I'm generous today %))))

\\You know, the right to not be raped and the right to not be slapped around. Silly women, eh?

Am I who deny em it? %)

\\Dig a deep foxhole in your corner, for comfort, in the ash-heap of history.

+1 Great Victory over notwithstanding scarecrow to you.

yana said...

porohobot thought: "Feminists (women?) cannot (and/or doesn't care of) understand scientifical explanations."

Welcome to the future.

porohobot said...

>> yana said...
\\porohobot thought: "Feminists (women?) cannot (and/or doesn't care of) understand scientifical explanations."

\\Welcome to the future.

Show to me at least ONE real example.
And I'll be the first to shout "Alleluia!!!". %)

Or it was meant another way? Like "future is now! therefore no one, especially women need no understanding of science"? Dunno. %)))

Darrell E said...

Porohobot,

If I understand you, you're not necessarily wrong about women vs men historically or biologically. But I wonder, has your life experience made you somewhat of a pessimist? We, humans, have been making progress over time. We really have. Many of our societies have become much more fair and inclusive. They've done so because our evolved cognitive abilities enable us to reason, imagine and plan, and our evolved social traits enable us to empathize with others and to behave at least semi-altruistically. Basically, more and more people over time have come to the position that affording everyone the same rights, freedoms and respect in both the legal and social sense is the right thing to do. And despite the fact that there is still progress to be made significant progress has already been made.

And this gets to another observation. You seem to me to be guilty of the naturalistic fallacy. I am not sure of course, but you seem to be arguing that because our biological evolutionary history afforded male and female humans different characteristics that our laws and social norms should be based on those evolved differences. That we should behave like pre-civilized humans. Or perhaps, again with the pessimism, you merely think that we are doomed to always do so. That we are incapable of changing. If so I've got good news. We have already changed enormously and there is no sign that we are slowing down, at least in the medium to long term. There can of course be reversals.

I think you and yana are arguing past each other. You seem to be saying "Can't you see that this is the way we are?," and yana is saying "Can't you see this is the way we should strive to be?"

Jon S. said...

Are you seriously asking for "ONE real example" of a woman who understands science and scientific explanations? Or is this an artifact of poor English?

Because a listing just of recently published papers with female authors would take more time to type out than I have this morning...

Larry Hart said...

yana:

Cold moves, not heat. Just like the common misconception of electricity: electrons don't move, not more than a few angstroms. What flows is the holes, the absence of electrons.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

I suppose light doesn't come from the sun either, it's the dark that moves from the earth. A flashlight just pushes the dark out of the way. Right?

yana said...

porohobot thought: "Show to me at least ONE real example."

I say "welcome to the future," and you demand a real example? OK, that could be chalked to language misunderstanding. What went unsaid is that 56% of university graduates in the US are women, and the proportion is similar in Europe.

There's the example, now run with it and show us how females are mentally unfit, in your odd mythology.

Larry Hart said...

more weight:

"No, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your framing. It's not just that all sides are racist, but one side hasn't yet acquired enough power to do as much damage as the other has."

Right, that's where we disagree. You've paraphrased my view perfectly, but I'm not understanding yours. Do you believe that left-wing people are actually better, fundamentally?

No. And first of all, thanks for engaging in a civilized manner.

If, for example, I see a group of people being discriminated against--i.e., black men being shot by police for no reason--I argue that the truths that We hold to be self-evident require a change to stop that from happening. It's not because the police are "right wing people" and the black men are "left wing people". If black men are left-wing people, it's more likely in reaction to the injustice than the cause of it.

Caveat: I do think those who argue for equality are "better fundamentally" than those who argue for special privilege. If the Republican Party has become the party of the latter, that's not my doing.

"Advocating for equality is not discrimination against the privileged."

YOU are advocating for equality, not everyone is.

Likewise, you are advocating for legitimate self-protection. Not everyone is.
I don't mean that snarkily. We're each defending a position against an attack that isn't coming from the other of us, but each of us is in more sympathy with one side.

"People who have done wrong to others tend to be frightened of retribution."
People who find themselves hated get frightened.

But isn't that true of both sides too? Minorities have been hated and feared. Their fear is reasonable too, because they also get jailed and lynched. But you seem (to me) to be saying that their persecutors are within their rights to feel worried about what the victims might decide to do back to them. It's the rationale behind "stand your ground" laws--"Since I threatened to kill that guy, I'm afraid he might retaliate, so I'm within my rights to preemptively take him out."

Most people won't vote to be discriminated against.

Most didn't, but it won by way of the electoral college anyway.

yana said...

Larry Hart thought:

"I can't tell if you're being sarcastic."

No seriously, i wouldn't jerk you around like that. Photons move like you say, out from the emitter, the Sun or the flashlight. But electrons don't move very far in a conductor, they only hop from one atomic orbit to the next atom over, a few angstroms. EMF is the flow of not-electrons. Not physically identical, but a decent analogy for how entropy and enthalpy tussle. Heat doesn't move, the absence of heat is what moves. Can't equate the Sun with heat, it only appears to emit heat because it slurps up massive amounts of not-heat. You know that there's a substrate underlaying space and time, right?

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

In a future world where gender equality (of opportunity) existed, however, I'd bet there would still be unequal rates of rape across genders.

Of course there are unequal rates. Just as the sexual revolution freed both men and women to engage in recreational sex, but that state of things wasn't as beneficial to the women as it was to the guys. Just as the law prevents rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.

I think Dave Sim was actually on to something here when he said--or had one of his characters say--that women rape men's minds the way men rape women's bodies. But then he (or his character) acknowledged that that was an imperfect analogy because "rape" is something that men do, not something women do.

Paraphrasing from memory: "Men invade and violate. What women do is absorb and consume. The nice way of saying this is that the two complement each other. The not-so-nice way is that they deserve each other--that they serve each other right."

Larry Hart said...

yana:

If all people are born equal, then the best version of human is someone who works towards all people dying equal.

Maybe in a sense, but it depends a lot on what your definition if "equal" is.

Some people will gladly trade their free time for the chance to earn more money. Others are content with less money if it means less rat-race. There's a place for all. It is not incumbent upon society to make sure both types die with the same number of dollars. It is (or at least there's a better case for) incumbent on society to allow each to pursue his own goals and consequences.

porohobot said...

>> Darrell E said...
\\But I wonder, has your life experience made you somewhat of a pessimist?

Born in USSR, spending life in post-soviet Ukraine... showing philisophical attitide... meh, do I need yet more perfect excuses of being pessimistic? %)))

Look WHAT questions I rise here.
And what locum shit we do discussing.
And give me your rightful answer -- am I really have reasons to be so pessimistic? Heh
How do you think?

\\Basically, more and more people over time have come to the position that affording everyone the same rights, freedoms and respect in both the legal and social sense is the right thing to do.

What part of 8 (or here already 9) bilions are you talking about?

\\You seem to me to be guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.

Here it is. Name calling. %)

\\...our laws and social norms should be based on those evolved differences.

Not "should be". They are.
For example discussed in recent posts property rights.
They emerge from female matherly desires of prosperous life for her progeny. And for her.

\\That we should behave like pre-civilized humans.

E-Khm... That's your words. Not mine.

\\We have already changed enormously and there is no sign that we are slowing down, at least in the medium to long term.

\\I think you and yana are arguing past each other.

That's for sure.
Though, I saw no arguments in yana's words. Just persistent nagging for no good reason.
And inability to hear reason and understand sci facts.
But that is NOP, I accustomed to it. After numerous brawls with vatniks. %)))

>> Jon S. said...
\\Are you seriously asking for "ONE real example" of a woman who understands science and scientific explanations? Or is this an artifact of poor English?

