Youtube comments of John Berry (@user-ud6ui7zt3r).

  1. 1600
  2. 449
  3. 419
  4. 190
  5. 182
  6. 165
  7. 128
  8. 108
  9. 88
  10. 82
  11. 49
  12. ​ @NorthernChev  I am aware of the "two neighborhood Gas Stations" example. However, let's construct a metaphor, by supposing that Gas were Steel. Then Gas Station #1 is selling Chinese Steel, and Gas Station #2 is selling American Steel (and the two stations are in the same neighborhood, right across the street from each other.) Many of the Steel Customers are Informed Customers who know that they can only use Chinese Steel. Such customers won't buy American Steel, at any price, because they know that their applications won't work with American Steel. Now let's extend the metaphor, by calling Chinese Steel "apples" and American Steel "oranges". If the price of Apples goes up, why would anyone follow through to identically raise the price of Oranges? There is no Law of Nature that says... The price of Oranges must follow, and be kept the same as, the price of Apples! Since, in the Steel Distributing industry, such marketers think that such a "natural Law" does exist, then such marketers are identically (and unnecessarily) manufacturing inflation. The only reason anyone would buy the drastically marked-up Oranges is because they need Oranges, and the Steel Distributors are the only source for Oranges. Furthermore, if just one of the Steel Distributors kept their selling price for Oranges low, then that Steel Distributor would sell a huge quantity of Oranges, whereas the other Steel Distributors wouldn't succeed to sell any Oranges. If we disagree on these points, then, as gentlemen, let's agree to disagree.
    47
  13. 46
  14. 39
  15. 39
  16. 35
  17. 33
  18. 32
  19. 31
  20. 30
  21. 29
  22. 28
  23. 28
  24. 27
  25. 25
  26. 24
  27. 24
  28. 23
  29. 21
  30. 21
  31. 21
  32. 21
  33. 20
  34. 20
  35. 19
  36. 19
  37. 19
  38. 18
  39. 18
  40. 18
  41. 17
  42. 15
  43. 15
  44. 14
  45. 14
  46. 14
  47. 14
  48. 14
  49. 14
  50. 13
  51. 13
  52. 13
  53. 13
  54. 13
  55. 13
  56. 12
  57. 12
  58. 12
  59. 12
  60. 11
  61. 11
  62. 11
  63. 11
  64. 10
  65. 10
  66. 10
  67. 10
  68. 10
  69. 10
  70. 9
  71. 9
  72. I had a long back ‘n’ forth text-based discussion with a gentleman who works for a USA-based steel distributorship. He clearly informed me that when imported Chinese steel has a tariff applied to it, then his USA-based steel distributorship, and ALL of the other USA-based steel distributorships, AUTOMATICALLY RAISE the price of their USA-produced raw steel TO MATCH whatever the “tariff added” price of imported Chinese steel turns out to be. In other words, when it comes to the price of Raw Steel, USA-based consumers of Raw Steel (i.e. steel fabrication businesses) will get stuck paying THE SAME PRiCE as the final price of imported tariffed Chinese steel. The result is that a massive number of USA-based steel fabrication businesses WILL GO out of business. On top of that, government construction contracts, at all levels of government, often specify that American steel must be used. The implication here is that, if Trump applies a tariff to imported Chinese steel, then, due to the automatic pricing practices of USA-based steel distributors, nearly all government funded major construction projects WILL END-UP PAYING a very high price for I-beams and corrugated steel. [The USA-based steel distributor that I corresponded with referred to his industry’s pricing practices as conflation (i.e. the practice of treating American raw steel and Chinese raw steel as if they were essentially the same thing.) I personally refer to those who price their domestic commodities in this manner as conflationists. ]
    9
  73. 9
  74. 9
  75. 9
  76. 9
  77. 9
  78. 8
  79. 8
  80. 8
  81. 8
  82. 8
  83. 8
  84. 8
  85. 8
  86. 8
  87. 7
  88. 7
  89. 7
  90. 7
  91. 7
  92. 7
  93. 7
  94. 7
  95. 7
  96. 7
  97. 7
  98. 7
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 6
