Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.

"The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:15:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
>
> "The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models

The Guardian's heart is in the right place but their grasp of science isn't brilliant - better than yours, but not exactly impressive or all that reliable.

"Nightmarish" is way over the top. There's no new physics lurking in the wings - just worse weather than we are used to. Bad weather already kills people from time to time. and worse weather is going to kill a few more of them rather more often. The one degree Celcius of global warming we have had so far puts 6% more water vapour into the air over the oceans, and that's 6% more energy to drive more extreme weather when we get unlucky. More warming means even more.

New Scientist is about the only English language science journalism that's worth taking seriously, and it is still popularised to the point where it isn't all that reliable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 08:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
>
>"The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models

Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 11:33:47 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:15:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
> >
> > "The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models
> The Guardian's heart is in the right place but their grasp of science isn't brilliant - better than yours, but not exactly impressive or all that reliable.
>
> "Nightmarish" is way over the top. There's no new physics lurking in the wings - just worse weather than we are used to. Bad weather already kills people from time to time. and worse weather is going to kill a few more of them rather more often. The one degree Celcius of global warming we have had so far puts 6% more water vapour into the air over the oceans, and that's 6% more energy to drive more extreme weather when we get unlucky. More warming means even more.
>
> New Scientist is about the only English language science journalism that's worth taking seriously, and it is still popularised to the point where it isn't all that reliable.

Castration could help men to live LONGER: Removing the testes of male sheep lets them live up to 60 per cent longer by delaying the aging of DNA — and the same principles could apply to humans too, study claims
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9772601/Health-Castration-help-men-live-LONGER-sheep-study-suggests.html

Even that may be too late for you as you've already aged into daft-hood.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
> Castration could help men to live LONGER: Removing the testes of male
> sheep lets them live up to 60 per cent longer by delaying the aging
> of DNA - and the same principles could apply to humans too, study
> claims
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9772601/Health-Castration-help-men-live-LONGER-sheep-study-suggests.html

Farinelli was 77 which wasn't so unusual for the upper class. Got stats
on other castrati?

--
Defund the Thought Police

On 2021/07/09 1:25 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 11:33:47 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:15:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
>>>
>>> "The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models
>> The Guardian's heart is in the right place but their grasp of science isn't brilliant - better than yours, but not exactly impressive or all that reliable.
>>
>> "Nightmarish" is way over the top. There's no new physics lurking in the wings - just worse weather than we are used to. Bad weather already kills people from time to time. and worse weather is going to kill a few more of them rather more often. The one degree Celcius of global warming we have had so far puts 6% more water vapour into the air over the oceans, and that's 6% more energy to drive more extreme weather when we get unlucky. More warming means even more.
>>
>> New Scientist is about the only English language science journalism that's worth taking seriously, and it is still popularised to the point where it isn't all that reliable.
>
> Castration could help men to live LONGER: Removing the testes of male sheep lets them live up to 60 per cent longer by delaying the aging of DNA — and the same principles could apply to humans too, study claims
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9772601/Health-Castration-help-men-live-LONGER-sheep-study-suggests.html
>
> Even that may be too late for you as you've already aged into daft-hood.

Go right ahead with your own castration (you recommend it after all),
let us know how it turns out...(where the heck did that topic shift come
from?)

Back to the off-topic, topic - I take it if one degree is really
dangerous, then the little ice age must have been wonderful for Europe.
All those people freezing to death was a side benefit? Or was that human
caused as well?

Perhaps we caused the CO2 problem on Venus, and the black holes in the
centers of most galaxies...

John ;-#)#

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 6:25:27 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 11:33:47 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:15:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
> > >
> > > "The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models
> >
> > The Guardian's heart is in the right place but their grasp of science isn't brilliant - better than yours, but not exactly impressive or all that reliable.
> >
> > "Nightmarish" is way over the top. There's no new physics lurking in the wings - just worse weather than we are used to. Bad weather already kills people from time to time. and worse weather is going to kill a few more of them rather more often. The one degree Celcius of global warming we have had so far puts 6% more water vapour into the air over the oceans, and that's 6% more energy to drive more extreme weather when we get unlucky. More warming means even more.
> >
> > New Scientist is about the only English language science journalism that's worth taking seriously, and it is still popularised to the point where it isn't all that reliable.
>
> Castration could help men to live LONGER: Removing the testes of male sheep lets them live up to 60 per cent longer by delaying the aging of DNA — and the same principles could apply to humans too, study claims
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9772601/Health-Castration-help-men-live-LONGER-sheep-study-suggests.html

It's published in the Daily Mail - one of Cursitor Doom's favourite sources.. If the Guardian isn't all that reliable, the Daily Mail is a whole lot worse.
> Even that may be too late for you as you've already aged into daft-hood.