I wholeheartedly believe that there is one... no, many of them. Many-many.
But in my strands over Inet I didn't meet her even once.
That's my tough luck to blame. For sure.

>> yana said...
\\What went unsaid is that 56% of university graduates in the US are women, and the proportion is similar in Europe.

I also was student myself. Thank you. %)

\\There's the example, now run with it and show us how females are mentally unfit, in your odd mythology.

Reread my statment. Till full understanding.
And then come back to us with viable arguments. Be so kind. Don't be locum. %P

Larry Hart said...

yana:

Can't equate the Sun with heat, it only appears to emit heat because it slurps up massive amounts of not-heat.

Ok then, when I touch the hot stove and all that cold jumps out of my hand, where does it go?

yana said...

Equating conversational games with physical penetration is... it's very male. Not that one should be ashamed of that, but hopefully one should be aware of that, the distinction which exists in the male mind does not correlate 1-to-1 to a model in a female mind.

yana said...

porohobot thought: "I saw no arguments in yana's words. Just persistent nagging for no good reason."

I said that women want: "just not to get raped and not to get

smacked around."

You reply: "I wouldn't be so sure of it."

You said: ""If female was the same or bigger than male -- there'd be no progeny.
Because it's evolutionary UNEQUAL position: of ones who impregnate

and ones who bear children.

I refute this, and you reply:

"That term. "gender equality (of opportunity)" That can harm us in future."

Again refuted, and you retreat with indignity to a shell of an argument such as:

"women cannot understand scientifical explanations."

Hollow, and it rings hollow from the outside with no need to prove it from within. Plus, i do not think you understand the term "strawman".

porohobot said...

>> yana said...
\\But electrons don't move very far in a conductor, they only hop from one atomic orbit to the next atom over, a few angstroms.

And thing called "electronic gas"(no, I will not google it for you) are fake notion introduced by that nasty White Male Suprematistic Swines in a foul atempt to sway sci-savvy women from their Right Path? Am I correct? %)))

\\You know that there's a substrate underlaying space and time, right?

What more news from Female Physics you'll tell us? %)))

>> Larry Hart said...
//...but that state of things wasn't as beneficial to the women as it was to the guys.

Are you sure? ;)
In before, it was thing you can give out only once. In a wedding night.
And now it's like cash change for any time use. %)
And now they struggle to rise it value even future. So it'll only grow. Like bitcoins. With time. %P

\\Paraphrasing from memory: "Men invade and violate. What women do is absorb and consume. The nice way of saying this is that the two complement each other. The not-so-nice way is that they deserve each other--that they serve each other right."

It's all wrong.
It's just like Nature and Evolution did it. For its quite important reasons.
Like... sexual way of reproduction exist, because of crossingover, which help to fight with diseases and viruses... and to facilitate adaptation.

yana said...

Larry Hart thought:

"all that cold jumps out of my hand, where does it go?"

It goes where cold is not, it seeks equilibrium. Not consciously, don't read that in.

yana said...

porohobot thought: "In before, it was thing you can give out only once. In a wedding night.
And now it's like cash change for any time use.
"

Holy fuck, if that's your concept of vagina, then it's small surprise that you see a listless life support system for the vagina, in the same physical space where much of the rest of the world sees a complete human being. Self-fulfilling expectation, perhaps?

porohobot said...

>> yana said...
\\the distinction which exists in the male mind does not correlate 1-to-1 to a model in a female mind.

Yep. I see it. Things like subjective/objective do not exist in woman's POV. %)))
It's all stupid man's notion. That is you nail your finger with hammer... it's because hammer is THE part of objective reality.
No. It's all wrong. It's all that stupid men's supertiotions. %P
Q: How many women one need to screw in bulb lamp?
A: Zero. It's men's job. %)))

\\I refute this, and you reply:

WHERE????!

\\Again refuted, and you retreat with indignity to a shell of an argument such as:

I see... vatniks use same way of "refutation". Classic. %)

\\Holy fuck, if that's your concept of vagina, then it's small surprise that you see a listless life support system for the vagina, in the same physical space where much of the rest of the world sees a complete human being. Self-fulfilling expectation, perhaps?

Blah-blah-blah... yet more strawman nagging. %)

Larry Hart said...

yana:

"all that cold jumps out of my hand, where does it go?"

It goes where cold is not, it seeks equilibrium. Not consciously, don't read that in.

I still don't understand the difference between that and saying that the heat goes where heat is not. Or why you distinguish the way light flows from the way heat does.

And I studied electrical engineering.

I admit it's been several decades since I took courses, but I also thought that "positive holes" in electric current were a convenient fiction, something that we could pretend moved in the direction opposite the direction of electron flow (since electrons are arbitrarily assigned a negative charge). Not an actual thing.

yana said...

Larry Hart thought:

"but I also thought that "positive holes" in electric current were a convenient fiction, something that we could pretend moved in the direction opposite the direction of electron flow"

My apologies, i thought it was common knowledge among the sci-crowd. Individual electrons do not move very far when current is applied to a conductor. What 'moves' is the potential for an electron to occupy an orbital shell, the not-electron.

A.F. Rey said...

Man... he's trolling you. Like in "I like when liberals suffer".
And you do feed him. %)
DON'T FEED TROLL. MAKE HIM AT LEAST WORK FOR HIS FOOD. ;)

Aw, man! So what am I supposed to do with all this extra troll food I have lying around? :(

porohobot said...

\\I admit it's been several decades since I took courses, but I also thought that "positive holes" in electric current were a convenient fiction, something that we could pretend moved in the direction opposite the direction of electron flow (since electrons are arbitrarily assigned a negative charge). Not an actual thing.

It's important notion in electronics.
Because it about currents in semiconductors.
And though I also know it from long ago.
I do not know that for more then half century of electronics development
that notion was doubted, or even made obsolete.

Perhaps it's some city legends. Circulating among people with incomplete education\comprehension. %)

Possibly it is wrongly messed up with (I just googled it) "The hole theory becomes obsolete in the quantum theory of." notion of Dirak's "holes" which later became stand alone particles -- positrons.

>> A.F. Rey said...
\\Man... he's trolling you. Like in "I like when liberals suffer".
And you do feed him. %)
\\DON'T FEED TROLL. MAKE HIM AT LEAST WORK FOR HIS FOOD. ;)

\\Aw, man! So what am I supposed to do with all this extra troll food I have lying around? :(

