Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447305 > unrolled thread

experts aren't

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 10:59 -0800
    Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-11 19:14 +0000
      Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 11:28 -0800
        Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:07 -0500
          Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 18:53 -0500
        Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-11 15:08 -0800
          Re: experts aren't djlocher56@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 14:21 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:16 -0800
          Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 17:20 -0800
            Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 12:50 +0000
            Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 13:51 +0000
              Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-13 08:25 -0800
                Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 17:16 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800
        Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0000
        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 16:49 -0800
        Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 17:19 -0800
    Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-11 17:39 -0500
      Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 16:36 -0800
        Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 12:27 -0500
          Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 10:52 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
          Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 19:28 +0000
            Re: experts aren't Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-12 11:44 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:05 -0500
              Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:25 -0800
                Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:39 -0800
            Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:23 -0800
        Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 12:40 -0500
    Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:59 +0000
      Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:17 -0500
      Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 18:54 -0500
        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:05 -0800
        Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 17:09 -0800
          Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:33 -0500
          Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 18:32 -0800
          Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:50 -0800
          Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:11 -0500
            Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:22 -0500
            Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:32 -0800
              Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:44 -0500
                Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:47 -0500
                  Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 13:11 -0800
                    Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 16:34 -0500
                Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 17:10 -0800
              Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:57 -0800
      Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 16:58 -0800
        Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:36 +0000
          Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 08:36 -0800
            Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 19:44 +0000
              Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:38 -0800
                Re: experts aren't Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:43 +0000
                  Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 19:24 -0500
                    Re: experts aren't Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-13 00:53 +0000
                      Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 20:18 -0500
                  Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 17:27 -0800
                  Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:28 -0800
                Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:26 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:29 -0800
          Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 17:43 -0800
    Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:02 -0500
    Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 16:43 -0800
    Re: experts aren't Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-11 21:42 -0800
      Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 04:19 -0800
        Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 04:45 -0800
          Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:44 +0000
            Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:16 -0800
              Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:42 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:39 -0800
          Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:02 -0800
            Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:38 -0800
          Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 18:54 -0800
            Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:45 -0800
              Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:52 -0800
    Re: experts aren't bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 00:13 -0800
      Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 04:23 -0800
    Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 03:56 -0800
      Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 04:33 -0800
        Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 04:46 -0800
          Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:49 -0800
            Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:41 -0800
              Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:55 -0800
                Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 01:13 -0800
                  Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 03:21 -0800
                    Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-14 22:22 +0000
                      Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-14 14:48 -0800
                        Re: experts aren't George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-14 17:09 -0800
                        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 19:22 -0800
                      Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:56 -0800
                        Re: experts aren't John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 18:05 +0000
                      Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 19:21 -0800
                      Re: experts aren't "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 21:41 -0500
                        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 19:05 -0800
    Re: experts aren't Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 10:40 +0000
      Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 03:42 -0800
        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 04:14 -0800
          Re: experts aren't jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-15 08:56 -0800
            Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 10:35 -0800
              Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-15 10:46 -0800
                Re: experts aren't George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-15 11:38 -0800
                Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 12:18 -0800
                  Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 15:51 -0800
                    Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 16:26 -0800
              Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-15 20:59 -0500
                Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 20:01 -0800
            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 15:43 -0800
              Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 16:38 -0800
                Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 19:38 -0800
                  Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:25 +0000
                    Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-17 21:47 -0800
                      Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:49 +0000
                        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 05:13 -0800
                          Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-18 22:39 +0000
                            Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 18:12 -0800
                        Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-18 11:43 -0800
                          Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:52 -0800
              Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:17 +0000
                Re: experts aren't M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-18 16:46 -0500
                Re: experts aren't Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-19 05:35 +0000
                  Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-19 02:15 -0800
                    Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 03:28 -0800
                      Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-19 03:31 -0800
                        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 09:23 -0800
                  Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-20 00:31 +0000
                    Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 17:31 -0800
          Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 13:43 -0800
      Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-14 07:08 -0800
        Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 20:07 -0800

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#447439

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 02/11/2017 07:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:39:18 -0500, bitrex
>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/11/2017 01:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/
>>>>
>>>> This aligns with the Black Swan concept
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486838879&sr=8-2&keywords=black+swan
>>>>
>>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>>>>
>>>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would the non-John Larkin expert who's ever right about anything please
>>> stand up?
>>
>> When designing things, I try to assume that I'm wrong as much as
>> possible. The alternatitive is to invent some klunky architecture and
>> shift asap into implememtation mode. Many people dislike uncertainty,
>> so get the creative phase over as soon as they can. We like to wallow
>> in confusion for a while at the start of a project.
>>
>> We have a 10-layer board that's almost done, and it just ocurred to us
>> - duh - that an octal DAC and some traces and resistors could really
>> open up possibilities. I've got to go in on Monday and tell the layout
>> guy.
>
>I told my girlfriend (an English major) "You know, it's good to have 
>people around who are willing to criticize and poke holes in the things 
>you think are good. That's how you get better at stuff..."
>
>She said "Well, I guess that's understandable. So long as the criticisms 
>are constructive and it's not all hostile n stuff..."

