On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:10:49 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> >> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this..
> >>
> >> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
> >>
> >
> >He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
> >agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
> >sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
> >of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
> >feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
> >so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>
> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
> clucking.

John Larkin doesn't post "objective content". He posts tribal opinion of a rather primitive sort. He's not exactly well-informed, so he may have an inflated idea of the value of his contributions. He doesn't respond to informed criticism - the idea that he might be wrong is not one that he is capable of entertaining, so people expressing opinions that he doesn't want to pay attention to are expressing opinions that may be no more informative to him than hens clucking.

The problem isn't in what is being said, but his in his incapacity to listen to anything except fulsome flattery.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 12/2/2021 3:22 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>
>>
>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>> took!
>>
>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>
> "Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be looking at
> some actual sample to be a microscopist.
>
> O tempora, O mores. :(

I'm not interested in the *use*, rather trying to wrap my head around
the number of operations involved to tackle the problem. It brings
the issue of "optimization" to a whole new level"!

Early in my career, I'd tweek solutions to fit in less resources
than they (apparently) needed. Because resources cost recurring
dollars.

Now, I piss away fetches as if they were free, preferring, instead,
to focus on what I'm trying to do and not trying to pinch pennies.
But, then again, hardware is dirt cheap, nowadays. No more
$300 for 12KB of EPROM! :> ("EPROM"? What's that??)

OTOH, when I first started cataloging my disks, I wrote a shell
script (same "concentrate on goal, not economy" mindset). *That*
quickly proved itself to be folly (think hundreds of millions of
files and many times that in terms of fork-exec's!)

OToOH, there's no one waiting for cycles on my machines so...

On 12/4/2021 14:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>>>>>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>>>>>>> took!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>>>>>> masks while operating.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theatre?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>>>>>
>>>>> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
>>>>> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
>>>>> infectious contamination."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>>>>>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
>>>> So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around
>>>> when talking by a factor of about 10 does protect other people
>>>> from the infections you are carrying.
>>>> Obviously you *do* know that, you manage a lot more complex
>>>> tasks in your work than what it takes to see this.
>>>
>>> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.
>>>
>>> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
>>>
>>
>> He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
>> agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
>> sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
>> of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
>> feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
>> so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>
> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
> clucking.
>
>
>

So stop clucking.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:tjmmqglehfe9a07ekbtb510gfrs3v8g41e@4ax.com:

> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
> clucking.
>
>

Post some. Didn't see it.

Declaring that "droplets got deprecated" doesn't cut it as valid
objective content.

Calling you and the crap you post stupid is valid objective content.

I've got nine inches of hen cluck to go up in your clucktard ass
with.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 12/4/2021 14:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
>>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>>>>>>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>>>>>>>> took!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>>>>>>> masks while operating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theatre?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
>>>>>> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
>>>>>> infectious contamination."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>>>>>>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
>>>>> So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around
>>>>> when talking by a factor of about 10 does protect other people
>>>>> from the infections you are carrying.
>>>>> Obviously you *do* know that, you manage a lot more complex
>>>>> tasks in your work than what it takes to see this.
>>>>
>>>> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.
>>>>
>>>> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
>>>>
>>>
>>> He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
>>> agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
>>> sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
>>> of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
>>> feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
>>> so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>>
>> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
>> clucking.
>>
>>
>>
>
>So stop clucking.

The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me. You
are one experimental case.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:22:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Don Y wrote:
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>
>>
>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>> more than a day to build.  Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>> took!
>>
>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>
>"Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be
>looking at some actual sample to be a microscopist.
>
>O tempora, O mores. :(
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Folded proteins are hard to sketch looking into a microscope. Tricks
are required.