Feed me. %))))) Isn't it obvious? $)))))))) I'm pussy cat troll. Feed me, and I'll purr for you. %))) yana said... porohobot thought: "women cannot understand scientifical explanations." "In before, it was thing you can give out only once. In a wedding night. And now it's like cash change for any time use." Really? Nobody else here has one testicle to oppose these ideas? Silly me, i thought i was chatting in the last bastion of The Enlightenment, not a sweaty cave where the twin driving forces were apologizing for Hari Seldon, and striving to not be the last one to cum on the english muffin. "See here yana, we have ways of doing things by tradition and protocol here. We can't go off the lid and oppose misogyny unless it's blatant and really offensive, and by blatant we mean that it has to make even a comfortable white man set down his Cohiba for three seconds, you know, it has to involve dismemberment or something, not just the simple and customary enslavement of women." OK today, but i'm telling you that change is coming. You see it already in the metoos and timesups, it's reaching into corporate boardrooms and corridors of old-style power. Women are talking to each other, and you are powerless to stop it. Every bit of abuse you ladle out to one woman, will fast be the knowledge of all women. Yes, some of them will make junk up. Most will not have to lie. Treat all women with respect and the encomium due a complete human being, and you'll get that respect back. locumranch said... It's a stupid rhetorical trick to differentiate between 'Equality of Opportunity' and 'Equality of Outcome', especially when David, Alfred & Larry admit that 'Equality of Opportunity' is yet to be created by our insufficiently progressive society, meaning that this admittedly yet to be created 'Opportunity' is an 'Outcome', too. I could tell you a story about a certain successful, influential & awarding winner author. He has a modicum of wealth, power & privilege. He is male. He has white skin. His father was an award-winning author. He also belongs to an unusually literate, intelligent & successful identity group. Where is this 'Equality of Opportunity' of which he speaks? And how can we recreate this same 'equality of opportunity' for everyone else, especially when so very few of us are advantaged by an award-winning author-father & privileged heritage? Larry_H knows the answer: We can call this author dehumanising (bad) names like 'male', 'privileged', 'wealthy', 'patriarchal' and 'white'. We can bring him down to OUR level (whatever level that may) with confiscatory taxation (say, 70%), accusations of 'white privilege', gulag-style confinement or kill him (why not?). And, this created 'Win-Win' outcome we can call 'Equality of Opportunity'. Best _____ Yana also plays rhetorical games by (first) asserting that all rape is 'forcible' and (second) by asserting that (Bad) Men & (Good) Women are UNEQUAL. What a 'sexist' 'misogynist'and 'chauvinist' thing for him to say when we all just know that men & women are EQUAL in all respects & ALL genders can be soldiers, villains, doctors & rapists, too, if they so wish. We also know that women (who are good) are BETTER than men (who are bad) because that's how the illiterate West defines 'equality'. Larry Hart said... yana: "In before, it was thing you can give out only once. In a wedding night. And now it's like cash change for any time use." Really? Nobody else here has one testicle to oppose these ideas? More like no one is taking them seriously at face value. The fact that most mothers have more than one child is self-evident. Darrell E said... I admit I am not understanding this argument about electricity. Electrical current flow is a real movement of charges, usually charged particles. Within non-metallic conductors, for example salt water, the current flow is comprised of + and - ions. Within a solid metal conductor, like an electrical wire, the moving charges are indeed really just electrons, charged particles that have mass. In the special case of solid metallic conductors there are no actual corresponding + particles moving opposite to the electrons. But it doesn't matter. A -1 charge moving one way is the same as a +1 charge moving the opposite way. And + and - are completely arbitrary assignments. The speed that electrons actually move along a copper wire, hopping from one atom to the next, is on the order of 1 inch per minute. The effect of course moves at the speed of light. Beyond this I don't understand the distinctions that you are trying to make yana. Larry Hart said... @yana, So this is lying? Emphasis is mine. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conventional-versus-electron-flow/ In conventional flow notation, we show the motion of charge according to the (technically incorrect) labels of + and -. This way the labels make sense, but the direction of charge flow is incorrect. In electron flow notation, we follow the actual motion of electrons in the circuit, but the + and - labels seem backward. Does it matter, really, how we designate charge flow in a circuit? Not really, so long as we’re consistent in the use of our symbols. You may follow an imagined direction of current (conventional flow) or the actual (electron flow) with equal success insofar as circuit analysis is concerned. Concepts of voltage, current, resistance, continuity, and even mathematical treatments such as Ohm’s Law (chapter 2) and Kirchhoff’s Laws (chapter 6) remain just as valid with either style of notation. Larry Hart said... I like this turn of phrase. Emphasis again is my own: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/magazine/mcconnell-senate-trump.html The Senate majority leader wields an elusive kind of power. The position, which dates back to the 1920s, is as paradoxical as the institution, which is given the authority to make great changes but also given as many tools to impede those changes as to enact them. To the Senate’s defenders, this is the “cooling saucer” of George Washington’s probably apocryphal explanation; to its detractors, it is more like an unreleasable parking brake on progress, never truly succeeding at holding back the future but ensuring that the country’s arrival at it will be as delayed and frictional as possible. At the turn of the 20th century, the Senate proved ineffectual in regulating railroads and banking. It failed to grasp the severity of the Depression until Americans had endured its hardships for years, offering only the meekest of remedies until Franklin D. Roosevelt forced lawmakers to do otherwise. Isolationists in the chamber impeded efforts to check Adolf Hitler’s advance in Europe; Southern conservatives were effective enough at delaying legislative action on civil rights to prompt the oft-quoted observation of William S. White, The Times’s congressional correspondent in the 1950s, that the Senate was “the South’s unending revenge upon the North for Gettysburg. porohobot said... >> Larry Hart said... //More like no one is taking them seriously at face value. My attitude are clear -- free sex is great. And not because "it gives more chances for boys to satiate their desire". But exactly because it removes from equation (at least partly), that old, laid on us by Evolution, struggles and biases "who are on top", "who's stay in the nest", etc. And change it into more sentient, more human, more spiritual... co-existence of two (and with time, some more) minds. But that do not like self-proclaimed justice warriors for Greater Good Of All Women. Because they want and try to strip some more goods and privileges from name called "male swines"... to share it with struggled women? Ni-i-i-ie. To install themself in the middle. At the table of "committee for women privileges control". It's "chto ohraniaesh to i imeesh"/you have(share)of what you guard, as it was in USSR. Though such experiments with "common wifes" even commies stoped VERY early. >> yana said... \\"women cannot understand scientifical explanations." \\"In before, it was thing you can give out only once. In a wedding night. And now it's like cash change for any time use." \\Really? Nobody else here has one testicle to oppose these ideas? \\Silly me Yeah. You are silly. You make WRONG, torn out of context quotes. Ignore logic and argumentation... substituting it with voodoo strawman figurine. And trying to nail it with your silly pins. %))) And then... claim that someone need to pay respect for such stupid behavior??? \\OK today, but i'm telling you that change is coming. You see it already in the metoos and timesups, it's reaching into corporate boardrooms and corridors of old-style power. Women are talking to each other, and you are powerless to stop it. Every bit of abuse you ladle out to one woman, will fast be the knowledge of all women. I am doubling my claim. We need to build artificial wombs... and fast. %P \\Treat all women with respect and the encomium due a complete human being, and you'll get that respect back. There is excelent quote of the day I just found on the Internet. To answer this. "Screeching and throwing epithets around like 'sexist' or 'misogynist' does not lead to respect. Respect is earned, it is not a given." "Respect isn't earned, it's the default to be lost. If you disrespect people because they're female, and you probably do, then you've been brought up wrong." Choose which are more to you liking. But IMHO we already know the answer, isn't it? Alfred Differ said... Yana, I’m usually willing to write volumes about any subject, but on gender equality I try to be cautious. Part of my wariness is fear of making things worse by being misinterpreted by understandably angry people. Of late, though, I’ve learned some extra caution as I’ve delved deeper into the science. Porohobot exhibits the second problem well. MANY of us do. We think we know the science, but it turns out we don’t. We know JUST enough to confirm our bias. It’s JUST sexual dimorphism. It’s JUST (fill in the blank). It’s rarely worth it to me to verbally fighting folks who think it is that simple. If I’m trying to convince another guy, they JUST see me as a sexual competitor. If I’m trying to convince a woman that things are complex, they often jump to a conclusion that I’d rather things didn’t change and I can’t really blame them since that conclusion is accurate for many of us. I disagree with every simplistic explanation ever printed on this subject. Humans aren’t simple and human societies are darn near fractal-like when it comes to possibilities and explanations for those possibilities. Ultimately, though, I think people have cause and effect backward. We don’t do any particular thing for any particular reason. We reason after the behavior in order to justify it. Humans are animals that can also reason. If all people are born equal, then the best version of human is someone who works towards all people dying equal. On this subject, though, I’m willing to write a lot. I’m quite confident that you are mistaken about that being the best version of ‘human’. In my opinion, such a human can justify oppression and you’ll get the opposite of what you desire. When we argue that we are born equal, it is NOT that we are born physically or mentally equal. It’s that we are born equal before the ‘law’. What we mean is that society should pretend we are all equally capable until we prove we are not. Even then, the pretense should continue for a long as possible. The only known technique that comes close to achieving equal outcomes happens to be a laser focus on equal opportunities that doesn’t force outcomes. Equal opportunity means