Group dynamics is really important here. People can brainstorm well,
and design well, if everyone stays cheerful. I have a tendency to
sometimes reject good ideas, and later figure out that they are good.
I have to fight that.

>
>And I'm like "Heh, heh heh, ha ha ha ha ha ha aahh."
>
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>>
>>> Well. Glad that's settled
>>
>> You should read the book. The guy thinks all over the place and is
>> very funny.
>>
>> This is typical:
>>
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Black_Swan_1.JPG
>>
>> The book is full of great observations.
>>
>>
>
>Is it as packed-full of stereotypes as that page is? Because that page 
>is...really packed full of a lot of stereotypes.

But reasonably accurate.

Since that paragraph is about stereotypes, of course it's a
stereotype. That guy is heavy into recursion.

There is a funny video circulating, where a person-of-color verbally
and physically attacks a white boy for wearing dreadlocks, cultural
appropriation. The attacker is speaking English, in a university dorm,
wearing jeans and running shoes and likely panties and a bra, probably
vaccinated and such, probably eats off plates with forks and knives,
all cultural appropriation.

>
>"Assign them to those happy to be paid by the hour" ah, maybe "happy to 
>not starve by being paid by the hour" would be a more honest assessment.

There is some value to not starving. Developed countries used to go to
Japan for cheap labor. Now China is getting too expensive. Using cheap
labor to build stuff feeds people and teaches them things, and then
they are not so cheap. One more virtuous cycle of Capitalism.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447491

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:52:51 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 02/11/2017 07:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:39:18 -0500, bitrex
> >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 02/11/2017 01:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/
> >>>>
> >>>> This aligns with the Black Swan concept
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486838879&sr=8-2&keywords=black+swan
> >>>>
> >>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
> >>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
> >>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
> >>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
> >>>>
> >>>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to
> >>>> work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Would the non-John Larkin expert who's ever right about anything please
> >>> stand up?
> >>
> >> When designing things, I try to assume that I'm wrong as much as
> >> possible. The alternatitive is to invent some klunky architecture and
> >> shift asap into implememtation mode. Many people dislike uncertainty,
> >> so get the creative phase over as soon as they can. We like to wallow
> >> in confusion for a while at the start of a project.
> >>
> >> We have a 10-layer board that's almost done, and it just ocurred to us
> >> - duh - that an octal DAC and some traces and resistors could really
> >> open up possibilities. I've got to go in on Monday and tell the layout
> >> guy.
> >
> >I told my girlfriend (an English major) "You know, it's good to have 
> >people around who are willing to criticize and poke holes in the things 
> >you think are good. That's how you get better at stuff..."
> >
> >She said "Well, I guess that's understandable. So long as the criticisms 
> >are constructive and it's not all hostile n stuff..."
> 
> Group dynamics is really important here. People can brainstorm well,
> and design well, if everyone stays cheerful. I have a tendency to
> sometimes reject good ideas, and later figure out that they are good.
> I have to fight that.

John's attitude to climate change does suggest that he doesn't fight nearly hard or often enough.

<snip>
 
> There is some value to not starving. Developed countries used to go to
> Japan for cheap labor. Now China is getting too expensive. Using cheap
> labor to build stuff feeds people and teaches them things, and then
> they are not so cheap. One more virtuous cycle of Capitalism.

Doing the cheap labour doesn't teach anybody anything. Japan and China have both used the extra productivity that western production technique make possible to invest a lot in education.

Thatcher in the UK famously pointed to Singapore as getting rich from cheap labour, completely missing the point that Singapore was using the money it made out of selling cheap labour to educated up the work force to do more profitable labour.

She also complained that UK workers were less productive than German workers, which provoked an economist to rework the productivity statistics to include the capital invested per worker. It turned out that where a UK employer had invested as much capital as the German counter-part, the UK worker was more productive.