Folding turns out to be a big problem in biology. A cosmic problem.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On 04/12/21 10:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:07:23 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/21 23:20, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:16:17 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/12/21 21:42, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:00:42 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 22:47, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <sodt2i$c3r$1@dont-email.me>, dp@tgi-sci.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
>>>>>>>> I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
>>>>>>>> for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
>>>>>>>> Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
>>>>>>>> *know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consensus is often wrong. Look at California and the consensus about
>>>>>>> the $ 1000 crime limit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of examples indeed. Not so long ago there was a
>>>>>> consensus the Earth was flat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course there are obvious things one can check for themselves,
>>>>>> like the amount of saliva they spread while talking while they
>>>>>> wear a mask and when they don't, no need to look for consensus
>>>>>> on that. Like there is no need to look for it for the question
>>>>>> whether it is day or night, a look through the window is usually
>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the most-masked, most-vaccinated countries are now having
>>>>> record case peaks. Germany, Netherlands, Belgium.
>>>>>
>>>>> Florida is relaxing a lot of restrictions, and cases have dropped
>>>>> about 15:1 from peak... 1 death yesterday out of 22 million. UK, with
>>>>> three times the population, had 143.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Belgium and the Netherlands have half the case rate of the UK.
>>>> (Germany has higher).
>>>>
>>>> The UK has the lowest death rate, but it is tricky to compare
>>>> those figures due to the different counting methods. The only
>>>> reliable figure in that respect is the excess mortality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The causalities here are not at all obvious. That does not stop
>>>>> politicians and "experts" from pontificating all day.
>>>>
>>>> Nor non-experts. Especially those that cherry pick data
>>>> to suit their predilection (hint hint)
>>>>
>>>
>>> One can define unwelcome or unpopular data as cherry picking. I like
>>> to consider those things as "possibilities."
>>>
>>> Or always Trust The Science.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Cherrypicking and confusing 2x with x/2 are antithetical to science.
>
> Covid cases here have decreased by 140%.

That's one of my bête noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.

Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".

On 12/4/2021 17:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2021 14:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>>>>>>>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>>>>>>>>> took!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>>>>>>>> masks while operating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theatre?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
>>>>>>> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
>>>>>>> infectious contamination."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>>>>>>>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
>>>>>> So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around
>>>>>> when talking by a factor of about 10 does protect other people
>>>>>> from the infections you are carrying.
>>>>>> Obviously you *do* know that, you manage a lot more complex
>>>>>> tasks in your work than what it takes to see this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
>>>> agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
>>>> sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
>>>> of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
>>>> feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
>>>> so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>>>
>>> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
>>> clucking.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So stop clucking.
>
> The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me. You
> are one experimental case.
>
>
>

Your clucking around the subject of masks is a study of... whatever.
OK then.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 18:33:15 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 12/4/2021 17:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/4/2021 14:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>>>>>>>>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>>>>>>>>>> took!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>>>>>>>>> masks while operating.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theatre?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
>>>>>>>> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
>>>>>>>> infectious contamination."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>>>>>>>>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
>>>>>>> So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around
>>>>>>> when talking by a factor of about 10 does protect other people
>>>>>>> from the infections you are carrying.
>>>>>>> Obviously you *do* know that, you manage a lot more complex
>>>>>>> tasks in your work than what it takes to see this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
>>>>> agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
>>>>> sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
>>>>> of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
>>>>> feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
>>>>> so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>>>>
>>>> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
>>>> clucking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So stop clucking.
>>
>> The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me. You
>> are one experimental case.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Your clucking around the subject of masks is a study of... whatever.
>OK then.

As regards design creativity, you might try inventing your own
insults.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On 12/4/2021 19:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 18:33:15 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2021 17:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/4/2021 14:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>>>>>>>>>>> took!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>>>>>>>>>> masks while operating.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Theatre?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
>>>>>>>>> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
>>>>>>>>> infectious contamination."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>>>>>>>>>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
>>>>>>>> So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around
>>>>>>>> when talking by a factor of about 10 does protect other people
>>>>>>>> from the infections you are carrying.
>>>>>>>> Obviously you *do* know that, you manage a lot more complex
>>>>>>>> tasks in your work than what it takes to see this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
>>>>>> agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
>>>>>> sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
>>>>>> of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
>>>>>> feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
>>>>>> so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
>>>>> clucking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So stop clucking.
>>>
>>> The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me. You
>>> are one experimental case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your clucking around the subject of masks is a study of... whatever.
>> OK then.
>
> As regards design creativity, you might try inventing your own
> insults.
>
>
>

I do not need to insult other people so I'll just put in use the
several millennia old expression you want to have invented when you
call for it, don't be so tight.

Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 04/12/21 10:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:07:23 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/12/21 23:20, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:16:17 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/12/21 21:42, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:00:42 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 22:47, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <sodt2i$c3r$1@dont-email.me>, dp@tgi-sci.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
>>>>>>>>> I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
>>>>>>>>> for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
>>>>>>>>> Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
>>>>>>>>> *know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consensus is often wrong.  Look at California and the consensus
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the $ 1000 crime limit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are plenty of examples indeed. Not so long ago there was a
>>>>>>> consensus the Earth was flat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course there are obvious things one can check for themselves,
>>>>>>> like the amount of saliva they spread while talking while they
>>>>>>> wear a mask and when they don't, no need to look for consensus
>>>>>>> on that. Like there is no need to look for it for the question
>>>>>>> whether it is day or night, a look through the window is usually
>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the most-masked, most-vaccinated countries are now having
>>>>>> record case peaks. Germany, Netherlands, Belgium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Florida is relaxing a lot of restrictions, and cases have dropped
>>>>>> about 15:1 from peak... 1 death yesterday out of 22 million. UK, with
>>>>>> three times the population, had 143.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Belgium and the Netherlands have half the case rate of the UK.
>>>>> (Germany has higher).
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK has the lowest death rate, but it is tricky to compare
>>>>> those figures due to the different counting methods. The only
>>>>> reliable figure in that respect is the excess mortality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The causalities here are not at all obvious. That does not stop
>>>>>> politicians and "experts" from pontificating all day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor non-experts. Especially those that cherry pick data
>>>>> to suit their predilection (hint hint)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One can define unwelcome or unpopular data as cherry picking. I like
>>>> to consider those things as "possibilities."
>>>>
>>>> Or always Trust The Science.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Cherrypicking and confusing 2x with x/2 are antithetical to science.
>>
>> Covid cases here have decreased by 140%.
>
> That's one of my bête noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.
>
> Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
> Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".

Nah. Things go down by orders of magnitude all the time. "Decreased by
a factor of 3" is perfectly OK, and is generally easier for folks to
understand than "decreased by 67%".

It's percentages where journies get into real trouble.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:31:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 04/12/21 10:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:07:23 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/12/21 23:20, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:16:17 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/12/21 21:42, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:00:42 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 22:47, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <sodt2i$c3r$1@dont-email.me>, dp@tgi-sci.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
>>>>>>>>>> I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
>>>>>>>>>> for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
>>>>>>>>>> Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
>>>>>>>>>> *know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Consensus is often wrong.  Look at California and the consensus
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> the $ 1000 crime limit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are plenty of examples indeed. Not so long ago there was a
>>>>>>>> consensus the Earth was flat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course there are obvious things one can check for themselves,
>>>>>>>> like the amount of saliva they spread while talking while they
>>>>>>>> wear a mask and when they don't, no need to look for consensus
>>>>>>>> on that. Like there is no need to look for it for the question
>>>>>>>> whether it is day or night, a look through the window is usually
>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of the most-masked, most-vaccinated countries are now having
>>>>>>> record case peaks. Germany, Netherlands, Belgium.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Florida is relaxing a lot of restrictions, and cases have dropped
>>>>>>> about 15:1 from peak... 1 death yesterday out of 22 million. UK, with
>>>>>>> three times the population, had 143.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Belgium and the Netherlands have half the case rate of the UK.
>>>>>> (Germany has higher).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK has the lowest death rate, but it is tricky to compare
>>>>>> those figures due to the different counting methods. The only
>>>>>> reliable figure in that respect is the excess mortality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The causalities here are not at all obvious. That does not stop
>>>>>>> politicians and "experts" from pontificating all day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor non-experts. Especially those that cherry pick data
>>>>>> to suit their predilection (hint hint)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One can define unwelcome or unpopular data as cherry picking. I like
>>>>> to consider those things as "possibilities."
>>>>>
>>>>> Or always Trust The Science.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Cherrypicking and confusing 2x with x/2 are antithetical to science.
>>>
>>> Covid cases here have decreased by 140%.
>>
>> That's one of my bête noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.
>>
>> Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
>> Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".
>
>Nah. Things go down by orders of magnitude all the time. "Decreased by
>a factor of 3" is perfectly OK, and is generally easier for folks to
>understand than "decreased by 67%".
>
>It's percentages where journies get into real trouble.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

And rates vs amounts. And millions vs billions.

What does "it increased by 200% mean" ? 2x? 3x?

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:22:18 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 20:00:30 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> >>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?

> >> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
> >> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
> >> infectious contamination."

Substantial evidence relevant to a surgical theater? Not applicable to
masking of the general population against COVID. Don't generalize
too far, it's like extrapolation: often invalid.

> >>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
> >>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
> >>
> >> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
> >
> >So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around ,,,

> If masks trapped droplets and sterilized them on the spot, they might
> help a little. Of course, they don't.