the feast is laid upon the table and no bias is imposed upon who may step up with a plate, though we might bias against a child being given a much bigger plate by their parents. With equal opportunity, nothing about the system enforces differences that naturally DO exist among us. Those differences are much more minor than people like to believe and use to justify their bias against ‘Them’, but they do exist and they do lead to unequal outcomes. If it weren’t for those differences that we need to pretend don’t exist, there would be no variation among us and we wouldn’t be remotely like the humans we are today. We certainly wouldn’t be the great ape that took over the world. Jon S. said... Ooo-kay. So poro has concluded, based on experiences on something called "Inet" (with which I am unfamiliar, and thus cannot comment), that women as a class "cannot understand scientifical (sic) explanations". Class-based distinctions in other contexts is wrong, but this one's okay. Back under the shroud with you - I have no time to deal with prejudice and misogyny, especially when it's both so blatant and so crude. Alfred Differ said... Larry, I know you are paraphrasing Dave Sim when you say "Men invade and violate. What women do is absorb and consume", but you provide another one of those overly simplistic explanations that people love to love. I won't attribute it to you, though, since you are obviously paraphrasing him. Many moons ago, Paul SB was advocating for us all to read Sapolsky's book about behavior. I took him up on it and have learned a whole new level of wariness regarding simplistic explanations. Is testosterone the problem? Nah. Genes? Nah? Parental errors in raising me? Nah. All of the above? Hmm... Sapolsky skewers the simple and uses humor while doing it. I owe Paul SB a big favor for his recommendation. Is the area of a rectangle determined by its width? Nah. There is another length to account for, right? The problem with some of the problems people face when talking about human behaviors is that the rectangle is a hyper-hyper-hyper-rectangle. The number of dimensions in the problem is quite large and probably not fully known yet? Does width determine the hyper^n-th area? Nah. The more dimensions there are, the less determinant the width is... yet it still matters. Sapolsky is good at showing these issues regarding human behavior AND some of the simplistic traps into which we fall. porohobot said... >> Alfred Differ said... //We know JUST enough to confirm our bias. It’s JUST sexual dimorphism. It's NOT my point. I just choosed it, as most simplest. Most easy to understand strating point for people which visibly not on good terms with modern... err-m, as it seems with any science, and even basic logic. Being that think that nagged blabbering and name calling can be posed as arguments. Ther is more, MUCH MORE complex notions. Like "egoistic genes", "hidden ovulation", etc. Which if raised, could produce even bigger muddy flow of misunderstanding and misconceptions... directly as you stated. \\ Ultimately, though, I think people have cause and effect backward. We don’t do any particular thing for any particular reason. We reason after the behavior in order to justify it. Humans are animals that can also reason. I see from where going such mysticism. But cannot agree with it. Maybe just yet. %) \\though we might bias against a child being given a much bigger plate by their parents. No. We not. >> Jon S. said... \\Ooo-kay. So poro has concluded, based on experiences on something called "Inet" (with which I am unfamiliar, and thus cannot comment), that women as a class "cannot understand scientifical (sic) explanations". Class-based distinctions in other contexts is wrong, but this one's okay. It's just hypothesis based thinking. ;) There is hypothesis -- "women can engage in scientifical discussions... and pose adequate arguments... or at least understand ones" on the Internet. What can be arguments supporting that hypothesis? At least ONE example of such discussion. By this time I have NONE of it. Though, I seen women on the Internet not that often as man. And yet smaller appearance of them... in places where scientifical (or just philosophical) discussion could emerge. But I have seen and took part in quite ugly "scientifical(their claims, not mine)" discussions around feminism exactly. %P Alfred Differ said... @locumranch | Where is this 'Equality of Opportunity' of which he speaks? Right here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_dollar#/media/File:1879S_Morgan_Dollar_NGC_MS67plus_Obverse.png Depicted as Liberty. In a polytheistic world, she’d be a goddess or something like that. In our world, she is a transcendent we all recognize (with a smile) that we’ve gone a little overboard in producing an anthropomorphic representation. Gaze upon her, though, and you’ll connect with the subjective idealization you should have been taught years ago. She idealizes ‘equality of opportunity.’ I have one in my pocket most of the time. Minted in 1921 in Denver. She’s almost 100 years old now and represents the end of an earlier age when the US preferred to depict her on our coins instead of our dead Presidents. As ideals go, I prefer her to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and even FDR. Always have. Yah. I know you don’t believe. That’s your problem. [I think of you each Christmas when my family watches Hogfather. One of the lines near the end of the movie where DEATH asks his granddaughter to show him a molecule of Justice and other things makes me think about unbelievers in the smaller transcendents. I’m not interested in having a god of hangovers on my coinage, but some of the others are worth it. Justicia, Prudentia, Sophia, etc.] Larry Hart said... Alfred Differ: Larry, I know you are paraphrasing Dave Sim when you say "Men invade and violate. What women do is absorb and consume", but you provide another one of those overly simplistic explanations that people love to love. I won't attribute it to you, though, since you are obviously paraphrasing him. My point wasn't so much whole-hearted agreement with Dave, but that he had a point in the assertion that the sexes have separate motivations, strategies, and tactics at their command. The issue was whether rape was a crime committed solely by men. As a liberal, I expected to get pushback for any assertion that there are differences between the sexes, but I stand by that assertion. Yes, I understand the condemnation of laws that say that if neither partner is sober enough to consent, the man has committed rape. I totally get that. I'm on the "men's rights" side of that one. Notwithstanding, a woman can't "rape" a man in the same way a man can rape a women. She can't forcibly impregnate him, for one thing. She can give him syphilis or AIDs, so ok, there are indeed assaults that a woman can perpetrate on a man which should not be permitted any more than the other should. But even in a world in which both genders are equally able to get away with attacking the other, I don't think you'd find the same number of woman who want to rape men as vice versa. porohobot said... >> Larry Hart said... \\My point wasn't so much whole-hearted agreement with Dave, but that he had a point in the assertion that the sexes have separate motivations, strategies, and tactics at their command. There is MUCH bigger problem. We DO SHARE the same genome... and problem is -- genes which are beneficial to man, could harm women and vise versa. And it create caveat for many genetical diseases and malfunctions. IT'S SCIENTIFIC FACT. So... when feminist claim that "it's all ziz male swines fault" they basically aim at men, but hit the women. That is paradox. :) locumranch said... Bravo, Alfred. It's agreed that 'equality' is a constitutional legal FICTION in the sense that the best law would treat every unique & less-than-unique citizen -- male, female, black, white, yellow, americano, russki -- AS IF they were 'equal' (from a legal perspective) even though they are clearly not equal. Thus, it follows that 'equality' in general & specific -- including the aforementioned 'equality of opportunity', 'equality of outcome', 'equality of cultures', 'equality of races' and 'equality of genders' -- are also unreal FICTIONS. We can therefore agree that no amount of progressive social engineering & magical thinking will turn the random citizen into the identical writing equal of David without recapitulating every aspect of what makes David unique, much in the same way that fiction & wishful thinking won't make excrement taste like chocolate ice cream. So, now that we've established that the pursuit of a fictively 'transcendent Equality Goddess' is fruitless & futile, what are our cultural options? We simply acknowledge that (1) Inequality is the rule of human existence rather than the exception, and (2) we accept that terms like 'good', 'bad', 'superior', 'inferior', 'right', 'wrong', 'better' and 'worse' are expressions of unique & less-than-unique personal preference rather than universal truths. It's a philosophy that we once referred to as 'tolerance'. Best matthew said... yana, I understand your frustration. I offer this - Remember that some of the regular commenters look in about once a day or twice a week instead of hourly. Don't be overly concerned that no one is immediately speaking up when a blatant fallacy has been offered (women don't do sci - paraphrasing porohobot's fallacy). It typically means no one has logged on and seen the egregious comment yet. porohobot - Your ramblings are often interesting and often indecipherable. In this case you are repeating an utter untruth (women don't do sci) and making an insult to many people here. Please consider your sources for the assertion and what you intended by offering it. porohobot said... >> locumranch said... \\Bravo, Alfred. So you do read answers. %) Then take it. \\won't make excrement taste like chocolate ice cream. But YOU. It was exactly YOU. Who without any doubt. Proved to us here exactly that -- that excrements AND chocolate ice cream ARE exactly THE SAME... because it both brown. %P (like kindergarden and Osventsim are THE SAME just becuse it both "organization") So... what will you say? Do you admit your own "truth"... and as such readiness to eat shit, literary. Or... by opposing... admit that YOU yourself just a shallow hypocrite and stupid troll. Who try to enlarge himself on belittling some famous guy. Best porohobot said... >> matthew said... //blatant fallacy has been offered (women don't do sci - paraphrasing porohobot's fallacy Yep-yep Matthew. Show it. Like incorrect quoting and shallow name calling can grow up into "truth". Against ALL rules of logic and fact'based thinking. And into witch hunting... if you'll continue with such enthusiasm. %P And into vengeful tribalism. \\porohobot - Your ramblings are often interesting and often indecipherable. In this case you are repeating an utter untruth (women don't do sci) It's false claim. More then that, it's false claim that can be proved wrong VERY EASY. My words WAS EXACTLY \\Yet one stanning proof. \\Feminists (women?) cannot (and/or doesn't care of) understand scientifical explanations. That was meticulously edited and shown out of context by yana. And then repeated contless times... I assume, for that exact effect. What "smart" manipulator is... that someone(he? she?) behind that anonimous nik "yana". That is not some stupis and boring locum. %))) Kudos for you, cunning anonimous. And popcorn for all others... and fresh example of that... HOW Trump and Putin duo working.$)))))

