Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Get Out

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Testy Calibrate

1
Whoops. That was supposed to be an eta in my last post.
Dave still won't read it even though you spoon-fed it to him, but I appreciated it.
Yeah. I know he won't read it. Even if he did read it, he wouldn't understand it because it concerns ideas outside the field defined by his blinkers.
2
It would indeed be sickening if what was being parroted was not true. But how do you know it's not?
we don't, in the same way as we don't know that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars.
I see. So you think it's just as unlikely that a powerful leader would try to abuse the system to keep his own party in power as it is that a teapot would be orbiting Mars?

You are a special kind of idiot.
Dave: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

You really should Google the word epistemology some time.
If you can't explain it in 3 words, separated by periods, you are proving you don't know what it means either.

But seriously, there are so many required bits of scaffolding that Dave stands zero chance of understanding it even if he were to Google it.
3
Lol

Quote
The left-wing conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russian officials ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign continued to crash and burn Friday, with Robert Mueller's indictment showing the foreign nationals began meddling in US politics one year before Donald Trump announced his run for office.

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/collusion-collapse-mueller-says-russian-meddling-began-before-trumps-candidacy/amp/



Almost exactly a year after the above tweet: "Woman Who Helped Organize Miss Universe in 2013 Announced Trump's Presidential Run in January, 2015"

Go ahead and put your high-speed mind to work on the possible implications.
On a side note: I talk with many people from Russia and other former USSR countries at work. They often can't speak Greek and I don't speak Russian, so we discuss in English.

I've NEVER heard anyone do the pseudo-stereotypical "no articles" accent. It just doesn't occur.

Why the hell is that woman tweeting that way?
I semi-regularly interact with Russian immigrants here and I've heard it a lot from the ones with weak English.
4
Don't you know what the word "unwitting" means?
Here's my theory. The Russians chose Trump as a unwitting tool because they thought he would damage America. A lot of damage would be done by just having him run. Whatever works to have Americans fighting Americans instead of Putin is good. More damage would be done if he would win, so they tried to help make this come about. With "fake news", an army of idiots, and some bots, on social media, wannabe Nazis and some paid help from within the campaign. No collusion from Trump himself required.

America is better of without an unwitting fool as the highest public servant. He needs to go.

One thing that makes me think that he's guilty of more than being an idiot, is that he's acting very, very guilty, with the persistent efforts to obstruct justice.
Yeah. That plus there's pretty clear evidence of over a decade of money laundering of russian/satellite cash using his property business.
5
Whoops. That was supposed to be an eta in my last post.
6
Our traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience. There can in some years be more owls and fewer mice and in others, the reverse. Fish populations wax and wane as a natural condition, and insect populations can range over extremes that only logarithmic transformations can easily illustrate. Moreover, over distinct areas, during long or short periods of time, species can completely disappear and then reappear. Different and useful insight might be obtained, therefore, by viewing the behavior of ecological systems in terms of the probability of extinction of their elements, and by shifting emphasis from the equilibrium states to the conditions for persistence.
An equilibrium centered view is essentially static and provides little insight into the transient behavior of systems that are not near the equilibrium. Natural, undis-
turbed systems are likely to be continually in a transient state; they will be equally so under the influence of man. As man's numbers and economic demands increase, his use of resources shifts equilibrium states and moves populations away from equilibria. The present concerns for pollution and endangered species are specific
signals that the well-being of the world is not adequately described by concentrating on equilibria and conditions near them. Moreover, strategies based upon these two
different views of the world might well be antagonistic. It is at least conceivable that the effective and responsible effort to provide a maximum sustained yield from a fish
population or a nonfluctuating supply of water from a watershed (both equilibrium-centered views) might paradoxically increase the chance for extinctions.
~C.S. Holling
7
Individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. That is one view of the world. But another view of the world concentrates not so much on presence or absence as upon the numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of their numbers. These are two very different ways of viewing the behavior of systems and the usefulness of the view depends very much on the properties of the system concerned. If we are examining a particular device designed by the engineer to perform specific tasks under a rather narrow range of predictable external conditions, we are likely to be more concerned with consistent nonvariable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted.
A quantitative view of the behavior of the system is, therefore, essential. With attention focused upon achieving constancy, the critical events seem to be the amplitude and frequency of oscillations. But if we are dealing with a system profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of the relationships. Attention shifts, therefore, to the qualitative and to questions of existence or not.
Our traditions of analysis in theoretical and empirical ecology have been largely inherited from developments in classical physics and its applied variants. Inevitably, there has been a tendency to emphasize the quantitative rather than the qualitative, for it is important in this tradition to know not just that a quantity is larger than another quantity, but precisely how much larger. It is similarly important, if a quantity fluctuates, to know its amplitude and period of fluctuation. But this orientation may simply reflect an analytic approach developed in one area because it was
useful and then transferred to another where it may not be.
8
Now that I think about it, Dave,  you are right that there's no real reason for you to read anything I might think you would enjoy.
9
One of the big attractions of this forum for me is my fascination with people who have loads of University education saying some of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life.
I'm sure those people find their own humor in the exchange.
10
You can always tell who the idiots are because they can't explain the thing they are pretending they know a lot about.
I've got news for you:

"Bunch. Move. Rest." doesn't really explain anything.
And
Then you missed the key line.
Quote
that an ecosystem is dynamic and the implications of that are for managing natural resources (which is what a farm does).

To me, your view only works if you consider your farms as fundamentally static things. No plagues, no slow shifts, no real change whatsoever. You miss out on all the dynamics necessary in understanding ecosystems. Which is what Testy's resource apparently talks about.
Well yes.  Farms ARE fundamentally static things.  Or should be.  Massive changes that I am aware of (within the last 2000 years) are the result of man's activities, not Mother Nature's.

Yeah. Well, sure. But not holistic farms. To make a farm static, you need to overwhelm the natural systems with inputs. Whatever you do, don't read Holling.
11
I wonder what Greg thought of Dave during Dave's internship. I find it hard to believe he'd be more tolerable in person.
12
I think it's funny that Dave "work with nature not against her" is promoting his idea that would require a wholesale destruction of almost all natural ecosystems so they can be replaced with a single "ecosystem".

Oak Savannah is the master ecosystem? :D
That 7th law is a doozie.
13
People are just rage rage rage against the dying of the light.
14
Then you missed the key line.
Quote
that an ecosystem is dynamic and the implications of that are for managing natural resources (which is what a farm does).

To me, your view only works if you consider your farms as fundamentally static things. No plagues, no slow shifts, no real change whatsoever. You miss out on all the dynamics necessary in understanding ecosystems. Which is what Testy's resource apparently talks about.
Probably the most profound insight into what we had been doing wrong -and why- regarding ecosystem resource management out there. I linked it a page or 2 back. Google scholar only gave it just over 10k cites but my library access through work says more like 20k. If you Google c.s. Holling resilience you'll find it. There is an open access version out there.
15
I know you guys don't accept this but all deserts are man-made. It's true whether you want to believe it or not.
No. It's not true. And if you understood the 'system' part of the word ecosystem you'd know why that is a dumbass thing to say.
The progression of man-made destruction often starts with deforestation. Then it typically progresses to creating pasture for cattle grazing, or if the land is flat enough row crops are planted. In other places a robust grassland is exploited by agriculturalists such as what happened on the Llano estacado in the United States. That area is slowly becoming a desert and it is a direct result of mankind. This is the case in many areas all over the world.

You're such a f****** idiot that you don't know this.
Dave, I understand ecosystems as a concept. If you did, you'd know that you are talking about an amplifying feedback loop and that there are lots of those. Hence holistic management. Ecosystem management includes resilience, adaptation, and transformation. They are different responses to various dynamic behaviors of the ecosystems. What it doesn't include, at least if you are being holistic, is stable equilibrium.  It's a sad commentary that you can still miss this point when it has been explained clearly and simply to you hundreds of times. Please read the Holling article so we can at least start from a common idea. You will find it useful and it's not very long. If you won't read it, I guess that you are satisfied with your NPD chamber's soothing validation of your brilliance and your bubble is complete. I do know what you think. You don't know what anyone else thinks.

