Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


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
did I kill the thread?
2
Unvalidated? Are you an engineer by any chance?

I do research, the output from which is sometimes passed to engineering and more frequently not.  The bits which are have invariably been rigorously validated, yes.  I certainly do not have the luxury of simply claiming that my models are correct in the absence of repeatable validation.  Even less do I have the extravagance of hurling quasi-religious hysterical invective at the unbelievers - aka engineers - should they have the mulish temerity to ask for evidence supporting my opinions on any given subject.  Because, as you know, an unvalidated model is nothing more than an opinion.
Well, that's not as simple or straightforward as you imply. Nonlinear models in general are unvalidatable when initial conditions are indeterminate. For some definitions of validate. The questions of tuning are usually dealt with through error bars and confidence intervals. My own experience with that sort of modeling involves fisheries population modeling and it's pretty inaccurate to say that those models are unvalidated even though the systems have lots of unknown inputs and the initial conditions are unknowable. Occasionally, some combination of those problems produce erroneous predictions but then that's true of newtonian mechanics too so it's not much of an objection. Predictions are called predictions for a reason. If feedback loops can be identified, then they are validated regarding the model. That is the part of a nonlinear model that normally requires validation. The rest is tuning to fit collected data. You're objection appears collossally ignorant for someone who deals with nonlinear models so I'm guessing I don't understand the context in which you are grounding your objection. And fwiw, I have made it a point to avoid figuring out the details of climate science since the prescriptions seem reasonable regardless of the climate effects. Anyway, if a global fisheries collapse occurs, which is actually extremely possible, we're just as fucked as we are in any of the other doomsday scenarios so climate change is just one of the many environmental scenarios with drastic consequences. While it may not be provable, the actual fact that it is a possible outcome seems interconnected enough with the rest of the environmental instability our species is creating on this only home we have that rather than arguing over whether it is correct or not, it seems more reasonable to go ahead and pursue a legislative agenda of sustainability and drastic reduction in income inequality to deal with the actual issue that environmental systems are unpredictable and managing those systems for resilience, adaptability and transformability is good policy regardless of the predictive accuracy of any specific model[1].

3
trump has Tough Guy appeal, for people who aren't over high school.
Hate to break it to you el jefe, but nobody gets over high school.
I got over high school.
4
Unvalidated? Are you an engineer by any chance?
6
much as it sucks, yes, shouted half coherent promises to do all kinds of things is a "campaign based on policy" in as much as it suggests policies the candidate wishes to pursue. no one said they had to be good.
Take our country back from the colored and queers is a policy position also.
7
and she is known for being full of policy minutiae, if nothing else
And yet couldn't articulate the policies she actually had published on her fucking campaign website.
8
2016 election says they do.

Georgia 6th says they do too.

ahahahaha

in a day full of lmao's, this still stands out

e: the extent of Trump's "policy" was literally "I will make all of your dreams come true." That's something he promised.

Clinton and Ossoff both sucks as candidates, but personality is more important than policy. I guess I'm counting policy as coherent, reality-based plans to do things rather than shouting MUSLIM BAN ALL HEALTH CARE BETTER FOR EVERYONE FOR FREE BUILD THE WALL
Those are policies
12
Politics and Current Events / Re: Supreme court
it always starts on the playground
13
Politics and Current Events / Re: Supreme court
agreed. Mods?
14
Politics and Current Events / Re: Supreme court
Oh, forgot that they're also hearing this one:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-take-case-on-baker-who-refused-to-sell-wedding-cake-to-gay-couple/2017/06/26/0c2f8606-0cde-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html
Quote
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will consider next term whether a Denver baker unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

Lower courts had ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had violated Colorado's public accommodations law, which prohibits refusing service to customers based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

There are similar lawsuits from florists, calligraphers and others who say their religious beliefs won't allow them to provide services for same-sex weddings. But they have found little success in the courts, which have ruled that public businesses must comply with state anti-discrimination laws.

[Colorado court sides against baker who cited religious beliefs, refused same-sex marriage cake order]

The court granted the case after weeks of considering it. In 2014, the justices declined to revisit a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that found that a photographer violated a state civil rights law when she declined to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

Since then, the high court has found that marriage is a fundamental right that states may not prohibit to gay couples.

The justices also reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court and said the state must list same-sex parents on birth certificates in the state. To refuse, the court said, is to deny married same-sex couples the full "constellation of benefits" that government has linked to marriage.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Neil M. Gorsuch's dissent, which said the law regarding such issues is not yet settled and stable.

The Washington Supreme Court found that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash., violated a state civil rights law that bars discrimination in public businesses on the basis of sexual orientation. The court also ruled that the law does not infringe on her free speech.

The Texas Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Houston's provision that gives the same benefits to spouses of gay workers as it does to those of straight workers. Gay rights activists say the Supreme Court's 2015 landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges should have settled the issue.
15
Politics and Current Events / Supreme court
On top of approving trumps travel ban (at least til the case is heard next fall) plus this:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534084013/supreme-court-rules-religious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-for-playground
Quote
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that taxpayer-funded grants for playgrounds available to nonprofits under a state program could not be denied to a school run by a church.

"The consequence is, in all likelihood, a few extra scraped knees. But the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand," Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment."

Two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, refused to sign on to a footnote explicitly stating that the court's approval applied only to playground funding and should not be read as applying to parochial schools in general.

Goddammit. Revolution calling.
16
Yeah, no. The more that come on the market, the more industrial agriculture subsidizes. At some point, those externalized costs catch up with us. The reality is that food's actual costs are much higher than we pay. Which is another good reason for small scale gardening maybe.
There's at least two forms of externalized costs: the subsidies Testy mentions; and the borrowing from the future sort. Subsidizing some products and technologies by the government is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for development and to maintain traditional skills and infrastructure. Borrowing from the future is also not necessarily bad, as long as it's the borrower that does the repaying. Generally that's not been the case, at least here in the US. Currently we sell or lease all sorts of rights to assets such as lumber, oil and gas, minerals, range land, easements for utilities, electromagnetic spectrum, air space, etc., often at far below market value. There's also the issue of who pays for the clean up after those resources are gone and barren hillsides, toxic tailingsk sinking land or other wastes are left behind. Hopefully our grand kids will be able to pay for the eventual cleanup.
Well, the borrowing from the future sort is keeping the price of sustainable ag low so there's both kinds going on.
17
It's amazing how easy it is to jump from an unwarranted assumption to a forgone conclusion.
18
Yeah, no. The more that come on the market, the more industrial agriculture subsidizes. At some point, those externalized costs catch up with us. The reality is that food's actual costs are much higher than we pay. Which is another good reason for small scale gardening maybe.
20
the make a cloud metaphor roughly translates to this concrete statement: if 10 million people (population of ny) all plant 4 square feet of garden, they will be replacing ~1000 acres of industrial farm. But, because the food is fresh, less is wasted, far less than the ~40% of industrial ag that never makes it to a table. That increases the efficiency of acreage replaced by some. But also the fact is that it it far more productive per sq ft to garden a very small plot than a field because weeding isn't necessary and spacing doesn't need to meet harvester specifications. Also, that acreage replaced uses no chemical pesticides or mechanical inputs. Figure the small planter is many times more productive per sq ft than an industrial field but even if only two times and the other efficiencies are factored in, window boxes in the US alone could replace a million acres or so of industrial ag. Factor in urban and small sustainable farms that supplement their incomes with classes and events and donations and there's the infrastructure to expand even more. And that's all without even a single garden. If people with yards plant even small gardens, the effects not only compound but create a feedback loop that perpetuates the value of fresh food and connection to the soil. If you try to replace the whole system, you will fail because it is far more than where you live and what you grow. But if you insert that value into the existing system, real change can happen.
OK thanks for explaining your cloud metaphor.  I obviously didn't get it at first.  I do agree that for people who like to eat lettuce and spinach and similar low calorie, high cost, land hogging crops, it would be better for them to grow these items in window boxes and yards, etc. 

I myself am not focused on these types of crops because I view them as unnecessary for good human nutrition.  I could live my whole life and never eat lettuce and be just fine.  My focus is on what I call "staple foods" which have a high calorie content and a high density of essential nutrients.  The most important foods to me are milk, meat, eggs, potatoes and grains.  Yes I like tomatoes and tomato products like spaghetti sauce and yes I like watermelon and so forth ... but these are not "essential foods" ... they are just "nice to have."

So when I see all these people getting excited about converting their lawns to gardens, I kind of chuckle because while they no doubt do have an impact on "reducing commercial lettuce production," they are hardly doing anything at all for "actually feeding people."

If you want to save the world from industrial agriculture, it seems like it would be important to save it from, you know, industrial agriculture.
Yes, but most industrial agriculture is involved in producing what I call staple foods - grains, meat, milk, eggs, potatoes. 

So my approach is to develop sustainable models which produce these types of foods.
There are already lots of sustainable models producing those foods. They just cost a lot more than industrial agriculture. And always will because costs aren't externalized.
21
the make a cloud metaphor roughly translates to this concrete statement: if 10 million people (population of ny) all plant 4 square feet of garden, they will be replacing ~1000 acres of industrial farm. But, because the food is fresh, less is wasted, far less than the ~40% of industrial ag that never makes it to a table. That increases the efficiency of acreage replaced by some. But also the fact is that it it far more productive per sq ft to garden a very small plot than a field because weeding isn't necessary and spacing doesn't need to meet harvester specifications. Also, that acreage replaced uses no chemical pesticides or mechanical inputs. Figure the small planter is many times more productive per sq ft than an industrial field but even if only two times and the other efficiencies are factored in, window boxes in the US alone could replace a million acres or so of industrial ag. Factor in urban and small sustainable farms that supplement their incomes with classes and events and donations and there's the infrastructure to expand even more. And that's all without even a single garden. If people with yards plant even small gardens, the effects not only compound but create a feedback loop that perpetuates the value of fresh food and connection to the soil. If you try to replace the whole system, you will fail because it is far more than where you live and what you grow. But if you insert that value into the existing system, real change can happen.
OK thanks for explaining your cloud metaphor.  I obviously didn't get it at first.  I do agree that for people who like to eat lettuce and spinach and similar low calorie, high cost, land hogging crops, it would be better for them to grow these items in window boxes and yards, etc. 

I myself am not focused on these types of crops because I view them as unnecessary for good human nutrition.  I could live my whole life and never eat lettuce and be just fine.  My focus is on what I call "staple foods" which have a high calorie content and a high density of essential nutrients.  The most important foods to me are milk, meat, eggs, potatoes and grains.  Yes I like tomatoes and tomato products like spaghetti sauce and yes I like watermelon and so forth ... but these are not "essential foods" ... they are just "nice to have."

So when I see all these people getting excited about converting their lawns to gardens, I kind of chuckle because while they no doubt do have an impact on "reducing commercial lettuce production," they are hardly doing anything at all for "actually feeding people."

If you want to save the world from industrial agriculture, it seems like it would be important to save it from, you know, industrial agriculture.
23
the make a cloud metaphor roughly translates to this concrete statement: if 10 million people (population of ny) all plant 4 square feet of garden, they will be replacing ~1000 acres of industrial farm. But, because the food is fresh, less is wasted, far less than the ~40% of industrial ag that never makes it to a table. That increases the efficiency of acreage replaced by some. But also the fact is that it it far more productive per sq ft to garden a very small plot than a field because weeding isn't necessary and spacing doesn't need to meet harvester specifications. Also, that acreage replaced uses no chemical pesticides or mechanical inputs. Figure the small planter is many times more productive per sq ft than an industrial field but even if only two times and the other efficiencies are factored in, window boxes in the US alone could replace a million acres or so of industrial ag. Factor in urban and small sustainable farms that supplement their incomes with classes and events and donations and there's the infrastructure to expand even more. And that's all without even a single garden. If people with yards plant even small gardens, the effects not only compound but create a feedback loop that perpetuates the value of fresh food and connection to the soil. If you try to replace the whole system, you will fail because it is far more than where you live and what you grow. But if you insert that value into the existing system, real change can happen.
24
Lol. Holy shit. I forget that nonlinear is a good time word with you. No. Not transpiration. Anyway, I would show them how to make dirt and how to grow lettuce and/or spinach first probably. But it's too individual to make any general call like that.
25
What type of vegetables would typically be grown in these small city gardens you are proposing?
It sort of doesn't matter. Ideally those that can be easily preserved, continuously produce, or have high yield to area but it is a lot less important what people grow than that they grow. How do you lift a hundred tons of water? Make a cloud.