David Brin said...

"Really? Nobody else here has one testicle to oppose these ideas?"

Seriously yana? The sheer volume of material here, cast upon the screen in some cases with patterns that are very difficult to scan, and you holler because a particular sentence did not attract as much notice as you wanted? Come on. YOU point it out, emphasize it and ask for comments, eh?

Duncan Cairncross said...

Locobranch is to be ignored
porohobot is to be skimmed - most of the time I can't understand his meanings - when I think I can he is WRONG WRONG WRONG

Everybody else is well worth reading

Alfred Differ said...

Locumranch,

You are still missing the point. People ARE born unequal and can become more so as they grow older and outcomes become realized from opportunities. However, we don’t know in advance what those are going to be because there are too many dimensions to the prediction problem. Even if you had a GATTACA style map of a person’s make-up, it wouldn’t be enough.

The best law is generally silent on the fact that we are born unequal, but there are exceptions because of the various ways parents try to cheat on behalf of their children. In the fullest sense of ‘law’ where unlegislated social rules are counted (they are MUCH more numerous), equality before the law means we do not bias the systems we create to favor anyone. Since human parents are biologically rewarded for cheating (more successful children and grandchildren), some rules are needed to bias the system against biology if we are going to be truly loyal to the fictitious goddess on my silver dollar. However, we are generally better off avoiding these anti-cheat rules if possible until several people show a willingness to cheat in a particular way. The anti-cheat rules are difficult to implement and introduce other opportunities to cheat leading to an arms race.

You are trying to use a broad brush, however, and paint all the various forms of equality as the same kind of fictions. They aren’t. For example, equality of the races assumes the concept of race makes measurable sense. The phenotype appears obvious to most of us, but it’s categorical fantasy at best. All humans are brown, but to varying degrees unless one has a mutation preventing the formation of pigmentation. All humans can digest milk at an early age, but a small mutation providing an extra copy of a gene or two enables some of us to keep on digesting it when we are older. It turns out that some of the less brown people on Earth can digest milk later, but it is an error to construct a category representing them as a ‘race’ of humans. We are better described as a subset of humanity that survived northern environments with low light conditions and piss-poor food supplies in winter. Race isn’t so much a fiction as it is a fantasy.

We can therefore agree that no amount of progressive social engineering & magical thinking will turn the random citizen into the identical writing equal of David…

Technically true, but utterly beside the point. You are back to describing equality of outcomes because your broad brush painted them all the same color. We started with equality of opportunity, though. Avoid the wide brush and you’ll avoid masking an underlying issue. [My son used to pick up a crayon and color everything on a page that one color. He was done when there was no whitespace left. Couldn’t see a damn thing if he chose black.] No one is trying to reproduce a ditto for David. No one at all is trying to turn other people into copies of David and not just because that would be morally wrong. It’s also stupid.

… we've established that the pursuit of a fictively 'transcendent Equality Goddess' is fruitless & futile…

No. We haven’t. Broad brush fallacy. Pursuits of Liberty, Justicia, and Prudentia have managed to produce our Enlightenment Civilization which has lifted the vast majority of humanity out of extreme poverty for the first time in human existence.

(1) Inequality is the rule of human existence rather than the exception, and
(2) we accept that terms like 'good', 'bad', 'superior', 'inferior', 'right', 'wrong', 'better' and 'worse' are expressions of unique & less-than-unique personal preference rather than universal truths.

Yes on #1 (sort of), but bullshit on #2. Many people overblow #1 and think they know what inequalities are supported by natural evidence. As for #2, that’s not tolerance. That’s blindness to the oldest branch of philosophy to exist. Ethics. Specifically, the oldest version called ‘Virtue Ethics’. Without some kind of ethics system, you don’t have a society.

Alfred Differ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alfred Differ said...

I should be really careful here...

...equality before the law means we do not bias the systems we create to favor anyone... in advance of knowing who will benefit from the bias.

Example

If I bias market rules to favor my family, I know in advance who will benefit and I'm guilty of breaking equality.

If I bias market rules to favor people born on a Tuesday, I won't know if my future family will benefit or not, so I'm not breaking equality with respect to them. It's still a dumb rule, of course, but knowing in advance who might benefit is a BIG part of breaking 'equality of opportunity.'

Much of the time, rules that bias our markets without breaching equality of opportunity get little support. Besides being dumb, they don't benefit anyone in a way they can see, hence they are stillborn. The exception occurs when rules bias a market against cheaters who violate other rules. You might be able to cheat in the stock market, but you might violate the insider trader rules in the legal market. Oops. Was it worth it? Ah. Obviously one has to cheat in both markets, so an arms race occurs in an ever more complex rule set. Enjoy. Most of us can spot the negative sum game associated with all that cheating and note that it isn't worth it.

A.F. Rey said...

There is MUCH bigger problem.
We DO SHARE the same genome...
and problem is -- genes which are beneficial to man, could harm women and vise versa.

And it create caveat for many genetical diseases and malfunctions.

IT'S SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Porohobot, before you bandy about the term "scientific fact," you really should double-check you understanding. Genes, genetics and the effects of genes is even more complex than you imagine.

I would suggest to visit Pharyngula and direct your questions and/or assertions there.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

The site deals with much more than biology, but the host is an evolutionary biologist who spends part of his time educating creationists in the error of their ways (and often times, not nicely :) ). I'm sure on his comment section, he can correct any misunderstandings you may have about genetics and their effects on the sexes (although I won't guarantee that he will do so nicely :) ). You may also want to browse his previous posts and find some that discuss the differences between the sexes and how genetics does or does not influence them. I suspect that you will learn quite a bit.

kvs said...

porohobot

>> There is hypothesis -- "women can engage in scientifical discussions... and pose adequate arguments... or at least understand ones" on the Internet.

>>What can be arguments supporting that hypothesis? At least ONE example of such discussion.

>>By this time I have NONE of it.

What kind of evidence do you need? I can point out YouTube channels and podcasts (in English, I'm afraid) that have women discussing science with other people or make serious arguments.

In terms of forums, there also the issue that women face a greater risk of harassment if they have an obvious presence on forums. For that reason a number of women hide their gender or just don't participate. This says more about current social structure than their ability.

Alfred Differ said...

I'm a little lost on the argument porohobot appears to be making. I'm unsure if he's arguing that feminists can't understand scientific explanations that oppose their beliefs or if women in general can't do science.

I think both are incorrect, but only the second one is stupidly incorrect. Anyone with a political or social axe to grind can find a way to justify setting aside a scientific explanation without being actually incapable of understanding them.

Zepp Jamieson said...

Larry Hart wrote: "In a way, he reminds me of me, predicting with certainty the collapse of the US dollar back in the 1990s."

Well, at least in your case, some day the dollar WILL collapse. I think the Pound is the oldest extant currency in the world, and Edward II would look at the purchasing power of a Pound in 2019 and aver that the currency had already collapsed. (Pennies used to be made of silver, and 240 of them were a pound of silver). Today's pound is worth slightly less than one of Edward's pennies.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

I think both are incorrect, but only the second one is stupidly incorrect. Anyone with a political or social axe to grind can find a way to justify setting aside a scientific explanation without being actually incapable of understanding them.

There's more evidence to support the hypothesis that Republicans in general can't do science.

Larry Hart said...

Zepp Jamieson:

Today's pound is worth slightly less than one of Edward's pennies.

There's a Mike Pence joke in there somewhere, but I'm too tired to think of it.

Alfred Differ said...

The US Dollar is already in similar territory. We could knock a couple zeroes off the dollar and get back reasonably close to where we were. I used to use a rule of thumb of multiplying old "baby boom" wages by 20 to get modern wages, but that was a number of years ago. Then I used 25x. Now... I'd have to go look it up.

I've never seen a silver penny in the old English system. I've got lots of silver, but nothing below a sixpence... I think. Not sure about the three pence coins. My collection only goes back to Victoria, though in any real volume. Clipped, punctured, and ground down of course. Nothing to excite collectors. Just a kid coordinating with his grandfather... but now I know the big copper pennies displaced things.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Get thee to a farm. You'll see general GOP voters doing actual science.

Some branches of science don't conflict with one's preconceived notions. They are much easier to do. Much more comfortable. Maybe profitable too. 8)

Ilithi Dragon said...

Holy crap, guys, you can really make it hard to keep up with what's going on...

Porohobot:
I'm not really going to be able to reply to you at all. You posted A LOT, and with the language barrier (which has been improving! props for that!), it takes longer to parse what you're saying. I just don't have the time to sort that and give you a good reply this week. Not fair, I know, and there's some stuff I saw while skimming that I felt important to address, but I don't have time to parse it.

Yana:
I saw the sentence you particularly cried foul on, and yes, it made me cringe and want to say something, but then I had twenty+ more posts to read, the last of which was made nearly four hours before I started reading...

Please, don't assume that nobody else is responding because we agree or don't feel it worth opposing. It seems that a lot of us, at least, aren't responding because we're rather late to the party.

Everyone else:
I have to be up in less than six hours and I should have hit the rack an hour ago. No replies for you.
} ; = 8 P

Ilithi Dragon said...

Or maybe not four hours prior... Apparently the timestamps don't match up right if you're not logged in. Still. One hour.

yana said...

I said that women want: "just not to get raped and not to get smacked around."

porohobot's reply: "I wouldn't be so sure of it."

The usual excuses like "She was asking for it," and "She made me do it" are merely idiotic. Porohobot's belief goes much further than idiocy, it's tinged with active evil.

David Brin said...

yana please don't leap to conclusions re porohobot. His English is far better than our Ukrainian. Either spend the time to try to grasp what he (she) has difficulty expressing... or else shrug and give him (her?) the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of the doubt. We're a community, one of the oldest and best on the Web.

porohobot said...

>> yana said...
\\I said that women want: "just not to get raped and not to get smacked around."
\\porohobot's reply: "I wouldn't be so sure of it."

And I gave my arguments.

While you. Started stupid feminist campaign of witch hunting.

Thank you for the experience. It's first time for me. And I think it's important.

\\The usual excuses like "She was asking for it," and "She made me do it" are merely idiotic. Porohobot's belief goes much further than idiocy, it's tinged with active evil.

That's all the problem here.
It's not belief. It's scientifical observation. From antropology.
Higher primates DO use sex as means of exchange, as means of punishment. (and you showed it yourself too, pretty clearly, isn't it?)

It's NOT about how I like it.
I already stated clearly, that I'd like to be the human in it... not an ape.

Want to safequard women of the Earth -- go to Iran, to China, to Africa.

Because what you doing HERE it's not for the sake of women.
It's to keep privileges of ignorance.

PS Sorry that I raised such questions here. But... "you'd never know, if not try".(tm)

porohobot said...

>> Alfred Differ said...
\\I'm a little lost on the argument porohobot appears to be making. I'm unsure if he's arguing that feminists can't understand scientific explanations that oppose their beliefs or if women in general can't do science.

I'm guilty. %(((
I was careless when decided to dive into that discussion on "gender equality".
And hoping for too much from audience here (like understanding of sci... of basic reasoning).

>> kvs said...
>> There is hypothesis -- "women can engage in scientifical discussions... and pose adequate arguments... or at least understand ones" on the Internet.
>>What can be arguments supporting that hypothesis? At least ONE example of such discussion.
>>By this time I have NONE of it.

\\What kind of evidence do you need? I can point out YouTube channels and podcasts (in English, I'm afraid) that have women discussing science with other people or make serious arguments.

It was more like rhetorical argument. (shy) I tried to play honest researcher there.
Which refuses to come to conclusions without due facts. ;)

Of course I know that women can discuss science. And do not need additional proofs of it. Or be notoriously pursued to admit that truth. %)

\\In terms of forums, there also the issue that women face a greater risk of harassment if they have an obvious presence on forums. For that reason a number of women hide their gender or just don't participate. This says more about current social structure than their ability.

Never saw it in Russian segment of Internet.
And it doesn't meant that there is none. But...

>> A.F. Rey said...
\\\\We DO SHARE the same genome...
\\\\IT'S SCIENTIFIC FACT.

\\Porohobot, before you bandy about the term "scientific fact," you really should double-check you understanding. Genes, genetics and the effects of genes is even more complex than you imagine.

WHAT? You asking me to double check? Simple fact that male and famale genomes are JUST THE SAME (if not count little dangling Y thingy %))

Maybe I need to recheck that child takes half of its genes from father and half from mather (and all mitochondrial)???

That EXACTLY was MY point -- that genetical questons YET more complex. And JUST showed an example of such complexity.

But I see it... you argument ad ignoramus. "Cleverly" disguised as suggestion to double check. %P

Tim H. said...

This amused me:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/davos-billionaires-aoc-tax-proposal

What further amuses me is wasn't 70% the level that JFK cut the top rate to? That provides the sole connection to reality of "Trickle down*? Free(er) trade may permit some economic shenanigans if the top rates are increased, I believe that was one of the reasons for it. It even further amuses me that the R. Reagan fan club seems to believe there was no real economy before his (mis)administration.

Darrell E said...

Alfred,

I seem to recall you have a physics background so I thought I'd ask you to help me understand the following physics issue that is driving me nuts. This is about ballistics. The specific scenario is a fish leaping out of the water. I'm being told by others that h= 1/2gt² gives the max height in this scenario so that all you need to figure out the max height is the time from launch till landing. But I seem to remember that it is more complicated than that, that you have to take into account the launch velocity, specifically the vertical component of it, so that to find max height would be something like h= (V0sin(θ))^2/2g where V0 is initial velocity and theta is the launch angle.

Looking at various sources on the internet everything I find seems to say that h= 1/2gt² only applies in the special case in which V0 (initial velocity) is zero. I've been trying to find something that shows how to find the max height of a projectile that has an initial velocity if the only variable you know is t (total flight time), but I can't find anything that directly addresses that. Meanwhile every source that I have found regarding ballistic trajectories seems to say that you need two of three variables to solve for the other if the initial velocity is not zero, and for height they give equations like I show above. What am I missing?

What am I missing?

Any help to get this straight in my head would be much appreciated.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Get thee to a farm. You'll see general GOP voters doing actual science.

I was being facetious. My point was that if one is going to use anecdotes to "prove" that women can't do science, well, there's a much stronger case to be made that Republicans can't do science.

Eddie Murphy: "If you're gonna believe the myths, you gotta believe all them shits."

Larry Hart said...

@Darrell E, on 1/2gt²,

You know the entire flight time (t), then you know half of that flight time is spent slowing down to 0 vertical velocity and the other half is spent falling back into the water. I don't have time at the moment to remember my physics equations that I learned in the late 70s, but it should be a simple matter to determine what distance an object falls from an initial velocity of 0 in the time t/2.

You're confusing yourself by also trying to consider the horizontal distance the fish covers in the same period of time. That really doesn't affect the answer. Flight time gives you vertical distance (height) without regard to launch angle.

Anonymous said...

Do you think our orange one has a plan, a plane that he board and fly away when the kitchen gets too hot for him?

Tim H. said...

Not so much a plan as an abdominal convulsion.

Darrell E said...

Larry,

Thanks for the input. I'm not sure where you get that I'm confusing myself about the horizontal distance. I really am not. I didn't mention anything about horizontal distance or velocity. The only thing I mentioned was the vertical component of the initial velocity vector. I do appear to be confused about something, but I do clearly understand that vertical velocity is 0 at max height and that, assuming initial H and final H are equal, max height occurs at T/2. I'm also aware that h= 1/2gt² will give you the height that an object falls given that g is the only force affecting it and that the initial velocity is 0. It is commonly called the free fall equation and is a special case simplification of one of the equations of motion.

h= 1/2gt² for the leaping fish scenario does seem correct per my intuition for exactly the reasons you mention. The problem is that I can't find any source that doesn't qualify that it only applies in cases where the initial velocity is 0 and at the same time every source I've found for describing ballistic trajectories for projectiles that have an initial velocity that is not 0 always derive H max equations that include a term for the vertical component of the initial velocity vector. And no sources I've found show any derivations or substitutions that reduce to h= 1/2gt².

If h= 1/2gt² does correctly give max height even in cases in which the initial velocity is not 0 I suspect this is where I'm not seeing it. Meaning that the H equation that includes a term for the vertical component of the initial velocity is indeed correct for this scenario but that it is a more generally applicable equation and that it can be reduced to h= 1/2gt² in the special case of H max. But I'm not seeing how, I've not messed with the equations of motion for thirty years, and I haven't been able to find a source that shows such a derivation. I've not been able to find any source that shows that you can find max H of a projectile that had an initial velocity greater than 0 if the only variable you know is time of flight. Multiple sources, all I've reviewed, seem to state that you need to know 2 variables.

Larry Hart said...

@Darrell E,

I'm not sure I'm reading your confusion correctly, but I think I am, so...

Think of the leap as divided into two halves: up and down. The fish leaps at some initial velocity, but then eventually reaches an apogee and hangs there for an instant. Then, he falls back down from that height with an initial velocity of 0.

All you need do then is convince yourself that the time it takes to reach the height is the same time it takes to fall back. So the time of the entire leap (up and down) is twice the time it takes to fall from that height with an initial velocity of 0. Since you start by knowing the total time, divide that by 2 and then derive the height.

David Brin said...

All right. Having given benefit of the doubt... and with an understanding that the language problems may caus misunderstandings... it certainly does seem as if porohobot is suggesting that women -- as a class -- suffer from mental deficiencies and inability to be honest about their own emotional and sexual drives.

Guys, this is a perfect time to trot out the PARAPHRASE CHALLENGE. A mature person might respond by seeking clarification by paraphrasing what you think the other person said. In porohobot's case, this may be crucial, due to the linguistic problem. Hence :

"It seems to me that you are saying _______. Is that close to your meaning? And if so, do you also mean that_____?"

That would seem more productive than responding viscerally, shouting and leaping. Though in this case I suspect it might still lead to the same result.

Alfred Differ said...

Darrel E,

There are always shortcuts to these problems, but it is best to start from first principles until you are comfortable with knowing when shortcuts help. Whenever you get confused, just go back to first principles.

(It's like doing long division of integers. There are shortcuts, but the method taught in elementary school works every time and makes for a good fall back.)

____________________________________________________________________
y = y0 + v0y t - 1/2 g t^2
x = x0 + v0x t

Put your coordinate origin where the fish does it's leap and y0=x0=0.
If you know flight time T (=t-t0), you can observe where fish lands (x=L) and solve for v0x (=L/T)
If you know the angle at which the fish leaps, you can solve for v0y =(v0x tan(θ))

...or you can substitute all this into the first equation to get
y = L/T tan(θ) t - 1/2 g t^2

Max height occurs where dy/dt = 0.

So dy/dt = L/T tan(θ) - g t = 0 implies L/gT tan(θ) = t(peak)

Plug that in for t in the y equation and you'll get the height the fish reaches.

H =[ [L/T tan(θ)]^2 * 1/g - g/2 [L/gT tan(θ)]^2 ]= [L/T tan(θ)]^2 [1/2g] {recognize this?}

Done this way, you need to know L, T and tan(θ) to figure out H. If the fish leaps straight up, only then do you get to avoid having to know L and tan(θ). Only for a vertical leap would your fishing friends be correct.
____________________________________________________________________

One extra thing to do periodically is check the units of the terms in your sums. If you have an equation for distances, every term should have distance units. You can catch the silly errors by spot checking units now and then.

Darrell E said...

Larry,

Thanks for giving another try. Initial velocity is not 0 in the case being considered. The term "initial velocity" is a standard term used in the equations of motion and it has a specific meaning. Using a cannon as an example, which is exactly the same situation with the leaping fish, initial velocity is the velocity at which the cannon shell leaves the barrel and which is imparted to the shell by whatever propulsive system the cannon uses. In the case of the fish the initial velocity is the speed it left the water with, which was imparted by the action of the fish swimming in the water.