No, that 'if' clause is grotesquely incorrect. Masks can stop some droplets, and
sterilize/degrade/bind-to would be nice additions, but inessential to
the basic function: lower transmission probability of an airborne pathogen.

The facts we DO need to make a decision, are: can one avoid spreading
or inhaling some COVID pathogen by wearing a mask? Answer: clearly yes. And,
can one survive mask-wearing better than survive COVID-spread events? Answer, again,
clearly yes.

It's a probabilistic situation, and absolute requirements, like "sterilize them" ,
are inapplicable.

Also inapplicable, are childish 'what happens to the virus next' questions. The
humans are the threatened ones, ask what happens to the PERSONS, if you care about
your species.

On 04/12/21 20:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:31:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 04/12/21 10:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:07:23 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/12/21 23:20, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:16:17 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/12/21 21:42, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:00:42 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 22:47, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <sodt2i$c3r$1@dont-email.me>, dp@tgi-sci.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>> I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
>>>>>>>>>>> for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
>>>>>>>>>>> *know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Consensus is often wrong.  Look at California and the consensus
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> the $ 1000 crime limit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of examples indeed. Not so long ago there was a
>>>>>>>>> consensus the Earth was flat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course there are obvious things one can check for themselves,
>>>>>>>>> like the amount of saliva they spread while talking while they
>>>>>>>>> wear a mask and when they don't, no need to look for consensus
>>>>>>>>> on that. Like there is no need to look for it for the question
>>>>>>>>> whether it is day or night, a look through the window is usually
>>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of the most-masked, most-vaccinated countries are now having
>>>>>>>> record case peaks. Germany, Netherlands, Belgium.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Florida is relaxing a lot of restrictions, and cases have dropped
>>>>>>>> about 15:1 from peak... 1 death yesterday out of 22 million. UK, with
>>>>>>>> three times the population, had 143.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Belgium and the Netherlands have half the case rate of the UK.
>>>>>>> (Germany has higher).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The UK has the lowest death rate, but it is tricky to compare
>>>>>>> those figures due to the different counting methods. The only
>>>>>>> reliable figure in that respect is the excess mortality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The causalities here are not at all obvious. That does not stop
>>>>>>>> politicians and "experts" from pontificating all day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor non-experts. Especially those that cherry pick data
>>>>>>> to suit their predilection (hint hint)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can define unwelcome or unpopular data as cherry picking. I like
>>>>>> to consider those things as "possibilities."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or always Trust The Science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cherrypicking and confusing 2x with x/2 are antithetical to science.
>>>>
>>>> Covid cases here have decreased by 140%.
>>>
>>> That's one of my bête noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.
>>>
>>> Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
>>> Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".
>>
>> Nah. Things go down by orders of magnitude all the time. "Decreased by
>> a factor of 3" is perfectly OK, and is generally easier for folks to
>> understand than "decreased by 67%".

Some folks avoided 1/3lb hamburgers, since they would obviously
get less meat than with a quarter pounder.

Some folks complained about not winning a (scratchcard?) gambling
prize, because they couldn't comprehend that -6 was less than -4.

Should all comms try to take account of such innumeracy?

>> It's percentages where journies get into real trouble.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> And rates vs amounts. And millions vs billions.
>
> What does "it increased by 200% mean" ? 2x? 3x?

The answer is clearcut and unambiguous.

But where journalists are involved, there is a lingering doubt :(

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:54:28 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:22:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >Don Y wrote:
> >> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
> >>
> >>
> >> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
> >> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
> >> took!
> >>
> >> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
> >
> >"Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be
> >looking at some actual sample to be a microscopist.
> >
> >O tempora, O mores. :(
>
> Folded proteins are hard to sketch looking into a microscope. Tricks are required.

You don't do protein folding with a microscope - you use X-ray diffraction, which is a total swine.
> Folding turns out to be a big problem in biology. A cosmic problem.

It was, but artificial intelligence has made it a much more manageable problem - a whole lot less "cosmic" that it was last year.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02025-4

The Nature paper got quite a lot of publicity, but apparently not in the media that John Larkin reads. It does seem to be quite a significant step forward.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:50:17 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>wrote:
> >On 12/4/2021 14:10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me.

But only to the extent that you can use it to make insults. You don't know anything like enough about science to know how the scientific community reacts to new information and new ideas. The community as a whole does determine what is accepted as plausible, but the opinions of the best informed carry more weight because they are known to be have been well-informed in the past.

> You are one experimental case.

As if John Larkin would know what that might mean.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney