Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447305 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-11 10:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-14 20:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sO3oA.4087$kK.660@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #447452 |
On 02/12/2017 03:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: > 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. From the summary it does seem like the kind of book climate change "skeptics" would glom onto. "It's all too complicated! We just can't predict anything. Stuff just happens. Experts don't know what they're talking about." Meanwhile the virtues of the Invisible Hand of the Market are treated like some fashion of God-given axiom. I mean, I didn't read it written anywhere. What does Nature care about markets? Did it work in the past? Will it still work in the future? Is past performance indicative of future results? It's all very complicated. Who can say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <OR3oA.41363$1w1.854@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #447454 |
On 02/12/2017 03:44 PM, bitrex wrote: > On 02/12/2017 03:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> 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. > > From the summary it does seem like the kind of book climate change > "skeptics" would glom onto. "It's all too complicated! We just can't > predict anything. Stuff just happens. Experts don't know what they're > talking about." > > Meanwhile the virtues of the Invisible Hand of the Market are treated > like some fashion of God-given axiom. I mean, I didn't read it written > anywhere. What does Nature care about markets? Did it work in the past? > Will it still work in the future? Is past performance indicative of > future results? > > It's all very complicated. Who can say. > > If neoliberal economists could ever present as much evidence that the "invisible hand" operates the way they say it does as there is for the impact of greenhouse gases, the entire world would hire Alan Greenspan as their economic adviser tomorrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 13:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5dj1ac12b53pbmtja94a2ecas8ah1nabh6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447455 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:47:42 -0500, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 02/12/2017 03:44 PM, bitrex wrote: >> On 02/12/2017 03:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> 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. >> >> From the summary it does seem like the kind of book climate change >> "skeptics" would glom onto. "It's all too complicated! We just can't >> predict anything. Stuff just happens. Experts don't know what they're >> talking about." >> >> Meanwhile the virtues of the Invisible Hand of the Market are treated >> like some fashion of God-given axiom. I mean, I didn't read it written >> anywhere. What does Nature care about markets? Did it work in the past? >> Will it still work in the future? Is past performance indicative of >> future results? >> >> It's all very complicated. Who can say. >> >> > >If neoliberal economists could ever present as much evidence that the >"invisible hand" operates the way they say it does as there is for the >impact of greenhouse gases, the entire world would hire Alan Greenspan >as their economic adviser tomorrow. Some chaotic systems are beyond our influence, so we can just observe them and be surprised by what happens. But economic and social systems are driven by our group expectations, so we *are* the chaos. That's why we keep having booms and busts and silly dance moves and diets. People might observe gradients, on the theory that nature eventually exploits available energy sources, so some Black Swan events - but not their specific triggers - can be roughly predicted. That's my idea, not his. But I haven't finished the book. The invisible hand works in microeconomics, but few economists are interested in microeconomics. The big fame and money are in macro. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gx4oA.16498$Le.14386@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #447456 |
On 02/12/2017 04:11 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:47:42 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On 02/12/2017 03:44 PM, bitrex wrote: >>> On 02/12/2017 03:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> From the summary it does seem like the kind of book climate change >>> "skeptics" would glom onto. "It's all too complicated! We just can't >>> predict anything. Stuff just happens. Experts don't know what they're >>> talking about." >>> >>> Meanwhile the virtues of the Invisible Hand of the Market are treated >>> like some fashion of God-given axiom. I mean, I didn't read it written >>> anywhere. What does Nature care about markets? Did it work in the past? >>> Will it still work in the future? Is past performance indicative of >>> future results? >>> >>> It's all very complicated. Who can say. >>> >>> >> >> If neoliberal economists could ever present as much evidence that the >> "invisible hand" operates the way they say it does as there is for the >> impact of greenhouse gases, the entire world would hire Alan Greenspan >> as their economic adviser tomorrow. > > Some chaotic systems are beyond our influence, so we can just observe > them and be surprised by what happens. But economic and social systems > are driven by our group expectations, so we *are* the chaos. > > That's why we keep having booms and busts and