This didn't mean all that much - the British only invested heavily in productivity aids when there was a lot of money to be made, so they were cherry-picking - but it did expose the shallowness of Thatcher's thinking.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447442

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex wrote:

> I told my girlfriend 

I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in 
passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality 
(or lack thereof) into question. :-D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447443

Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 20.30.09 UTC+1 skrev Cursitor Doom:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex wrote:
> 
> > I told my girlfriend 
> 
> I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in 
> passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality 
> (or lack thereof) into question. :-D

https://youtu.be/ecr27Q_L9l8 ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447445

On 02/12/2017 02:28 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex wrote:
>
>> I told my girlfriend
>
> I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in
> passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality
> (or lack thereof) into question. :-D
>

Doesn't "gay" mean happy? Most gay people I know seem pretty happy.

Maybe if you weren't so angry, you could be happy, too! Because you 
can't be happy when you're angry. Sort of the anti-happy, if you will.

Please meditate carefully on these words of wisdom...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447451

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:05:15 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 02/12/2017 02:28 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex wrote:
>>
>>> I told my girlfriend
>>
>> I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in
>> passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality
>> (or lack thereof) into question. :-D
>>
>
>Doesn't "gay" mean happy? Most gay people I know seem pretty happy.

Yes, and happier than most lesbians, for some reason.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447492

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:25:53 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:05:15 -0500, bitrex
> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 02/12/2017 02:28 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex wrote:
> >>
> >>> I told my girlfriend
> >>
> >> I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in
> >> passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality
> >> (or lack thereof) into question. :-D
> >>
> >
> >Doesn't "gay" mean happy? Most gay people I know seem pretty happy.
> 
> Yes, and happier than most lesbians, for some reason.

Aren't lesbians just as gay as male homosexuals?

Admittedly LGBTIQ - lesbian,gay, bisexual, transvestite, intersex and queer - does differentiate between gay and lesbian, but also throws in queer, so it is probably more into duplication for completeness.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447450

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:28:16 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:27:51 -0500, bitrex wrote:
>
>> I told my girlfriend 
>
>I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in 
>passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality 
>(or lack thereof) into question. :-D

I bet you wish you had a girlfriend. Or boyfriend.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447429

On 02/11/2017 07:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:

> You should read the book. The guy thinks all over the place and is
> very funny.
>
> This is typical:
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Black_Swan_1.JPG
>
> The book is full of great observations.

It seems like a lot of rationalizations to the effect of "Yes, we don't 
make stuff anymore because the rest of the world is better at that, but 
we still sure have the best ideas, yes indeedy!"

Except I don't see a lot of evidence that being the "I don't know how to 
code but I want to be the ideas guy I've got some great ideas for a 
video game" person who turns up for an interview with Electronic Arts is 
going to get us very far, either. The rest of the world is plenty 
creative, and at the end of the day sheer creativity don't pay the 
bills, and the Third World is going to get fed up with cranking out 
Nikes sooner or later.

America: not really exceptional at anything anymore, except perhaps 
patting ourselves on the back and telling ourselves that it is so.

Maybe China will be able to save us from ourselves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447323

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.

For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate 
predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong, 
especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they 
have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with 
their old nonsense again and again and again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447328

On 2/11/2017 5:59 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>
> For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate
> predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong,
> especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they
> have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with
> their old nonsense again and again and again.

If they are usually wrong, that's as good as being usually right, but as 
a contrarian indicator.  You can make a lot of money in the stock market 
when the correlation coefficient is negative.  As long as it's not zero. 
  :)

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447338

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>
>For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate 
>predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong, 
>especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they 
>have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with 
>their old nonsense again and again and again.

Kinda like climatologists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447348

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:27 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
> >> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
> >> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
> >> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
> >
> >For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate 
> >predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong, 
> >especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they 
> >have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with 
> >their old nonsense again and again and again.
> 
> Kinda like climatologists.

Sure. Climatologists have to cope with denialist propaganda, which is paid for by people who want to keep on making money out of digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel.

Economists who know what they are talking about - and can smooth out booms and busts - have to deal with fat cats with a vested interest in seeing the economy go bust from time to time, who subsidise economists whose silly ideas lead to these convenient (and - for the fat cats - profitable) disasters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

There's no kind of fake expert that somebody can't make money out of. John Larkin simply isn't well-enough informed to know when he is being conned.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447349

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:54:01 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
><curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>>
>>For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate 
>>predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong, 
>>especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they 
>>have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with 
>>their old nonsense again and again and again.
>
>Kinda like climatologists.