Fred Bloggs thinks that anybody who disagrees with his silly ideas is daft. In reality Fred Bloggs is daft, and you'd have to be daft to agree with him.

It's pretty daft to think that something that appears to work in sheep might also work in humans - a rather different species, since our most recent common ancestor probably died more than 55 million years ago.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:33:47 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:15:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
> >
> > "The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models
> The Guardian's heart is in the right place but their grasp of science isn't brilliant - better than yours, but not exactly impressive or all that reliable.
>
> "Nightmarish" is way over the top. There's no new physics lurking in the wings - just worse weather than we are used to. Bad weather already kills people from time to time. and worse weather is going to kill a few more of them rather more often. The one degree Celcius of global warming we have had so far puts 6% more water vapour into the air over the oceans, and that's 6% more energy to drive more extreme weather when we get unlucky. More warming means even more.
>
> New Scientist is about the only English language science journalism that's worth taking seriously, and it is still popularised to the point where it isn't all that reliable.
>
> --
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, moisture doesn't have ANY energy: it is just moisture after all (also called water). You SHOULD know that, being a PhD and all. ALL energy (save for volcanos and similar thermal sources) comes from the Sun. This energy is modulated by clouds, which the current crop of models have no clue about how to deal with.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 2:22:59 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:33:47 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:15:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > Things are going to be MUCH MUCH worse than even the most pessimistic forecasts, and that's because the new erratic weather is a complete fantasy compared to the conventional science.
> > >
> > > "The prospect of the jet stream becoming locked, and weather systems such as tropical storms ceasing to move in the way to which we are accustomed, carries nightmarish possibilities."
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/08/the-guardian-view-on-the-heat-dome-burning-through-the-models
> > The Guardian's heart is in the right place but their grasp of science isn't brilliant - better than yours, but not exactly impressive or all that reliable.
> >
> > "Nightmarish" is way over the top. There's no new physics lurking in the wings - just worse weather than we are used to. Bad weather already kills people from time to time. and worse weather is going to kill a few more of them rather more often. The one degree Celcius of global warming we have had so far puts 6% more water vapour into the air over the oceans, and that's 6% more energy to drive more extreme weather when we get unlucky. More warming means even more.
> >
> > New Scientist is about the only English language science journalism that's worth taking seriously, and it is still popularised to the point where it isn't all that reliable.
> >
> > --
> > SL0WMAN, Sydney
>
> Moisture doesn't have ANY energy: it is just moisture after all (also called water).

Water vapour does carry more energy than condensed water - which is presumably what you mean by "moisture" . It's called the latent heat of evaporation. it's around 40.8 kJ/mol.

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-90-481-2642-2_327

> You SHOULD know that, being a PhD and all.

It was drummed into me in the undergraduate thermodynamics course I took back in 1961. You seem to be confusing water vapour - a gas - with droplets of water suspended in the air - moisture - which is a pig-ignorant sort of mistake.

> ALL energy (save for volcanos and similar thermal sources) comes from the Sun.

Of course it does. What it does as it moves through the atmosphere is what matters.

> This energy is modulated by clouds, which the current crop of models have no clue about how to deal with.

What do you mean by "modulate"? Clouds do scatter light - and do absorb some of the incident energy. The models deal with this in various ways. A model doesn't "know" anything - it is just a way of representing what's going on - and the current crop of models are pretty good at that. You presumably get your ideas about climate models from denialist propaganda in the same way that John Larkin does, which makes you the same kind of gullible sucker.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.

The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 9:22:59 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

>...moisture doesn't have ANY energy: it is just moisture after all (also called water). You SHOULD know that, being a PhD and all.

Tell that to a hydroelectric dam. Don't touch the wires, though.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 00:37:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
>
>The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
>Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.