Good luck with that world saving business, btw.
If you know what I think then you should be able to explain what value Holling offers.
Easy, he explains what it means that an ecosystem is dynamic and the implications of that are for managing natural resources (which is what a farm does). That is something you are missing. Of course, you also got hung up asking someone who lives in central england and someone else who lives in Nova Scotia what plants you have growing on your property. Anyway, I do not denigrate what you do know. I denigrate you for not wanting to find out what you don't know. However, it's entirely possible that I am simply overinflating my own sense of the value of the bits I've offered you. I do note, however, that on the absolutely only occasion you've ever actually looked at something I recommended you look at, it was because one of your gurus recommended it and you got all excited about the resource you found, in that case it was Sand County Almanac which you actually still have not read beyond the excerpts you were given but is about a holistic approach to farming and ecology. I had been telling you that it would help you orient your vision for like a year before you found it yourself and announced how we all should read it. You demonstrably do not understand what holism is and it's actually really important to what you are doing. That is a stone cold fact with absolutely no shame or judgement attached. You simply don't understand what it is. I actually do. I have offered you quite a few resources to get you up to speed on that, all of which I actually know what they say and all of which were suggested because they could fill in some of your blind spots. But you refuse, asking, Why should I? The answer is because you are trying to create a holistic management system and you don't know what holistic means. That blind spot will eventually get you blindsided by a feedback loop. In a way, it's inevitable. How you manage that change, whether you choose to enhance resilience, figure out an adaptation, or shift gears to a transformation, will depend on the nature of the feedback in relation to the system you are interested in. You will have no way to evaluate those choices because you will be struggling to force stable equilibrium on a dynamic system.

Anyway, you are a moron with a seriously warped ego. But that doesn't mean I am giving bad advice. I may be wrong that you will actually benefit from my suggestions, but I do have reasons for each and every bit of reading/watching material I send your way. Usually they are straightforward overviews of topics you don't understand and could benefit from understanding because you are involved with some whatever where that particular topic is relevant. Like I said, you may not benefit from understanding. But they are always support for topics where you are weak. And, since you are busy actually trying to operate an ecosystem as a system, it might be a good idea if you learn what an ecosystem is. And since you are trying to operate according to holistic principles, maybe you would do better if you learn what holism means. "Good Idea" and "Do better" are subjective. It is, however, objective that you do not know what Alan Savory means by the word holistic and that one seems relevant.

TL;DR: you are an idiot.
You can always tell who the idiots are because they can't explain the thing they are pretending they know a lot about.  They will always give you "resources" which they themselves don't understand but they think they do but they don't and you can tell that they don't because they can't explain what's contained in these "resources."  I asked for a description of what Holling contributes and I got next to nothing. 

You do the work if you want the pony.
16
Whether interference changed the outcome of the election is basically unknowable and isn't really the most important question to be asking, especially since you'll never reach a satisfactory answer.

this isn't going to stop people from acting on the assumption that it was super effective, is my concern.

Why is that a big deal?

if this interference was effective then there is something at issue beyond diplomatic implications. the actual significant impact that this disinformation campaign had is a problem of its own that needs its own solution in that case.

one way to solve the problem would be to improve education, promote greater media literacy, and resolve some really pressing issues that cause strife so they can't easily be taken advantage of.

another way is to attempt ideological hegemony such that dissenting views are marginalized as the pawns of hostile foreign powers.

i do not have high hopes that the former is more likely to be pursued than the latter, and the latter is something i already see happening in the discourse. it's incredibly convenient for all kinds of powerful people after all.
I dunno. I think social media was designed with that flaw. It was designed to make ad revenue which is itself designed to put the audience in a strongly receptive state. It seems to me that our social media is going to have to change its structural assumptions that lead to intentionally algorithmed echo chambers and we are going to have to figure out how to disincentivize hate speech which is definitely a slippery slope because definitions but the public space amplifies it if there are even partial silos.

Lol. Who am I kidding. We can all send our thoughts and prayers to the halcyon days before the internet and go down to toys r us and buy some kid sized ar-15 magazines to protect us from the soon to be armed kindergartners who realize the power their glock gives them.
17
How do we make up for 16 years of collapsing higher ed is the real question. A little network analysis doesn't solve that problem.
actually, lower ed too.
19
Of course Obama abused his power in several ways. So did Bush, so did Clinton, so will (and has) Trump.

That's not the same as "He specifically spied on his enemies, overriding a system of checks explicitly designed to prevent political interference, broke obvious laws in doing so, conscripted the entire federal apparatus to help him, and now the entire media is covering for him."