Yes. Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted. Chaos can be
overall, like in high turbulent fluid flow, but it can also manifest
as quiet stretches with occasional extreme events.

Expert groupthink freezes out progress and lets stresses build up,
until something snaps.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447351

On 2/11/2017 8:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:54:01 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>>>
>>> For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate
>>> predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong,
>>> especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they
>>> have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with
>>> their old nonsense again and again and again.
>>
>> Kinda like climatologists.
>
> Yes. Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted. Chaos can be
> overall, like in high turbulent fluid flow, but it can also manifest
> as quiet stretches with occasional extreme events.
>
> Expert groupthink freezes out progress and lets stresses build up,
> until something snaps.

Interesting how John's theory is exactly the subject of itself.  He has 
formed an opinion based on limited observations with a total inability 
to experiment.  How long before his theory is shown to be BS?  Is there 
a way to calculate a half life?  Something like an LD50 maybe?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447362

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:09:36 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:54:01 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> ><curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
> >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
> >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
> >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
> >>
> >>For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate 
> >>predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong, 
> >>especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they 
> >>have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with 
> >>their old nonsense again and again and again.
> >
> >Kinda like climatologists.
> 
> Yes. Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted. 

We keep telling John Larkin that the solar system is non-linear and chaotic, and that any prediction over a longer span than 10 million years isn't going to be too reliable. He doesn't get the message,

> Chaos can be overall, like in high turbulent fluid flow, but it can also 
> manifest as quiet stretches with occasional extreme events.
> 
> Expert groupthink freezes out progress and lets stresses build up,
> until something snaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

says something slightly different. Old experts have a particular set of ideas, which more or less work. The rising generation comes up with a bunch of different ideas, some of which more or less work, and sometimes some of them work better than the old ideas. String theory doesn't seem to work that well, but loop quantum gravity doesn't yet seem to be well enough worked out to be demonstrable nonsense.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447372

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 5:09:36 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

> . Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted. Chaos can be...

Not true, of course; one can confidently predict conservation of energy
and nondecrease of entropy.    Don't be scared by chaos, the mind is
a capable tool, and lots of things make more sense after a nice nap...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447448

On 02/11/2017 08:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:54:01 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>>>
>>> For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate
>>> predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong,
>>> especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they
>>> have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with
>>> their old nonsense again and again and again.
>>
>> Kinda like climatologists.
>
> Yes. Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted. Chaos can be
> overall, like in high turbulent fluid flow, but it can also manifest
> as quiet stretches with occasional extreme events.

Yeah I had no idea it was going to snow all this weekend, it took me 
completely by surprise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447449

On 02/12/2017 03:11 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 02/11/2017 08:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:54:01 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>>>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>>>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>>>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>>>>
>>>> For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate
>>>> predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong,
>>>> especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they
>>>> have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away
>>>> with
>>>> their old nonsense again and again and again.
>>>
>>> Kinda like climatologists.
>>
>> Yes. Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted.

sort of a tautological statement, yeah? That's the definition of a 
chaotic system - it's highly sensitive to initial conditions and can't 
be predicted exactly at any given t from now to infinity from initial 
conditions in the fashion that you would say an LC circuit.

It's certainly wrong to say that a system being "chaotic" means that 
you're just left mathematically hanging, and can say absolutely nothing 
at all about its time-evolution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447452

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:11:54 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 02/11/2017 08:09 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:54:01 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:59:56 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:59:57 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare
>>>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts
>>>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average
>>>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger.
>>>>
>>>> For sure economists are notorious for making totally inaccurate
>>>> predictions; financial pundits in general are, in fact usually wrong,
>>>> especially the further out they're attempting to see. The joke is they
>>>> have the chutzpah to assume no one will notice and they can get away with
>>>> their old nonsense again and again and again.
>>>
>>> Kinda like climatologists.
>>
>> Yes. Nonlinear, chaotic systems can't be predicted. Chaos can be
>> overall, like in high turbulent fluid flow, but it can also manifest
>> as quiet stretches with occasional extreme events.
>
>Yeah I had no idea it was going to snow all this weekend, it took me 
>completely by surprise.
>
>

The Black Swan guy has mostly contempt for Gaussian distributions, and
the quants who rely on same to predict stuff. All the fun, and
terrible, things are wild outliers.

I had no idea we'd see the sun this weekend! Gives me another shot at
fixing that leak. I just patched a hole in the side of the house with
copperclad FR4.



-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web