Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #736904
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: Gone awfully quiet! |
| Date | 2025-10-18 17:45 +1100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10cvd2f$1k69e$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <7nmseklj5uunrtgro4duaabveolru591gk@4ax.com> <10co62u$3lp1f$1@dont-email.me> <abcvektpj20d8gi34se9lgn7ufsc03oa45@4ax.com> <10cq1qb$6bgj$2@dont-email.me> <e9a2fk9tb30puagpsdo1mqqcq0q2o89k9c@4ax.com> |
On 17/10/2025 4:19 am, john larkin wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 17:02:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > wrote: > >> On 16/10/2025 1:48 am, john larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:03:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/10/2025 1:16 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 16:43:22 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14/10/2025 3:01 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 07:41:58 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 20:10:43 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's impressive that a human brain only needs about a hundred watts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is woefully slow. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At some things. Not at others. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some very impressive things can happen in milliseconds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John Larkin is easily impressed by his own brilliance, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am impressed by my brain, the one I was born with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think our brains are a lot different from the ones our >>>>>>> ancestors had 5,000, or 50,000 years ago. So why did evolution make >>>>>>> them/us able to do calculus and design electronics and program in >>>>>>> Rust? >>>>>> >>>>>> Chomsky thinks that our capacity to use language to communicate depends >>>>>> on fairly recent tweaks to our brains. Human language is a more >>>>>> complicated communication system than anything else we've looked at, and >>>>>> presumably this lets us move to a higher level of abstraction than our >>>>>> competitors. When we got to be able to talk about mathematics we'd got >>>>>> into a more productive region than any other creature we know. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's assumed that, since brains are such energy hogs, critters don't >>>>>>> evolve much more brain than they really need. And most don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if there's an ecological niche that a big brain can exploit, brains >>>>>> will get bigger. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Humans benefit from making fire and making weapons, but those wouldn't >>>>>>> need the ability to do abstract math. >>>>>> >>>>>> They got a lot more from cooperative hunting and defense. Dunbar's >>>>>> number is 150 which means that we live in bigger packs than most social >>>>>> mammals. Language lets us coordinate even bigger groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some people don't like that, and Trump does seem freeze out experts who >>>>>> don't know him well enough to be aware of his need for flattery. >>>>> >>>>> You were starting to have a sensible discussion. >>>> >>>> Sensible of what? I'm well aware that you think that the sun shines out >>>> of Donald Trump's bottom, but that's mainly because he's an worse >>>> egomaniac than you are. Your idea of a "sensible discussion" is one that >>>> isn't dismissive of your favourite misconceptions, and you do have a lot >>>> of them. >>> >>> Sorry, my mistake, you weren't starting to have a sensble discussion. >>> >>> TDS is a weird disease. >> >> Trump derangement syndrome has been invented by Trump supporters as an >> insult to be used against people who have enough sense to realise that >> Donald Trump is a menace. >> >>> It must be frustrating. >> >> It certainly is. Trump supporters do seem to be blind to his defects. >> >>> Designing electronics is much more amusing. >> >> Retreating into your ivory tower may well be comforting, but when you >> have got somebody who is as silly as Hitler and Stalin were in charge of >> the country, ivory towers are vulnerable >> >> <snipped self-indulgence> > > Trump count 4. You've got a problem - along with a lot of other Americans. If we can get you to recognise it, you may be able to make it go away before it starts doing serious damage to the US economy and the lives of America's citizens. RFK's aversion to vaccines is damaging some American lives right now. Making US health care even more expensive is going to damage others. Tariffs are at tax on consumption, and thus regressive. The list goes on. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Gone awfully quiet! Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> - 2025-10-05 17:54 +0100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-05 10:42 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2025-10-05 21:49 +0000
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-05 14:59 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> - 2025-10-07 10:54 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> - 2025-10-07 20:42 +0200
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-09 15:16 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> - 2025-10-05 22:58 +0100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2025-10-14 22:24 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-15 07:33 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2025-10-15 14:27 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2025-10-17 09:21 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2025-10-17 15:12 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2025-10-17 13:40 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-05 15:42 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-05 17:28 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-05 15:06 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-05 18:29 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! bitrex <user@example.net> - 2025-10-06 02:08 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-05 19:24 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-05 20:01 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-06 15:04 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-06 14:21 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-06 17:38 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-06 23:49 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-06 21:11 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-10-11 13:02 +0100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-11 09:56 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-11 10:06 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-12 22:31 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-12 10:25 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-13 03:01 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-12 12:35 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-13 18:51 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-13 12:26 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-14 17:17 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 10:02 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-15 03:23 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-14 14:02 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-15 17:10 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-15 11:27 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-16 16:52 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-14 07:13 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2025-10-14 17:33 +0200
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-14 09:26 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-15 17:41 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! bitrex <user@example.net> - 2025-10-18 12:43 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-18 11:25 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-19 18:02 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-19 07:52 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-20 18:06 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! bitrex <user@example.net> - 2025-10-18 12:46 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-15 03:38 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-12 10:13 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-13 20:10 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-13 07:41 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-13 09:01 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-14 16:43 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-14 07:16 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-16 00:03 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-15 07:48 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-16 17:02 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-16 10:19 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-18 17:45 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-18 07:46 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! bitrex <user@example.net> - 2025-10-18 16:39 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-18 13:49 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! bitrex <user@example.net> - 2025-10-18 17:23 -0400
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-19 10:34 +0100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-19 07:57 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-20 03:56 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Cursitor Doom <cd6699@notformail.com> - 2025-10-26 09:27 +0000
Re: Gone awfully quiet! liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-26 11:24 +0000
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-14 03:53 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-13 19:29 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-14 16:27 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-10-11 00:36 +0200
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2025-10-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> - 2025-10-05 22:42 +0100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-06 16:53 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-06 16:24 +1100
Re: Gone awfully quiet! john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2025-10-06 08:06 -0700
Re: Gone awfully quiet! Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2025-10-07 15:46 +1100
csiph-web