Which is what's required for your idea to make sense.
Right and there are quite a few people who believe this. So much so that there is a formal process investigating that very question.
Actually, none of them exactly abused their power except in that the exercise of political power is abuse of power. They get away with what they can get away with without running afoul of the checks and balances of the rest of the gov't. All the presidents since Johnson have expanded presidential powers but they've all done it roughly legally (which really only means compliant with legal procedural processes for establishing the procedures organizing their own administration when you are talking about the presidency since presidents can't really break the law the same way everyone else can). At the leadership level, the checks and balances need to be employed to work. Also, to some extent there is a use it or lose it quality to many of those checks and balances.

Anyway, the fact that there is a formal process should alleviate your fears somewhat. However, the fact that the sitting president is trying to blocvk that formal process seems like it would give you some pause. I get that it won't though.
How the heck is he blocking it? Mueller is doing his thing... the indictment today proves there was not Trump Russia collusion.

no it doesn't. And he is blocking it by firing Comey, trying to fire Sessions for recusing himself. Attacking the legitimacy of the institution itself with ikyabwai charges against the FBI/whover he sees on fox and friends for whatever they say. Collusion? It was Hillary that colluded. A massive uptick in actually fake news was spread through the right wing echo chamber during the campaign? Those made up articles aren't fake news! Actual media establishment news organizations are fake news. I might go to jail? What about Hillary? SHE should go to jail.

FFS. Why am I typing all these words that you can't see?

eta: ninja'd of course.
20
Whether interference changed the outcome of the election is basically unknowable and isn't really the most important question to be asking, especially since you'll never reach a satisfactory answer.
It's going to have error bars but it isn't unknowable entirely. If we reconstruct their social network map with their relevance model, we can do a pretty good job of identifying the amplification effects.
21

Ideally, we'd confine our efforts to a specific space and leave the rest alone.
we did. That space is everywhere that isn't Chernobyl.
22
I know you guys don't accept this but all deserts are man-made. It's true whether you want to believe it or not.
No. It's not true. And if you understood the 'system' part of the word ecosystem you'd know why that is a dumbass thing to say.
The progression of man-made destruction often starts with deforestation. Then it typically progresses to creating pasture for cattle grazing, or if the land is flat enough row crops are planted. In other places a robust grassland is exploited by agriculturalists such as what happened on the Llano estacado in the United States. That area is slowly becoming a desert and it is a direct result of mankind. This is the case in many areas all over the world.

You're such a f****** idiot that you don't know this.
Dave, I understand ecosystems as a concept. If you did, you'd know that you are talking about an amplifying feedback loop and that there are lots of those. Hence holistic management. Ecosystem management includes resilience, adaptation, and transformation. They are different responses to various dynamic behaviors of the ecosystems. What it doesn't include, at least if you are being holistic, is stable equilibrium.  It's a sad commentary that you can still miss this point when it has been explained clearly and simply to you hundreds of times. Please read the Holling article so we can at least start from a common idea. You will find it useful and it's not very long. If you won't read it, I guess that you are satisfied with your NPD chamber's soothing validation of your brilliance and your bubble is complete. I do know what you think. You don't know what anyone else thinks.

Good luck with that world saving business, btw.
If you know what I think then you should be able to explain what value Holling offers.
Easy, he explains what it means that an ecosystem is dynamic and the implications of that are for managing natural resources (which is what a farm does). That is something you are missing. Of course, you also got hung up asking someone who lives in central england and someone else who lives in Nova Scotia what plants you have growing on your property. Anyway, I do not denigrate what you do know. I denigrate you for not wanting to find out what you don't know. However, it's entirely possible that I am simply overinflating my own sense of the value of the bits I've offered you. I do note, however, that on the absolutely only occasion you've ever actually looked at something I recommended you look at, it was because one of your gurus recommended it and you got all excited about the resource you found, in that case it was Sand County Almanac which you actually still have not read beyond the excerpts you were given but is about a holistic approach to farming and ecology. I had been telling you that it would help you orient your vision for like a year before you found it yourself and announced how we all should read it. You demonstrably do not understand what holism is and it's actually really important to what you are doing. That is a stone cold fact with absolutely no shame or judgement attached. You simply don't understand what it is. I actually do. I have offered you quite a few resources to get you up to speed on that, all of which I actually know what they say and all of which were suggested because they could fill in some of your blind spots. But you refuse, asking, Why should I? The answer is because you are trying to create a holistic management system and you don't know what holistic means. That blind spot will eventually get you blindsided by a feedback loop. In a way, it's inevitable. How you manage that change, whether you choose to enhance resilience, figure out an adaptation, or shift gears to a transformation, will depend on the nature of the feedback in relation to the system you are interested in. You will have no way to evaluate those choices because you will be struggling to force stable equilibrium on a dynamic system.

Anyway, you are a moron with a seriously warped ego. But that doesn't mean I am giving bad advice. I may be wrong that you will actually benefit from my suggestions, but I do have reasons for each and every bit of reading/watching material I send your way. Usually they are straightforward overviews of topics you don't understand and could benefit from understanding because you are involved with some whatever where that particular topic is relevant. Like I said, you may not benefit from understanding. But they are always support for topics where you are weak. And, since you are busy actually trying to operate an ecosystem as a system, it might be a good idea if you learn what an ecosystem is. And since you are trying to operate according to holistic principles, maybe you would do better if you learn what holism means. "Good Idea" and "Do better" are subjective. It is, however, objective that you do not know what Alan Savory means by the word holistic and that one seems relevant.

TL;DR: you are an idiot.
23
I know you guys don't accept this but all deserts are man-made. It's true whether you want to believe it or not.
No. It's not true. And if you understood the 'system' part of the word ecosystem you'd know why that is a dumbass thing to say.
The progression of man-made destruction often starts with deforestation. Then it typically progresses to creating pasture for cattle grazing, or if the land is flat enough row crops are planted. In other places a robust grassland is exploited by agriculturalists such as what happened on the Llano estacado in the United States. That area is slowly becoming a desert and it is a direct result of mankind. This is the case in many areas all over the world.

You're such a f****** idiot that you don't know this.
Dave, I understand ecosystems as a concept. If you did, you'd know that you are talking about an amplifying feedback loop and that there are lots of those. Hence holistic management. Ecosystem management includes resilience, adaptation, and transformation. They are different responses to various dynamic behaviors of the ecosystems. What it doesn't include, at least if you are being holistic, is stable equilibrium.  It's a sad commentary that you can still miss this point when it has been explained clearly and simply to you hundreds of times. Please read the Holling article so we can at least start from a common idea. You will find it useful and it's not very long. If you won't read it, I guess that you are satisfied with your NPD chamber's soothing validation of your brilliance and your bubble is complete. I do know what you think. You don't know what anyone else thinks.

Good luck with that world saving business, btw.
24
Either way, this never was about defining ecosystem "enhancement" or destruction. It was about providing a REASON for not caring to know about specific things, and performing specific actions, in relation to HMG. So far, we've had nothing other than "Nature Knows Best"- Whatever that means.
Well the reason I got into this definition stuff was because of the discussion about why HMG practitioners say that we are mimicking nature. When I talk about mimicking nature I am talking about activities which enhance ecosystems or at least do not destroy them. Mother Nature without interference from mankind never destroys ecosystems but mankind is capable of destroying ecosystems. That's a very important difference between mother nature and Mankind.  Most of modern agriculture these days is destroying ecosystems, and this is in contrast to HMG practitioners which are either enhancing or maintaining ecosystems not destroying them.
Dave, we all understand the Monsanto problem and no one here is advocating it. I am pretty sure that everyone in this thread but you knows enough basic ecology to figure out what HMG is and what it's potential benefits are. I may have mentioned I used to be involved with an agricultural industry group representing small farmers (well, and some not so small farmers too to be fair). Most of the farmers I met through that process know more about holistic management that you do. Lifetimes of study. It's not a new idea you know.
Is that right? Tell me more. Let's see how much you know from your conversations with them.
Dave, really? Start at the beginning of the thread. The archive first thread.
25
Lol

Quote
The left-wing conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russian officials ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign continued to crash and burn Friday, with Robert Mueller's indictment showing the foreign nationals began meddling in US politics one year before Donald Trump announced his run for office.

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/collusion-collapse-mueller-says-russian-meddling-began-before-trumps-candidacy/amp/
that's awesome except for the, um, documented collusion between the campaign and the russians. I mean, team MAGA may not have known the scope of the apparatus they enlisted to aid them but they definitely knew who it was that was offering them dirt on their opponents and what the quid pro quo was. Congress did, after all, feel the need to block the president's ability to negotiate on the sanctions. That would be a GOP congress.