I grew up in NOLA. We loved thunderstorms. Not owning any property
when I was a kid, I liked hurricanes too. It was cool and breezy and
we got off school for a week or three. The eye of Betsy passed over
our house late one night; that was eerie.

We'd go to the levee of Lake Pontchartrain and watch the giant
thunderstorms sweep in, and sit in the warm rain.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 2021/07/10 12:37 a.m., whit3rd wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
>
> The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
> Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.
>

Toronto was hit by Hurricane Hazel in 1954, what is your point? Other
than bad weather happens from time to time.

https://www.hurricanehazel.ca/

John

On 7/10/2021 8:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>
> On 2021/07/10 12:37 a.m., whit3rd wrote:
>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7,
>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
>>
>> The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
>> Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.
>
> Toronto was hit by Hurricane Hazel in 1954, what is your point? Other than bad
> weather happens from time to time.

Perhaps that not everyone "always enjoys a good storm"?

We often have "intense" storms, here, during Monsoon (e.g., an inch of
*horizontal* rain per hour). They are exciting to watch. But, also
lead to high levels of anxiety: *Which* trees will topple? Which
directions will they fall? Will the pooling water come up to the
front door? Will anyone lose their roof/solar panels? How many
vehicles will be swept away in running waters?

All in all, we'd much prefer the rain to come at a slower rate:
"Don't rush yourself; take two or three hours to drain the clouds!"
Perhaps not as "exciting" but also a helluvalot less anxiety!

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:50:33 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 7/10/2021 8:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/07/10 12:37 a.m., whit3rd wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7,
>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
>>>
>>> The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
>>> Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.
>>
>> Toronto was hit by Hurricane Hazel in 1954, what is your point? Other than bad
>> weather happens from time to time.
>
>Perhaps that not everyone "always enjoys a good storm"?

No, many people and many dogs are terrified by lightning and thunder.
People are different.

>
>We often have "intense" storms, here, during Monsoon (e.g., an inch of
>*horizontal* rain per hour). They are exciting to watch. But, also
>lead to high levels of anxiety: *Which* trees will topple? Which
>directions will they fall? Will the pooling water come up to the
>front door? Will anyone lose their roof/solar panels? How many
>vehicles will be swept away in running waters?

Anxiety levels are probably wired into people at birth. In a not very
dangerous world, fear more often keeps people from doing (or
designing) good things. "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"

Most engineers are downright afraid of abs max specs; some won't even
get close. They are missing a lot.

A few loonies do dangerous things (rock climbing, wingsuits, IV drugs)
and get acclimated to increasing danger, and then die.

>
>All in all, we'd much prefer the rain to come at a slower rate:
>"Don't rush yourself; take two or three hours to drain the clouds!"
>Perhaps not as "exciting" but also a helluvalot less anxiety!

We got the inches-per-hour storms in New Orleans, warm rain you could
walk in, lots of lightning. San Francisco is wimpy, a little cold rain
in the winter, none at all in the summer, and we don't see any
lightning most years. Some fraction of our precipitation is from fog.

When I moved here and rented a flat, I noticed that there were no
screens and no a/c. Thought I was going to die.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:31:16 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:50:33 -0700, Don Y
> <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 7/10/2021 8:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2021/07/10 12:37 a.m., whit3rd wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7,
> >>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
> >>>
> >>> The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
> >>> Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.
> >>
> >> Toronto was hit by Hurricane Hazel in 1954, what is your point? Other than bad
> >> weather happens from time to time.
> >
> >Perhaps that not everyone "always enjoys a good storm"?
>
> No, many people and many dogs are terrified by lightning and thunder. People are different.

Getting stuck by lightning kills a few people every year (49 on average in the US, between 5 and 10 per year in Australia) . It's worth paying attention.
<snip>

> Anxiety levels are probably wired into people at birth. In a not very dangerous world, fear more often keeps people from doing (or designing) good things. "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"

Getting killed or injured are some of the possibilities.
> Most engineers are downright afraid of abs max specs; some won't even get close. They are missing a lot.

Perhaps. Frequently quite a lot of magic smoke. One persistent problem that I solved turned out to have been caused by a draftsman having written TIP29 on a circuit diagram, where he should have written TIP29A.

https://www.onsemi.com/pdf/datasheet/tip29b-d.pdf

The difference between a 40V and a 60V collector breakdown voltage turned out to be quite significant. We didn't lose all that many of the TIP29 parts, but when they went, they took out enough other components to fill three bags. I scored a few brownie point by catching up with that.

> A few loonies do dangerous things (rock climbing, wingsuits, IV drugs) and get acclimated to increasing danger, and then die.

Dangerous things can kill you the first time you try them. You don't have get over-confident first.

<snip>

> We got the inches-per-hour storms in New Orleans, warm rain you could walk in, lots of lightning.

It's not a good idea to walk where you can get stuck by lightning.

> San Francisco is wimpy, a little cold rain in the winter, none at all in the summer, and we don't see any lightning most years.

You won't see the lightning stroke that kills you. They are quick.

> Some fraction of our precipitation is from fog.
> When I moved here and rented a flat, I noticed that there were no screens and no a/c. Thought I was going to die.

You will, eventually.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/10/2021 9:31 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:50:33 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 8:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021/07/10 12:37 a.m., whit3rd wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7,
>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
>>>>
>>>> The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
>>>> Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.
>>>
>>> Toronto was hit by Hurricane Hazel in 1954, what is your point? Other than bad
>>> weather happens from time to time.
>>
>> Perhaps that not everyone "always enjoys a good storm"?
>
> No, many people and many dogs are terrified by lightning and thunder.
> People are different.

I don't know any people who cringe from thunder or lightning.

I've been in a home that was struck by lightning ("magnetized"
the CRT, blew out the phone line).

And, in a home where the lightning struck a tree 20 ft from where
I was sitting. Aside from the "Shit!--I-felt-the-thunderclap-
*before*-the-flash!" reaction, neither incident had much
effect on me.

OTOH, when I see a 30 ft tree "dancing" (at the base!) in the
wind, I start thinking about contingencies to handle the case
of it toppling WHILE I am watching it (cuz its too late to
cut it down, now!)

>> We often have "intense" storms, here, during Monsoon (e.g., an inch of
>> *horizontal* rain per hour). They are exciting to watch. But, also
>> lead to high levels of anxiety: *Which* trees will topple? Which
>> directions will they fall? Will the pooling water come up to the
>> front door? Will anyone lose their roof/solar panels? How many
>> vehicles will be swept away in running waters?
>
> Anxiety levels are probably wired into people at birth. In a not very
> dangerous world, fear more often keeps people from doing (or
> designing) good things. "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"

I don't see how you think this is a "not very dangerous world". 1 in
~2000 of the *world's* population died in the past 18 months. From a
disease that didn't exist 19 months ago.

And, despite that experience, we have no better protection from another
such event happening.

100 years ago, a pandemic was considerably harder to get started as
"near instantaneous" travel was less likely.

100 years ago, most of the population could not attain speeds in
excess of a mile-a-minute, DAILY.

100 years ago, the likelihood of encountering some wackjob with a
firearm was considerably less.

> Most engineers are downright afraid of abs max specs; some won't even
> get close. They are missing a lot.

Some engineers never leave a narrow application domain -- afraid to learn
about a new set of challenges in the problem space. I've a friend who's
been designing video games for 40 years. He's ***very*** well off but
I wonder what he does to challenge himself? Pick stocks?? Piss into
the wind???

Others (like me), relish starting each project with a lack of most of
the background information necessary to design a solution. The learning
process is far more satisfying than pulling solutions from a toolbox
of accumated skillsets. E.g., my current project required me to understand
the frequency, characteristics and nature of various (common!) disabilities.
What's it like not to be able to perceive color (WHICH colors?)? Or, to
have NO vision? Or, to have hearing in only one ear? Neither ear?
To be confined to a wheelchair? To not have arms with which to operate it?
Or, paralyzed from neck down? Or, KNOW that tomorrow you will have less
neurological function than you had, today? Or, that the tremor in your
hand is a precursor to developing hallucinations?

Beyond the physical aspects, what are the psychological aspects of these
limitations?

How does a lack of understanding of these issues (among DESIGNERS) further
complicate the problem?

[Yeah, it's not as trivial as repeating/revising a design that you'd
already done many times before. And, *infinitely* more exciting ("Gee,
I learned something, today!")]

> A few loonies do dangerous things (rock climbing, wingsuits, IV drugs)
> and get acclimated to increasing danger, and then die.

A few get shot while sitting in their bedrooms watching TV. Should
they not sit in their bedrooms? Or, maybe the TV is the risk factor??

>> All in all, we'd much prefer the rain to come at a slower rate:
>> "Don't rush yourself; take two or three hours to drain the clouds!"
>> Perhaps not as "exciting" but also a helluvalot less anxiety!
>
> We got the inches-per-hour storms in New Orleans, warm rain you could
> walk in, lots of lightning. San Francisco is wimpy, a little cold rain
> in the winter, none at all in the summer, and we don't see any
> lightning most years. Some fraction of our precipitation is from fog.

Our soil doesn't absorb water (caliche). And, we have no "storm sewers";
water just flows down the street. So, rainfall that comes too quickly
leaves us with standing water (in yards) and rushing water in streets.
(last week's storm left us with 6-8 inches of standing water across the
back yard for most of the day; a few inches more and the mitigations I'd
put in place to protect the house would come under question)

It has become cliche that we will always see news stories of idiots
who got swept away in their 2 ton vehicles because they thought
they could cross a 6" deep stream or rapidly flowing water!

(i.e., if the water can displace a vehicle, I don't think I want
to risk wading across it!)

> When I moved here and rented a flat, I noticed that there were no
> screens and no a/c. Thought I was going to die.

On 7/10/2021 11:19 AM, Don Y wrote:

> Beyond the physical aspects, what are the psychological aspects of these
> limitations?

By way of UNEXPECTED example (i.e., you could THINK about this for
months and likely never come to this realization!):

Interviewing a blind gentleman, many years ago, he made the observation
that any device should:
- not LOOK blind (his comment that so many products for the blind
rely on COTS enclosures -- to reduce development costs do to the
smaller market -- and those enclosures are notoriously "boring";
"Make it look sexxy!" (??))
- not have any deeply textured surfaces -- because skin oils and
dirt accumulate in those deep crevasses and make the device
"look gross" to sighted companions ("Don't you CLEAN that thing??")
Without sight, he'd have no easy way of determining that his
device looked pretty grungy!

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 11:19:49 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 7/10/2021 9:31 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:50:33 -0700, Don Y
>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/10/2021 8:44 AM, John Robertson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/07/10 12:37 a.m., whit3rd wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fun. We always enjoy a good storm.
>>>>>
>>>>> The folk in New Orleans in August of 2005 cannot say that.
>>>>> Ditto the NOLA residents in August of 2017.
>>>>
>>>> Toronto was hit by Hurricane Hazel in 1954, what is your point? Other than bad
>>>> weather happens from time to time.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that not everyone "always enjoys a good storm"?
>>
>> No, many people and many dogs are terrified by lightning and thunder.
>> People are different.
>
>I don't know any people who cringe from thunder or lightning.
>
>I've been in a home that was struck by lightning ("magnetized"
>the CRT, blew out the phone line).
>
>And, in a home where the lightning struck a tree 20 ft from where
>I was sitting. Aside from the "Shit!--I-felt-the-thunderclap-
>*before*-the-flash!" reaction, neither incident had much
>effect on me.
>
>OTOH, when I see a 30 ft tree "dancing" (at the base!) in the
>wind, I start thinking about contingencies to handle the case
>of it toppling WHILE I am watching it (cuz its too late to
>cut it down, now!)
>
>>> We often have "intense" storms, here, during Monsoon (e.g., an inch of
>>> *horizontal* rain per hour). They are exciting to watch. But, also
>>> lead to high levels of anxiety: *Which* trees will topple? Which
>>> directions will they fall? Will the pooling water come up to the
>>> front door? Will anyone lose their roof/solar panels? How many
>>> vehicles will be swept away in running waters?
>>
>> Anxiety levels are probably wired into people at birth. In a not very
>> dangerous world, fear more often keeps people from doing (or
>> designing) good things. "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
>
>I don't see how you think this is a "not very dangerous world". 1 in
>~2000 of the *world's* population died in the past 18 months. From a
>disease that didn't exist 19 months ago.
>
>And, despite that experience, we have no better protection from another
>such event happening.

Life spans have doubled in developed countries in the last 100 years.

Covid had a small effect on that. If you believe the numbers, it
killed under 0.2% of the US population, mostly old people.

The 1665 plague killed 15% of the population of London. Bodies were
piled in the streets

And we have vaccines, and are getting better at rolling them out fast.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 7/10/2021 1:27 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

>>> Anxiety levels are probably wired into people at birth. In a not very
>>> dangerous world, fear more often keeps people from doing (or
>>> designing) good things. "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
>>
>> I don't see how you think this is a "not very dangerous world". 1 in
>> ~2000 of the *world's* population died in the past 18 months. From a
>> disease that didn't exist 19 months ago.
>>
>> And, despite that experience, we have no better protection from another
>> such event happening.
>
> Life spans have doubled in developed countries in the last 100 years.

I guess that's wonderful -- if you live in a "developed country"!
Not so much if you don't!

> Covid had a small effect on that. If you believe the numbers, it
> killed under 0.2% of the US population, mostly old people.

And what has been the total cost (not just economic, psychological,
etc. but "long term")? How many people died (or will die) because
they couldn't get preventative care? Or, necessary treatments/surgeries?

How does this experience ensure that the NEXT "problem" won't wipe out
The Young, instead? (e.g., because they may have had no prior
exposure to something that The Old had)

Is the world "safer" as a result of this experience?

> The 1665 plague killed 15% of the population of London. Bodies were
> piled in the streets
>
> And we have vaccines, and are getting better at rolling them out fast.

Though not, apparently, in getting people to TAKE them.

A vaccine that never leaves the syringe is about as useful as
a condom that has never been taken from its wrapper.

Again, how has this made things "safer"?

100 years ago, a cut might lead to a fatal infection. Not so, today...
unless, of course, you've ever seen a MRSA infection (which gives a
whole new spin on "tissue necrosis").

100 years ago (no, 40 years ago), you wouldn't worry about someone
stealing your savings -- let alone your "identity". Now, it's
likely happening as we speak.

And, while you can THINK you have taken measures to protect yourself,
there's no way to ASSURE yourself that this is the case (e.g., 0-day
exploits are plentiful and always lagging the bad actors).

"Safety" is an illusion that folks who are afraid of reality wrap
themselves in to reassure themselves that things aren't "bad"

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:46:24 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 7/10/2021 1:27 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>>>> Anxiety levels are probably wired into people at birth. In a not very
>>>> dangerous world, fear more often keeps people from doing (or
>>>> designing) good things. "What would you do if you weren't afraid?"
>>>
>>> I don't see how you think this is a "not very dangerous world". 1 in
>>> ~2000 of the *world's* population died in the past 18 months. From a
>>> disease that didn't exist 19 months ago.
>>>
>>> And, despite that experience, we have no better protection from another
>>> such event happening.
>>
>> Life spans have doubled in developed countries in the last 100 years.
>
>I guess that's wonderful -- if you live in a "developed country"!
>Not so much if you don't!

Things are getting better all over the world, except a few places
where crazy people are in charge.

>
>> Covid had a small effect on that. If you believe the numbers, it
>> killed under 0.2% of the US population, mostly old people.
>
>And what has been the total cost (not just economic, psychological,
>etc. but "long term")? How many people died (or will die) because
>they couldn't get preventative care? Or, necessary treatments/surgeries?

Not many compared to 15%.

>
>How does this experience ensure that the NEXT "problem" won't wipe out
>The Young, instead? (e.g., because they may have had no prior
>exposure to something that The Old had)
>
>Is the world "safer" as a result of this experience?
>
>> The 1665 plague killed 15% of the population of London. Bodies were
>> piled in the streets
>>
>> And we have vaccines, and are getting better at rolling them out fast.
>
>Though not, apparently, in getting people to TAKE them.

Covid is almost gone in the US. Not everyone has to take them to get R
below 1.

>
>A vaccine that never leaves the syringe is about as useful as
>a condom that has never been taken from its wrapper.
>
>Again, how has this made things "safer"?
>
>100 years ago, a cut might lead to a fatal infection. Not so, today...
>unless, of course, you've ever seen a MRSA infection (which gives a
>whole new spin on "tissue necrosis").
>
>100 years ago (no, 40 years ago), you wouldn't worry about someone
>stealing your savings -- let alone your "identity". Now, it's
>likely happening as we speak.
>
>And, while you can THINK you have taken measures to protect yourself,
>there's no way to ASSURE yourself that this is the case (e.g., 0-day
>exploits are plentiful and always lagging the bad actors).
>
>"Safety" is an illusion that folks who are afraid of reality wrap
>themselves in to reassure themselves that things aren't "bad"

Fear is a disease that paralyzes people, and makes them stop thinking.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 7/10/2021 2:16 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

>> "Safety" is an illusion that folks who are afraid of reality wrap
>> themselves in to reassure themselves that things aren't "bad"
>
> Fear is a disease that paralyzes people, and makes them stop thinking.

Where is all this FEAR you complain about? My god, you must
live in PussyHeaven!

I don't see anyone "hunkering down", "not living".

I *do* see people taking precautions that they wouldn't have, prior to
the pandemic.

I also saw people "taking precautions" when it came to havign sexual
encounters after HIV/AIDS came on the scene. I honestly can't recall
*anyone* cutting off their privates out of fear of getting infected!

You should get out and live a little -- instead of hunkering down with
your keyboard. You'd be surprised how many people are doing just
fine adapting to the new threat assessment!

I spent two hours, yesterday, watching three guys apply stucco to new
construction. None of us wore masks.

But, then again, none of us warmly *embraced* each other!

Last week, spent some time chatting with the crew that were remodeling
a neighbor's kitchen. Again, no hugging!

The week before, chatting with my neighbor on my front porch. Then,
surrounded by the paramedics who came when he collapsed.

The week before *that*, a few hours getting some welding assistance from
a friend.

It must be really shitty for you living amongst all that fear!

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 2:16:32 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Things are getting better all over the world, except a few places
> where crazy people are in charge.

Our lives depend on the whole ecologies we live in. It's vitally
important that there be insects, for instance

"If honey bees went extinct, human society would follow in four years" - Albert Einstein

.... and some of the best fishing in the world is getting better because... we've
closed a few reserve areas, to nurse new generations of the fishies.
That success story is an example of 'hands-off' management, after
intervention with nets and fishfinder technology proved disastrous.

Can we do this for the land life, before we lose biodiversity and perhaps,
even, honey bees and human society?

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:27:44 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 7/10/2021 2:16 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>>> "Safety" is an illusion that folks who are afraid of reality wrap
>>> themselves in to reassure themselves that things aren't "bad"
>>
>> Fear is a disease that paralyzes people, and makes them stop thinking.
>
>Where is all this FEAR you complain about? My god, you must
>live in PussyHeaven!

I personally know four people who are sufficiently terrified of the
virus that it seriously changed their lives. One wouldn't go out or
see friends; one is psychotic about sanitizing everything and keeps
buying big weird air purifiers, a couple per room.

One compulsively grabs and puts on his mask if anyone starts to enter
the room.

I've seen people on the street panic if someone without a mask walks
by on the other side, outdoors in the fresh air. I see masked people
driving alone.

Less often nowadays.

>
>I don't see anyone "hunkering down", "not living".
>
>I *do* see people taking precautions that they wouldn't have, prior to
>the pandemic.
>
>I also saw people "taking precautions" when it came to havign sexual
>encounters after HIV/AIDS came on the scene. I honestly can't recall
>*anyone* cutting off their privates out of fear of getting infected!
>
>You should get out and live a little -- instead of hunkering down with
>your keyboard. You'd be surprised how many people are doing just
>fine adapting to the new threat assessment!

I see most people outdoors are now un-masked. Safeway no longer
requires masks and less than half the shoppers wear one now. Nobody
seems to mask in bars, at least the ones I drink in.

Even Fred has moved back to the terrors of Climate Change.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 19:11:33 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 2:16:32 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>
>> Things are getting better all over the world, except a few places
>> where crazy people are in charge.
>
>Our lives depend on the whole ecologies we live in. It's vitally
>important that there be insects, for instance
>
>"If honey bees went extinct, human society would follow in four years" - Albert Einstein

Makes no sense. Lots of plants don't need honey bees. Fish sure don't.

Honey bees weren't even native to North America, and lots of human
societies lived here before they were imported.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.