Regarding time, I am already convinced that t is equal for both halves of the curve. As I attempted to explain the h= 1/2gt² solution seems intuitively correct to me already. My problem is all sources I've reviewed about how to use the equations of motion to solve ballistics problems like this seem to contradict that solution except in the special case in which the initial velocity is 0, such as dropping a ball off of a cliff. All solutions I've found for models like the leaping fish include terms to account for the vertical component of the initial velocity. That's my quandary. In other words, I've looked for solutions, found many sources, but they don't seem to support what you and I agree seems like a correct solution.

Darrell E said...

Alfred,

Thank you much for taking the time to go through that. Though as I said I was about convinced that h= 1/2gt² was the solution and that it seemed intuitively correct to me I had a nagging memory from college physics that there was more to it and that a term was missing.

I've got to run but will look at this in detail when I can.

Larry Hart said...

Darrell E:

My problem is all sources I've reviewed about how to use the equations of motion to solve ballistics problems like this seem to contradict that solution except in the special case in which the initial velocity is 0, such as dropping a ball off of a cliff.

I'll try one last time, and then maybe Alfred can take over. :)

The second half of the fish's leap--the part where it falls back to the surface, is exactly the same as the ball dropped off of a cliff. It starts from the height of the leap with (momentarily) zero velocity and then falls a distance of h. You can figure out what h is as long as you know how long the falling takes.

And you do know how long the falling takes. The problem tells you that the entire leap takes time t. Each half of the leap--the rise and the fall--take the same amount of time, which means each half takes time t/2. Therefore, the problem reduces to "From what height does a fish fall over a time of t/2 ?" The answer to that question is the answer you are looking for.

I realize this says nothing about the velocity that the fish takes off with, which makes it sound as if you don't know how high that velocity will take the fish. But you "know" that by the back-door. You know how long it will take to fall from that height. Therefore, you also know how long it will take to reach that height (i.e,, the same amount of time). Even though physically, the height is a consequence of the initial velocity and the time in the air is a consequence of the height, the equations work in both directions. So you can determine the height from the time spent in the air, which is known.

If you so choose, you can also determine the initial velocity, which has to be the same as the velocity at which the fish "lands" in the water.

I hope that helps, because I feel like I'm just repeating myself.

Alfred Differ said...

@porohobot | In my years, I've learned that genetics has little to do with a talent for science. I suspect we can all do it and the difference between the regular folks and those who appear to excel is more related to experience than anything innate.

I'm hoping my generation is the last to believe women (in general) are even slightly worse than men (in general) at math, science, or any of the other academic subject areas. My anecdotal experience says my peers were mistaken and probably believed too much a bias taught them by their parents.

While I didn't see many women in grad school when I was, I did see some. They went through Hell to get there and stay there, so I've always thought their low numbers had more to do with the crap they had to tolerate to succeed. Everyone gets angry when mistreated and there is only so much of it we take.

The easiest anecdote I have for demonstrating gender equality of talent (in general) comes from my graduate adviser Kenneth Greider at UC Davis. While I was working on my PhD under him, his daughter Carol was at Berkeley working on hers. She finished a few years ahead of me and I may have met her once. Maybe. She went on to win a Nobel in 2009 for the discovery of telomerase. Her father didn't live to see that, but many of his students DID notice. She fought past a number of barriers to do it and a few more that do NOT appear on her Wikipedia page... and won't ever by my hand. Let's just say she is more impressive than the page suggests. 8)

Larry Hart said...

@Alfred Differ,

Am I wrong that you don't have to know anything about the horizontal part of the leap?

He knows how much time the fish is in the air. Therefore, he knows how much time it takes to fall from the maximum height, halfway through the arc. From there, it's easy to figure the duration of the fall, which is also the duration of the rise to the top. So height is simply a function of time.

Do I err?

porohobot said...

>> David Brin said...
\\All right. Having given benefit of the doubt... and with an understanding that the language problems may caus misunderstandings...

More like different communication environments. Habits. With different tolerance toward flame, swearing and sarcasm. (shy)

\\it certainly does seem as if porohobot is suggesting that women -- as a class -- suffer from mental deficiencies

If only that was my genuine message. Like one of Locum's "hear me... I came to you with new shining truth -- people are stupid!" -- you would be 100% right.

But.

FIRST OF ALL -- CONTEXT

But it is not... it was a sarcastic comment in response on several preposterous claims.

It's like if you... brawled with Locum for yet one time.
And was raged by his stupidity to that level... as to exclaim "people are such idiots?".
Will it mean that you count ALL people as "mentally impaired"? I doubt it. As for me it's just rightful goddam.

Well. Ok. You are better than that. For sure.
But not all people are so forgiving and understanding.
If that came to it. I can say I'm guilty. In such a case.
I DO NOT LIKE militant stupidity. It's like allergic reaction. %(

SECOND -- ACTUAL WORDS

That combination of words, with which yana started its(his,her) crusade.

Was blatantly edited as

"women cannot understand scientifical explanations"

REAL WORDS WAS (with quote -- full and correct -- it was assigned to)

"""
\\Really? Is it all women who have wronged you, your whole entire life, so that your aggreivance can be distilled to an antagonism of nature itself, simply because some people refer to it in the female idiom? How small must one's vision be, to accomplish that? How much hatred of women does it take, to translate a few boyhood spankings into revenge politics against 51% of humanity and 100% of the Earth?

Yet one stanning proof.
Feminists (women?) cannot (and/or doesn't care of) understand scientifical explanations.
And they ask me why I'm so sure...

"""

SEE THE DIFFERENCE??!
SEE??? What was reason for such sarcastic/sardonic reaction?

THIRD -- LINGUISTIC ANALISIS

1. I leave analysis of wrappers "Yet one stanning proof" and "And they ask me why I'm so sure" for interested.

2. "Feminists (women?)" as it is clear:
it directed NOT on women "as class", but on feminists (at least... becuse alternative was direct ad hominem, was it better?)
see that quesion marks? that's because not all feminists women, and I do not know gender (not sex) of human being under "yana" nik.

3. "cannot (and/or doesn't care of)" -- SEE, it's important clarification, isn't it?

4. "understand scientifical explanations" -- that's clear as for me, there is NO "kannot understand science" or even "have mental deficiencies" -- that are grave exaggerations and foul twisting of my words. (evil)

FORTH -- I CLEARLY STATED

my intention and real attitude toward question... several times.
but it was ignored, postponed in a steamy hunting rush. %)

So. It's really looks like witch hunt... that one, I(we, europeans) only heared from news, from USA.

So. If such sardonic reactions are not allowed, outlawed. Posed as deadly sin. %)
I'm sinner. And that one who do not want redemption. %P

\\ and inability to be honest about their own emotional and sexual drives.

WHERE? That came from?

Larry Hart said...

...I mean "From there, it's easy to figure out the length of the fall."

Duh!

Alfred Differ said...

Darrel E,

You ran into an equation that shows H = [v0y]^2 / 2g where v0y can be written as some other thing you know through trigonometry. That was the correct one to use. Whenever your gut doesn't sing about knowing the answer is correct, though, just fall back to first principles and show your work to yourself at each step. You can't go wrong that way.

... and yes for a number of other conclusions that have been written.

t(peak) = T/2
etc.

As for the first equation, your gut was probably pointing out that 1/2 g t^2 is the acceleration piece and initial velocity has to show up somewhere. A short thought experiment shows the initial velocity matters. When your gut says 'this variable can change results' it is often correct. Listen to it and you won't be wrong very often... at least in physics. 8)