Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • talkrational: Wasabi derail from Statutory Rape Laws

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
Dave, imagine two mini environments A and B

In A, which gets lots of rain, but is quite cold, yiggles grow very abundantly, and harvesting them gives you 10 calories for every 1 calorie you spend growing them.  Nugs also grow, but they need a lot of work, and have to be sown under glass, then transplanted.  They take about 2 calories of human labour for every calorie they yield.  But they are delicious, and full of important nutrients.

In B, Nugs grow almost without help, and all you have to do is harvest them.  They yield about 20 calories for every calorie you spend on them.  But yiggles really don't do well at all - it's too dry for them, and you need to water them every day.  They yield about 2 calories for every calorie you spend growing them.

In one environment yiggles are the staple food.  In the other, food are.

Are yugs the staple food in A or B?
Are niggles the staple food in A or B?

Why?
is this a koan? or perhaps a variation on the grue-bleen paradox?
2
"Lots of ancient people ate grains.  Therefore grain production was easy."

"Lots of Mexicans work on vegetable farms picking vegetables. Therefore picking vegetables is easy work."
Oh, btw, jesus fucking christ you're an idiot Dave.
3
"Lots of ancient people ate grains.  Therefore grain production was easy."

"Lots of Mexicans work on vegetable farms picking vegetables. Therefore picking vegetables is easy work."
...

...Seriously?

Hide your sleight-of-hands better next time.
they aren't tricks. He's just that stupid.
4
The most interesting part of the C14 thread was watching his reaction as he was led by the nose into a wall of knowledge he didn't want, and the way he openly ran from the truth.
I think the lake k example was more stark really. Agree with 1 -> agree with 2 -> agree that we're adding -> 3 doesn't exist. Bye now.
5
He doesn't even read people he cites approvingly, like Jared Diamond, for instance.
best not to get too deep. Here there be monsters.

That's why I was wondering about the demon (yes, I know it's a metaphor, silly!)

I used to think that he really is a frightened of the truth, and so the demon has to work really hard (i.e.  he has to put real effort into the avoidance).  But I'm wondering if it's simpler - that he just finds disconfirming data annoying to have to deal with - he doesn't know why it's wrong and he doesn't really care (because clearly it IS, because his model WORKS) but it's easier to ignore it than find out what went wrong with it.  After all it's probably just scientists lying, or misinterpreting their data because they are ignore the FACT that the  MODEL  WORKS.

If you think the workingness of your model is evidence for its truth (and Truth Matters, right?) then counter evidence HAS to be wrong, for some reason or another.  It doesn't really matter, how. And the trouble with Pingu is she's so CONVINCING - what a saleswoman that woman would make!  She makes what is clearly wrong (because the MODEL WORKS) seem like it must be right.  Manipulative bitch!  And high-and-mighty too!  Sitting in her octohatter tower with her head in the clouds!  And her British accent!


it doesn't need to work hard. The victim does the work. The demon literally means that dissonance is maintained through actually not seeing contradictory information. Hence the quote mine feature. It seems absolutely normal if you literally can't recognize the surrounding context even exists.
6
All in all I've spent about $3,000 on equipment recently, while still on the land and with no place to set it up or plug it in. I just got a place to use as a workshop and am now working on the wiring and other renovations to get a workshop set up.

So progress is being made. I actually find your statement encouraging. Mostly all I usually get is something like "don't waste your time and money it will never work".

It might not work but that failure (if it happens) will probably inspire something similar and there are all kinds of ways to generate electricity. You will also probably enjoy the effort as you make prototypes and improve designs.  In the end, you just need to make a rotor turn and a way to regulate the current. Flywheels can be fashioned from old tractor parts too and that's a pretty good way to deal with variability in output within error bars. If you get really creative with reducing friction, they work like batteries:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/alaskan-microgrid-to-pair-battery-flywheel-storage-systems-for-anchorage-a/435609/
7
congrats! You should be able to but a lot of parts prefabbed too and that kind of material isn't very expensive. Metal suitable for a lathe might be more expensive actually. If you're going to be threading components, make sure your jig doesn't have any slop or deep dings.
8
wow. that is definitely not what I was expecting to hear!
9
He doesn't even read people he cites approvingly, like Jared Diamond, for instance.
best not to get too deep. Here there be monsters.
10
It really is Dave's fundamental (heh) error.

It's why he can't see the problem with YEC. For him, the MODEL works.  And so any DATA that he comes across must either support it (with a bit of a squeeze) or be fabricated by scientists, either because of their (:ironicat:) confirmation bias or because they are paid by The System.

I think he really thinks this.  He doesn't much enjoy ignoring data, so he feels uncomfortable when presented with data that seem to refute his model, but it doesn't actually shake his faith in his model because his model works as a model. It does what he wants it to do.  It tells a story he likes. 

You can even see it in his exasperation with our complaints about Savory and HMG.  He's EXPLAINED HMG.  In great DETAIL.  Does he have to explain it AGAIN?  Geez, Team Darwin can't READ.  And look, here's a link to paper by Savory EXPLAINING why methane production shouldn't be a problem with HMG. 

But the paper, of course, contains no DATA.




https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon

Yes, but I wonder if it's even simpler. A basic cognitive mistake.  It's common enough - the belief that because an explanation makes sense, it is probably right.

In fact, it's probably sensible - we even call it "common sense".  It's just that reality turns out to be a lot bigger than the sampling of it we have ready access to.

I once had an argument with a friend about "suckage".  Someone had just climbed to the top of the pipe organ in our music department concert hall to hang some drapery on it for an opera production, when someone else came in with a tray of coffee.  Some wag called up "do you want a 32 foot straw?"  Being the annoying person I am, I started discussing about whether you COULD actually suck up coffee through a 32 foot straw.  I thought not.  But my friend insisted you could suck up coffee through any length of straw as long as you had enough "suckage".  I was trying to argue that it was the atmospheric pressure pushing the coffee not the suckage pulling it, and that even if you achieved a perfect vacuum, the atmosphere might not be heavy enough to push it all the way.

Everybody thought her argument made a lot more sense.  And it did sound more plausible. But we didn't have a straw so we couldn't check. [1]
No because that involves actually checking when it's convenient.-something Dave actually doesn't and can't do. Morton's demon is a metaphor, remember. But the described effect is perfectly consistent.
I think we'd have just about got the coffee there, as it turns out, because I think atmospheric pressure is about 33 feet of water (which was why I'd started the conversation).  I guess coffee might be denser.
11
Evidence that grain-based societies existed in the past is abundant. But evidence that producing these grains required less human labor than producing food from animal husbandry is absent. 

All we can do is study both systems and speculate.

The fact that you don't recognize this is why YOU are the one that sucks at science. Not me.
Yes, well, there has been quite a bit of studying already done on that topic. It requires more human labor. However, it also provides a shit ton more food. EROI is irrelevant to that. How much land can a single man with a single mule plow in a day? Multiply that times how many days are available for tilling and that's how much land one man and one mule can plant. Do the same for harvesting but then add in the economies of scale of central planning, storage and cooperation.

Just kidding. Don't worry about all that stuff that your rejection of modern monocropping industrial ag makes invisible to you. It's actually not there. We are just trolling you into thinking for yourself.
12
It really is Dave's fundamental (heh) error.

It's why he can't see the problem with YEC. For him, the MODEL works.  And so any DATA that he comes across must either support it (with a bit of a squeeze) or be fabricated by scientists, either because of their (:ironicat:) confirmation bias or because they are paid by The System.

I think he really thinks this.   He doesn't much enjoy ignoring data, so he feels uncomfortable when presented with data that seem to refute his model, but it doesn't actually shake his faith in his model because his model works as a model. It does what he wants it to do.  It tells a story he likes. 

You can even see it in his exasperation with our complaints about Savory and HMG.  He's EXPLAINED HMG.  In great DETAIL.  Does he have to explain it AGAIN?  Geez, Team Darwin can't READ.  And look, here's a link to paper by Savory EXPLAINING why methane production shouldn't be a problem with HMG. 

But the paper, of course, contains no DATA.




https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon
Quote
The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: a3bv4t$v2m$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood
14
It really is Dave's fundamental (heh) error.

It's why he can't see the problem with YEC. For him, the MODEL works.  And so any DATA that he comes across must either support it (with a bit of a squeeze) or be fabricated by scientists, either because of their (:ironicat:) confirmation bias or because they are paid by The System.

I think he really thinks this.   He doesn't much enjoy ignoring data, so he feels uncomfortable when presented with data that seem to refute his model, but it doesn't actually shake his faith in his model because his model works as a model. It does what he wants it to do.  It tells a story he likes. 
Like the c14 thread where your straightforward process confused him because it suggested things he knew couldn't be true, and when I offered to explain your point in simple enough terms for his high speed mind and started, he bailed from the topic completely rather than helping me find the flaw in it? It's almost like he sees disagreement with his linear narrative as a flaw and gets frustrated that others don't just accept his narrative which is so obviously true and supported by the irrefutable evidence that he believes it.

Quote
You can even see it in his exasperation with our complaints about Savory and HMG.  He's EXPLAINED HMG.  In great DETAIL.  Does he have to explain it AGAIN?  Geez, Team Darwin can't READ.  And look, here's a link to paper by Savory EXPLAINING why methane production shouldn't be a problem with HMG. 

But the paper, of course, contains no DATA.
It must be difficult to be a frustrated genius.
15
It really is Dave's fundamental (heh) error.

It's why he can't see the problem with YEC. For him, the MODEL works.  And so any DATA that he comes across must either support it (with a bit of a squeeze) or be fabricated by scientists, either because of their (:ironicat:) confirmation bias or because they are paid by The System.

I think he really thinks this.   He doesn't much enjoy ignoring data, so he feels uncomfortable when presented with data that seem to refute his model, but it doesn't actually shake his faith in his model because his model works as a model. It does what he wants it to do.  It tells a story he likes. 

You can even see it in his exasperation with our complaints about Savory and HMG.  He's EXPLAINED HMG.  In great DETAIL.  Does he have to explain it AGAIN?  Geez, Team Darwin can't READ.  And look, here's a link to paper by Savory EXPLAINING why methane production shouldn't be a problem with HMG. 

But the paper, of course, contains no DATA.




https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon
16
It's been a heckuva year. I do suspect that we've hit a new normal though and from here on out, we are warming up to audition for the cast of Becket's "End Game".

ETA:
https://www.shmoop.com/endgame/summary.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok7Vc3jczNg
17
I think any such evidence is long lost.  The reason I think it's true is not this or that artifact, but rather by studying the systems themselves and studying human nature.
Where "studying" in this case means unquestioningly believing idea fragments you encounter which you think support your internal narrative and thus demonstrating why you cannot grasp the difference between an assertion and an evidence.

More succinctly put.

Alternatively: between fitting models to your data and fitting data to your models.

fixed tags so I can see the picture
18
By the way, here's a recent paper that supports Hemenway's view that (tillage) agricultural people are unhealthy compared to hunter / gatherers.

http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinical-departments/psychiatry/grand-rounds/upload/Dietary-Carbs-Dental-Systemic-Dz.pdf
how does that have anything to do with the whole tinfoil hat thing?
19
I think any such evidence is long lost.  The reason I think it's true is not this or that artifact, but rather by studying the systems themselves and studying human nature.
Where "studying" in this case means unquestioningly believing idea fragments you encounter which you think support your internal narrative and thus demonstrating why you cannot grasp the difference between an assertion and an evidence.
20
Mafia / Re: Mafia mafia day 6
raven, you run excellent games. Could you do one themed on the Omelas story?
21
Quote
"Dave, you are really flailing now.

Yes, one of the benefits of foods like grain is that they can be stored.  This is ONLY possible if they are produced IN EXCESS.

And they can only be produced IN EXCESS if the human "EROI" is high."

Depends on what you mean by "high" ...

If you mean "1.5 is high compared to 0.8 or 1.0" then ok ... ya

And you are correct that no storage would be possible with a number lower than 1.0.   and with losses and so forth, probably 1.5 or two 2.0 might be the minimum required for storing excess.

But as I have shown you with my rough calculations of Joe Hopping's operation, animal husbandry can be astronomically higher than this. So when I talk about "high" this is what I'm talking about.   EROI numbers of 10 or 100 or 1000 or more.

Not even in the same universe as annual tillage of grains.
those are excellent numbers you just made up. Really good. The best maybe.
22
Uh ... no.  I don't even own a gun.  Not even a BB gun.
neither did the unibomber. :hmm:
23
Mafia / Re: Mafia mafia day 6
when is the next game?
24
How much of a surplus do they produce that can be easily stored, moved and passed on to people who aren't doing hunting and gathering Dave? You might have to do more work than a hunter-gatherer to get your crop, vs collecting whatever staples the few remaining modern hunter-gatherer societies do. But when you do so you have a lot more food at the end of it.

So while you do more work, you get a much bigger reward out of it. So it becomes worth it. If you had a choice between working 15 hours a week and having your rent, bills, and food paid for, but nothing more, so your bank balance always reads zero, or working 30 hours a week and having your bank balance in credit for a reasonable amount, so you can actually afford to buy new clothes, repair your car, buy gifts for your friends, lend them money if they need help, etc, which would you do?
NOW we are getting somewhere.  I contend that the STORABILITY and MOVABILITY of grains are the key attributes that people (especially tyrants) like because now you can store up plenty of food for a whole year in giant storage containers and send it with the army to subjugate people and lock it behind gates so people have to buy it and so on.  (And who cares if your people / army get dental / systemic CNDCs ... the important thing is that the tyrants maintain CONTROL)
I'm sensing a manifesto coming on.

and a kill list
25
Ok look ...

I thought your argument was "great cities sprang up because tillage agriculture is less work than hunting / gathering."

Was that not your argument?
no. it wasn't. It was that energy density in tillage agriculture is astronomically higher than foraging.
First time I've seen Team Darwin mention this.

If by "Team Darwin" you mean "other posters on this forum" then you haven't been reading our posts.  Certainly you haven't been reading mine. 

And is "Team YEC" going to provide evidence for anything ever?
apparently not.