silly dance moves and > diets. People might observe gradients, on the theory that nature > eventually exploits available energy sources, so some Black Swan > events - but not their specific triggers - can be roughly predicted. I can't say about booms and busts, but when it comes to fad diets and silly dance moves I think part of it is just that people need something to do. Fad diets might give you the feeling that you are doing something to (hopefully) improve your health, when the reality is that so many factors are completely out of your control. I think humans have a problem with routine and sameness, and that there's a natural tendency to feel when things are just going along, maybe not wonderful, but certainly not bad, that this is an indicator that SOMETHING is wrong or going to be wrong soon, and that something has to change, even trying to effect things that are finally beyond one's control. "We want change! We don't know what we want to change, but we definitely want it!" The unfortunate irony is that three of the biggest things I consider to be the greatest threats to humanity's long term survival - nuclear proliferation, comets and asteroids, and CO2 emissions, are at this point in our technological evolution 100% under our control. In the grand scheme of things making ourselves safe from them wouldn't even require that much sacrifice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 17:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <faab2048-7cb3-44a6-a72a-4564d1fa3256@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447454 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:44:11 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote: > On 02/12/2017 03:32 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > 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. Not exactly, though there is a lively market for misleading nonsense in both fields. The fossil fuel extraction industry can make money out of lying about climate science, and cashed up capitalists can make money out of economists whose lies bring on depressions. > >>> 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. > > From the summary it does seem like the kind of book climate change > "skeptics" would glom onto. "It's all too complicated! We just can't > predict anything. Stuff just happens. Experts don't know what they're > talking about." Nassim Nicholas Taleb doesn't regard Black Swans as completely unpredictable, and boasts about making money by getting good odds on events that ended up happening often enough to make him money, even though the quants hadn't expected them. > Meanwhile the virtues of the Invisible Hand of the Market are treated > like some fashion of God-given axiom. I mean, I didn't read it written > anywhere. What does Nature care about markets? Did it work in the past? > Will it still work in the future? Is past performance indicative of > future results? Adam Smith was less confident about the Invisible Hand of the Market than most of his followers. He saw the need for anti-trust legislation quite a bit earlier than 1895 - he died in 1790. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/420123-people-of-the-same-trade-seldom-meet-together-even-for > It's all very complicated. Who can say. Nassim Nicholas Taleb says quite a bit more than John Larkin seems able to understand. -- Bill Sloman, Syndey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa3565eb-69a8-4d1b-a0cc-ffe16bf5f2e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447452 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:32:12 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > 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 don't think that Nassim Nicholas Taleb has any kind of contempt for Gaussian distributions. He is contemptuous of people who think that only one process is in operation in any one context. When I had a slipped disk - many years ago - it took six weeks of bed rest to get it right, which was longer than usual, and I said to my doctor "Am I the tail of the Gaussian distribution, or part of some other distribution?". The point about Black Swans is that many of them are caused by different kinds of processes than are visible in day-to-day fluctuations. Unimaginative quants think that what happens every day is the only thing that is happening and get a terrible shock when the GFC hits the fan. People panicking and running around like headless chickens is not business as usual. > > 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. Copper sheathing is popular for expensive buildings. A 35 micron layer (one ounce copper) isn't all that thick. Cooper corrodes at the rate of 2 micron a year in rural atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_in_architecture -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 16:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3958d2e2-9743-4264-bbc2-031d9e7ecec5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447323 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:01:48 AM UTC+11, 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. Cursitor Doom hasn't noticed that there are lot of different financial experts making lots of different predictions. Obviously, some of them are always wrong some of the time. As a Mail reader, Cursitor Doom won't have had the pleasure of reading Will Hutton in the Guardian in the 1980's, where Thatcher's tame monetarists in the Treasury kept on making predictions that looked silly to the Keynesians at Oxbridge, and Hutton had fun contrasting the Treasury predictions with the Keynesian forecasts, and even more fun writing an "I told you so piece" six months later. The real problem with economics is that the fats cats thrive on boom and bust, and love economists who claim that this is natural and unavoidable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7pvel$1r7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447345 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > Cursitor Doom hasn't noticed that there are lot of different financial > experts making lots of different predictions. Obviously, some of them > are always wrong some of the time. It wouldn't be that bad, but for the fact that so many of the "Ken Rogoff level" forecasters are totally beholden to the likes of George Soros and will simply spout whatever rubbish they're paid (very well indeed) to spout. Prime recent examples being the dire consequences of a Brexit vote that never came to fruition and the equally dire consequences of electing Trump in the US. In both cases we were warned massive world-wide recession would result within days or weeks; some even predicted nuclear Armageddon. Of course it was all garbage intended to frighten voters into compliance with the wouldbe world controllers. > As a Mail reader, Cursitor Doom won't have had the pleasure of reading > Will Hutton in the Guardian in the 1980's, where Thatcher's tame > monetarists in the Treasury kept on making predictions that looked silly > to the Keynesians at Oxbridge, and Hutton had fun contrasting the > Treasury predictions with the Keynesian forecasts, and even more fun > writing an "I told you so piece" six months later. I don't read either of these worthless rags, you idiot. I used to take the FT only for years and years and years until it went downhill a while back and now I read *nothing* from the MSM at all. I consider myself very much better informed as a result. > The real problem with economics is that the fats cats thrive on boom and > bust, and love economists who claim that this is natural and > unavoidable. That much at least is true. My news client has taken you out of my KF on the basis that it thinks you are now rehabilitated and should be given another chance. I've seen very little here that causes me to agree with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <td31acl4cn2na9oblf1pv4uim669ijuvgv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447407 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > >> Cursitor Doom hasn't noticed that there are lot of different financial >> experts making lots of different predictions. Obviously, some of them >> are always wrong some of the time. > >It wouldn't be that bad, but for the fact that so many of the "Ken Rogoff >level" forecasters are totally beholden to the likes of George Soros and >will simply spout whatever rubbish they're paid (very well indeed) to >spout. Prime recent examples being the dire consequences of a Brexit vote >that never came to fruition and the equally dire consequences of electing >Trump in the US. In both cases we were warned massive world-wide >recession would result within days or weeks; some even predicted nuclear >Armageddon. Of course it was all garbage intended to frighten voters into >compliance with the wouldbe world controllers. > >> As a Mail reader, Cursitor Doom won't have had the pleasure of reading >> Will Hutton in the Guardian in the 1980's, where Thatcher's tame >> monetarists in the Treasury kept on making predictions that looked silly >> to the Keynesians at Oxbridge, and Hutton had fun contrasting the >> Treasury predictions with the Keynesian forecasts, and even more fun >> writing an "I told you so piece" six months later. > >I don't read either of these worthless rags, you idiot. I used to take >the FT only for years and years and years until it went downhill a while >back and now I read *nothing* from the MSM at all. I consider myself very >much better informed as a result. That is one, of very many, points that Taleb makes in his book: reading newspapers can make you less informed. Today's San Francisco Chronicle is atrocious. > >> The real problem with economics is that the fats cats thrive on boom and >> bust, and love economists who claim that this is natural and >> unavoidable. > >That much at least is true. >My news client has taken you out of my KF on the basis that it thinks you >are now rehabilitated and should be given another chance. I've seen very >little here that causes me to agree with that. Sloman is increasingly ossified in his ritual third-person insult mode, with rare but repeated references to unsuccessful 1970's electronic designs. Refresh that killfile entry. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7qduo$tmj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447417 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:36:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > That is one, of very many, points that Taleb makes in his book: reading > newspapers can make you less informed. Today's San Francisco Chronicle > is atrocious. Likewise with the (London) Times and the Wall Street Journal. Wonderfully informative, impartial and serious newspapers deserving of great respect and authority - until Murdoch got hold of them, that is. There doesn't seem to be anything he won't turn into a populist, lower-class mouthpiece for himself and his business interests. > Sloman is increasingly ossified in his ritual third-person insult mode, > with rare but repeated references to unsuccessful 1970's electronic > designs. Refresh that killfile entry. Wise counsel I'm sure. But just out of curiosity as to how long it will take, I'm going to wait until he writes something outrageously unpalatable. I'm guessing I won't have to wait very long. At all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 12:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ekh1ac59vnkus33qv9muu8s5nego79avrv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447444 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:44:24 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:36:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > >> That is one, of very many, points that Taleb makes in his book: reading >> newspapers can make you less informed. Today's San Francisco Chronicle >> is atrocious. > >Likewise with the (London) Times and the Wall Street Journal. Wonderfully >informative, impartial and serious newspapers deserving of great respect >and authority - until Murdoch got hold of them, that is. There doesn't >seem to be anything he won't turn into a populist, lower-class mouthpiece >for himself and his business interests. It's not just Murdoch papers that have gone off the journalism rails. The big-city papers, the NY Times and LA Times and Wash Post, are all Trump, all the time, every section, just rants and insults and shrieking. Robert Reich used to be a loony leftist, but now he's a nasty ranter who makes no sense. Hey, journalism is dead. Lefty colleges and the Internet together killed it. > >> Sloman is increasingly ossified in his ritual third-person insult mode, >> with rare but repeated references to unsuccessful 1970's electronic >> designs. Refresh that killfile entry. > >Wise counsel I'm sure. But just out of curiosity as to how long it will >take, I'm going to wait until he writes something outrageously >unpalatable. I'm guessing I won't have to wait very long. At all. No, he is too dull to be properly outrageous, and he hasn't done anything new in a decade or so. He just drones on. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7qrv1$gok$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447453 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:38:55 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > Hey, journalism is dead. Lefty colleges and the Internet together killed > it. We got two principal epicenters of Commie indoctrination here - Berkley in the West and Columbia in the East. Between the pair of them theyve done a lot of damage. Both need nuking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r2v1ac56355e8cri2el64hp9ultjqrf6sv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447479 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:43:29 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:38:55 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > >> Hey, journalism is dead. Lefty colleges and the Internet together killed >> it. > >We got two principal epicenters of Commie indoctrination here - Berkley >in the West and Columbia in the East. Between the pair of them theyve >done a lot of damage. Both need nuking. If you think they're the only two, your education is sorely lacking. The whole lot needs nuking (a good start would be to eliminate public funding).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 00:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7r01f$gok$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447489 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:24:09 -0500, krw wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:43:29 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes > <jb9889@notformail.com> wrote: >>We got two principal epicenters of Commie indoctrination here - Berkley >>in the West and Columbia in the East. Between the pair of them theyve >>done a lot of damage. Both need nuking. > > If you think they're the only two, your education is sorely lacking. The > whole lot needs nuking (a good start would be to eliminate public > funding). If you think I wrote above there are only two, *your* education is sorely lacking my friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 20:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5b22ac9006t867iiviln4q7vriuf1a7dfv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447494 |
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:53:03 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:24:09 -0500, krw wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:43:29 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes >> <jb9889@notformail.com> wrote: > >>>We got two principal epicenters of Commie indoctrination here - Berkley >>>in the West and Columbia in the East. Between the pair of them theyve >>>done a lot of damage. Both need nuking. >> >> If you think they're the only two, your education is sorely lacking. The >> whole lot needs nuking (a good start would be to eliminate public >> funding). > >If you think I wrote above there are only two, *your* education is sorely >lacking my friend. Then why did you say there are two?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 17:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <on22ac135n466ebq2gd4ujfg6beaoacmnq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447479 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 23:43:29 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:38:55 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > >> Hey, journalism is dead. Lefty colleges and the Internet together killed >> it. > >We got two principal epicenters of Commie indoctrination here - Berkley >in the West and Columbia in the East. Between the pair of them theyve >done a lot of damage. Both need nuking. Oh, leave them alone. It makes it easier for me to sort out intern and engineer applications; I'll get my people from among the College Republicans, the ones that can think. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 18:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <326d72be-2258-4ece-9b03-a13a00423cd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447479 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:45:21 AM UTC+11, Julian Barnes wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:38:55 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > > > Hey, journalism is dead. Lefty colleges and the Internet together killed > > it. > > We got two principal epicenters of Commie indoctrination here - Berkley > in the West and Columbia in the East. Between the pair of them they've > done a lot of damage. Both need nuking. Clearly not enough damage. Julian Barnes hasn't been nuked yet. Although he's more creative fiction than journalism. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 18:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7dcc1e6d-97bc-4f49-9427-49455fd0d3a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447453 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:39:06 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:44:24 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom > <curd@notformail.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:36:25 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > > > >> That is one, of very many, points that Taleb makes in his book: reading > >> newspapers can make you less informed. Today's San Francisco Chronicle > >> is atrocious. > > > >Likewise with the (London) Times and the Wall Street Journal. Wonderfully > >informative, impartial and serious newspapers deserving of great respect > >and authority - until Murdoch got hold of them, that is. There doesn't > >seem to be anything he won't turn into a populist, lower-class mouthpiece > >for himself and his business interests. > > It's not just Murdoch papers that have gone off the journalism rails. > The big-city papers, the NY Times and LA Times and Wash Post, are all > Trump, all the time, every section, just rants and insults and > shrieking. Robert Reich used to be a loony leftist, but now he's a > nasty ranter who makes no sense. > > Hey, journalism is dead. Lefty colleges and the Internet together > killed it. It's not dead, but the classified advertisements that paid for high quality journalism have migrated to the web, and journalism has become rather like piano-playing - if you are good enough to make into the top 150 with international name recognition you can make real money at it, and everybody else has to find a day job. The New Yorker cost enough and sells well enough that it can support amazingly good journalism (but there's not enough of that to fill every issue). <snipped ossified insult> > >Wise counsel I'm sure. But just out of curiosity as to how long it will > >take, I'm going to wait until he writes something outrageously > >unpalatable. I'm guessing I won't have to wait very long. At all. > > No, he is too dull to be properly outrageous, and he hasn't done > anything new in a decade or so. He just drones on. John Larkin lacks the wit to recognise novelty. He certainly seems to lack the wit to recognise what Nassim Nicholas Taleb is actually saying in "The Black Swan". -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 18:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf8cb619-bd4d-4151-af42-5416f3683af1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447417 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:36:33 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom > <curd@notformail.com> wrote: > > >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > >> Cursitor Doom hasn't noticed that there are lot of different financial > >> experts making lots of different predictions. Obviously, some of them > >> are always wrong some of the time. > > > >It wouldn't be that bad, but for the fact that so many of the "Ken Rogoff > >level" forecasters are totally beholden to the likes of George Soros and > >will simply spout whatever rubbish they're paid (very well indeed) to > >spout. Prime recent examples being the dire consequences of a Brexit vote > >that never came to fruition and the equally dire consequences of electing > >Trump in the US. In both cases we were warned massive world-wide > >recession would result within days or weeks; some even predicted nuclear > >Armageddon. Of course it was all garbage intended to frighten voters into > >compliance with the wouldbe world controllers. > > > >> As a Mail reader, Cursitor Doom won't have had the pleasure of reading > >> Will Hutton in the Guardian in the 1980's, where Thatcher's tame > >> monetarists in the Treasury kept on making predictions that looked silly > >> to the Keynesians at Oxbridge, and Hutton had fun contrasting the > >> Treasury predictions with the Keynesian forecasts, and even more fun > >> writing an "I told you so piece" six months later. > > > >I don't read either of these worthless rags, you idiot. I used to take > >the FT only for years and years and years until it went downhill a while > >back and now I read *nothing* from the MSM at all. I consider myself very > >much better informed as a result. > > That is one, of very many, points that Taleb makes in his book: > reading newspapers can make you less informed. Today's San Francisco > Chronicle is atrocious. It's still owned by the Hearst family, rather than Rupert Murdoch. John Larkin has been trained to believe everything he reads in the Murdoch media, and he gags on stuff that doesn't match his regular diet of familiar misinformation. > >> The real problem with economics is that the fats cats thrive on boom and > >> bust, and love economists who claim that this is natural and > >> unavoidable. > > > >That much at least is true. > >My news client has taken you out of my KF on the basis that it thinks you > >are now rehabilitated and should be given another chance. I've seen very > >little here that causes me to agree with that. > > Sloman is increasingly ossified in his ritual third-person insult > mode, with rare but repeated references to unsuccessful 1970's > electronic designs. John Larkin doesn't like being shown up as an ignorant egomaniac. My only bit of electronic design to make it (17 citations) in the peer-reviewed instrument literature was done in 1993, and got published in 1996. One of the elements of the published circuit was one that I'd thought up around 1975, but never had a chance to put into practice until I could get my hands on programmable logic. Since it worked when I finally could try it, it probably counts as a successful 1970's design. >Refresh that killfile entry. Sure. Cursitor Doom doesn't need to be reminded of John Larkin's pratfalls, amusing as they can be. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 17:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7e2cfd07-1c92-4d9e-8633-e2b8b34d4d86@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447407 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:38:45 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:58:21 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > Cursitor Doom hasn't noticed that there are lot of different financial > > experts making lots of different predictions. Obviously, some of them > > are always wrong some of the time. > > It wouldn't be that bad, but for the fact that so many of the "Ken Rogoff > level" forecasters are totally beholden to the likes of George Soros and > will simply spout whatever rubbish they're paid (very well indeed) to > spout. Ken Rogoff is actually a respectable economist and George Soros is fond of economists who talk sense. The Mail is less than enthusiastic about anybody who isn't a right wing lunatic, and Cursitor Doom shares their delusions. > Prime recent examples being the dire consequences of a Brexit vote > that never came to fruition They haven't had a chance to. Theresa May has only just got into a position when she can start negotiating the exit, and bring on the dire consequences. > and the equally dire consequences of electing Trump in the US. Trump has already shot himself in the foot with an executive order stopping everybody from seven specific countries from getting into the US even if they had been vetted by getting a visa. Obama had already banned visa waivers for all the countries involved ( and a few more, with which Trump happens to have business dealings). This is such an obvious nonsense that the US courts have been willing to block it. Trump has already demonstrated that he's a half-wit. The risk the he will do something that is not only spectacularly stupid but also disastrous has not gone away. Cursitor Doom lacks the imagination to conjure up a disaster scenario, which is a bit odd, since Trump now controls the US mutually assured destruction mechanism. A man who can believe that he got a bigger crowd for his inauguration than Obama did can probably believe that the Russians or the Chinese have launched their missiles, even when none of them are showing up on early warning radar. I'm an optimist, and believe that White House staff has got a team of psychiatrists on tap, so that two area always ready to certify Trump as a lunatic at a moment's notice, as soon as he tries to do anything really silly, but that may be over-optimistic. > In both cases we were warned massive world-wide > recession would result within days or weeks; some even predicted nuclear > Armageddon. Of course it was all garbage intended to frighten voters into > compliance with the would-be world controllers. Only in the Mail. Newspapers that cater to saner readers were more circumspect. > > As a Mail reader, Cursitor Doom won't have had the pleasure of reading > > Will Hutton in the Guardian in the 1980's, where Thatcher's tame > > monetarists in the Treasury kept on making predictions that looked silly > > to the Keynesians at Oxbridge, and Hutton had fun contrasting the > > Treasury predictions with the Keynesian forecasts, and even more fun > > writing an "I told you so piece" six months later. > > I don't read either of these worthless rags, you idiot. Cursitor Doom is the kind if idiot who thinks like that. > I used to take > the FT only for years and years and years until it went downhill a while > back and now I read *nothing* from the MSM at all. I consider myself very > much better informed as a result. Of course you do. If you considered yourself even marginally better informed you'd have to be persuaded that you weren't Trump, or God or Napoleon, or whoever it is that florid nutters imagine themselves to be these days. > > The real problem with economics is that the fats cats thrive on boom and > > bust, and love economists who claim that this is natural and > > unavoidable. > > That much at least is true. Cursitor Doom won't swallow the corollary, which is that there are economists around who know what they are talking about, and are helping politicians steer the economy away from both booms and busts. > My news client has taken you out of my KF on the basis that it thinks you > are now rehabilitated and should be given another chance. I've seen very > little here that causes me to agree with that. Of course not. I don't share you fatuous delusions. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web