  102. ​ @ericbailey6779  If you start from the very first Reply in this Reply Section (which was posted by ME), and read the entire back 'n' forth discussion that the OP Commenter (NorthernChev) and I had, you would learn that... • the domestic American steel distribution industry historically practices a "pricing policy" that is based upon the adoption of a logical fallacy, known as conflation. I even posted the definition of the word, so that everyone could "follow along" with our discussion. In brief, conflation means that, where commodities are concerned, two items that are as different as Apples and Oranges become looked upon as if there is no difference between an Apple and an Orange; and • in the course of the discussion, it was the surprising and fervent contention of NorthernChev that the informed customers (of the domestic Steel Distribution business that NorthernChev works for) preferred the imported Chinese Steel, because, for reasons not presented, the American Steel does not perform satisfactorily in subsequent machining operations and applications. Something to consider... Eric, here are 2 scenarios, for you to choose from... • suppose that you charged a high wage for your labor, and that the wage was the highest wage that anyone, anywhere, could actually receive for your form of labor. But there's a catch! By receiving this sort of wage, you influence the entire American economy that you "live" in to have an extremely high rate of inflation, which necessarily surrounds you with high prices, everywhere you look. As a result, your "high wage" doesn't "spend" very far; ...OR... • suppose that you agree to accept a lower wage for the form of labor that you do, but once again, there's a catch! By accepting the lower wage, you immediately influence the entire American economy to have a low rate of inflation, which immediately results in YOUR being "surrounded" with LOW PRICES, everywhere you look. The result is that, numerically, you make a lower wage (when compared with the first scenario), but that lower wage spends "farther" than the preceding "high wage" scenario. So, Eric, of the two scenarios that I just presented, which would YOU prefer to choose, for yourself? From what I can tell, based upon my Reply discussion with NorthernChev (which, in entirety, is posted within this Reply section), NorthernChev's domestic Steel Distribution company always selects the FIRST scenario. Given how influential the domestic $price$ of steel is, within the American economy, the direct result is that the entire domestic American economy gets driven into a state of high prices and high inflation.
    6
  103. 6
  104. 6
  105. 6
  106. 6
  107. 6
  108. 6
  109. 6
  110. 6
  111. 6
  112. 6
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. ​ @jasonmerrill8917  To me, most of the fancy reasoning, which attempts to explain Capitalism, centers around the propensity of human beings to think with their stomach, as opposed to think with their brain. Let's say, on some sunny 🌄afternoon, you suddenly have a hankering for SWEET 🍓🍓strawberries. So you head towards town, and you find a McDonalds, and there happens to be a roadside fruit stand, next door to the McDonalds. Let's say the McDonalds will sell you a large strawberry🥤shake, made with absolutely NO strawberries, but instead contains great-tasting strawberry 🍓syrup. Next door, the fruit stand will sell you a 1-quart tupperware container, filled with SWEET actual 🍓🍓strawberries. You need to get your "strawberry fix", and to achieve that, your stomach doesn't care that REAL🍓strawberries, versus artifically-flavored 🍓strawberry syrup, are not the same thing. In other words, your stomach practices "stomach logic". In the realm of "stomach logic", committing a Logical Fallacy (in this case, conflating Real Strawberries WITH FAKE strawberries) is of no concern. Meanwhile, your🧠brain ABSOLUTELY KNOWS that there exists an important and discernible difference between Real Strawberries and FAKE "strawberries". It is on points like this where I have "issues" understanding other people's lectures on Capitalism. The lecturers are usually people who think with their stomach, and then go to great lengths to support their "stomach reasoning" with subsequent 🧠"brain reasoning".
    4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. Real World Tools require struggle… In order for an autonomous humanoid robot to have any value in a factory, the robot needs to be able to use Real World Tools. However, such tools, even when they are top-of-the-line AND brand new, always require struggle. For example, consider the Jacob's chuck of a hand drill. After you tighten a drill bit in the chuck, you then start the drilling task, at which point the bit will probably demonstrate some rotational SLIP. You then have to STOP drilling, immediately followed by re-tightening the drill bit in the chuck. Once re-tightened, you immediately resume drilling. The intelligence of a robot won't be able to duplicate this. A robot's intelligence won't be able to assess that... • the drill bit is rotationally slipping; • excessive rotational slip is unacceptable; • the cause of the rotational slip is due to a need for more Chuck Tightening; • at the very least, the drilling operation needs to CEASE; • the drill bit needs to be repositioned and retightened (within the Chuck); • the Drill Key (which is used to tighten the Jacob's chuck), will always SLIP, even if the drill is top-of-the-line and brand new; • once the drill bit is suitably retightened, the drilling operation needs to resume. □ In other words, the task of using a Real World Tool always includes the need to struggle with the tool. The intelligence needed to efficiently perform such struggle goes way beyond what the intelligence of an autonomous humanoid robot is capable of.
    4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. From his famous Maxwell Equations, James Maxwell deduced a value for the Speed of Light. It turns out that the equation Maxwell derived is a function of TWO values that both have to be measured, experimentally. In this way, it can be shown that the Speed of Light can "sort of" be measured, by indirect means, because the equation that represents the speed (of light) is exclusively dependent upon values that CAN be measured. (note: one of these values is known as the permittivity of free space, which is equal to 8.85 × 10⁻¹² [farad/m]; the other value is known as the permeability of free space, which is equal to 4π × 10⁻⁷ [henries/m]. Both of these values describe the nature of Magnetism within the region in which they are measured.) But that's not the best part! Do you recall hearing about a phenomenon called Gravitational Lensing? This phenomenon bends the path of light as light passes through a gravitational field that is impressed across a region of Free Space. As a result of observing the phenomenon of Gravitational Lensing, it would seem likely that Gravity directly determines the localized measured value for both permittivity and permeability, across a specified region of Free Space. In other words, just as the strength of Gravity varies in the manner of a smooth gradient across a region of Free Space, it should therefore likely be expected that the localized measured values for both permittivity and permeability also vary (in the manner of a smooth gradient) across the very same region of Free Space. Do you realize what this implies? This implies a direct connection between Gravity and Magnetism! This also implies that Gravity is "hiding" within the four famous Maxwell Equations. It hides within the term that represents permittivity, and it hides within the term that represents permeability. Who knows? Maybe an insight like this could lead to a proper Grand Unified Field theory. Maybe an insight like this could lead to an understanding of Quantum Gravity. Allow me to express these notions in another way. I am suggesting that, in a region where Gravitational Lensing bends the path of light, the path of the photons is curved on account of Gravity smoothly varying (in the manner of a gradient) BOTH the localized value(s) of permittivity AND the localized value(s) of permeability, resulting in photons proceeding SLOWER when they pass by near to a grand source of Gravity and proceeding FASTER when they pass by far away from a grand source of Gravity. The result of the Inner Track being a SLOW path and the Outer Track being a FAST path is that each photon follows a resultant CURVED path.
    4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. ​ @dachosens1  If you get a chance, around the 70th Reply, I posted some interesting points, regarding demand for Real 🍓Strawberries versus the demand for artificially-flavored strawberry🥤shakes. Since posting that Reply, I thought of an additional example. Suppose that sweet Real 🍓🍓Strawberries were imported to America, and when they got here, they immediately had a government-issued tariff applied to them, which substantially raised their price. Now suppose that, somewhere within America, a company produces and distributes artificially-flavored Strawberry Syrup (used as an ingredient for strawberry 🥤shakes), and that not a single strawberry is used to produce the flavored syrup. From what I can tell, a conflationist would raise the price of their artificially-flavored strawberry syrup, TO MATCH the per-unit-volume price of the tariffed imported strawberries, even though not a single strawberry is used to produce the syrup. Why would they do this? The syrup distributor would do this because MOST of the American strawberry consumers think with their stomach. From the point of view of someone's "stomach", a great tasting Strawberry🥤Shake satisfies their need to get their "strawberry fix" just as well as consuming actual (sweet) Real 🍓Strawberries. A person's 🧠brain knows that Fake Strawberries and Real Strawberries are two different things, but their stomach does not. When a person "thinks with their stomach", then they are perfectly happy to adopt a Logical Fallacy.
    2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383.  @Trucmuch  The outcomes that you cite (a sample of ice completely melting while remaining at 0°C the entire time; a sample of water completely turning to ice while remaining at 0°C the entire time) definitely do happen, and I believe that the characteristic behavior of the temperature (i.e. remains constant) is always observed during such changes of phase. However, I'm certain that, if the rate at which Heat is added is kept equal to the rate at which Heat is removed, then it is possible for the rate at which... • ice changes to water ...to be equal to the rate at which... • water changes to ice. The classic experiment involves recording the mass of an ice cube before dropping the ice cube into a glass of water. After some time passes, the ice cube is fished out of the water, followed immediately by re-weighing the ice cube. If the rate of "heat in" matched the rate of "heat out" (for the Ice Cube and Glass Of Water system), then the ice cube ends-up having the same mass at time 𝑡₁ as it had at time 𝑡₀. The noted difference is that the edges and corners of the initially "square" Ice Cube are now rounded and smoothed, having uniformly changed to water while an equal amount of the surrounding water changed to ice (which forms on the exterior of the pre-existing Ice Cube.) My understanding is that everything comes down to the rate at which Heat is added to a system versus the rate at which Heat is removed from a system. When the Heat rates (ᴵᴺ 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑠 ᴼᵁᵀ) are balanced, then all of the dependent "phase change" rates can be equal, thereby establishing equilibrium. Again, it is necessary to specify if the rate of Heat addition exceeds, pales, or balances relative to the rate of Heat removal.
    1
  384. 1
  385. Here is something scary that I witnessed, across an interval of about [1.5] years. Some of you might find this story interesting. In the city that I used to work in, along the city's Main Street, there was a Walgreens, a McDonalds, and a CVS, in sequence, all on the same side of the street, as you proceeded from east to west down Main Street. Across a period of about 2 weeks, the local news said that these stores all got robbed, just before their closing time. During the same robbery-spree interval, down a street that was adjacent to these Main Street businesses, was a Domino's Pizza. On foot, a person could walk from Main Street to the Domino's location inside of about 7 minutes. I would often sit just inside the door of this Domino's, waiting for my order to be prepared, just before the Domino's closing time (which was around 1am.) This Domino's had a magnetic lock on the door, and starting around 9pm, the magnet would be activated. The Domino's drivers could still perform deliveries, but in order to get back inside the building, each returning driver had to press a doorbell signal, so that someone inside the Domino's building could let the driver back in. Anyways, during the 2-week robbery spree that I already mentioned, a short guy with red hair tried (really really REALLY tried) to open the door to the Domino's after the magnetic lock had been turned on. This red-haired guy pulled the door so hard, that he displaced the bottom of the door by about 2-feet from the door frame, however, the magnetic lock was at the TOP of the door, and would not budge in the slightest. Since I was sitting just inside the door to the Domino's, I got an extremely good look at the guy, while he tried to unsuccessfully open the door. He seemed to behave as if he desperately wanted to get inside, but DID NOT WANT to be recognized, in that, as soon as he realized that the door was magnetically locked, he immediately RAN OFF. So, many months passed, and when summer finally arrived, during one very sunny day, around the hour of noon, an unfortunate domestic violence event occurred, at a house that was about 250 feet away from the Domino's location. It seems someone had brutally stabbed someone, and, as a result, the entire street was blocked off by the local police. I, huddled along with about 50 other onlookers, watched the police commotion, while standing just outside the barrier that the police had established. As I watched, a red Jeep Cherokee suddenly pulled-up, just inside the police barrier. As I watched the Cherokee from a distance of about 20-feet away, two guys exited the car. The driver, who wore his police detective's badge on a lanyard, instantly caught my attention. He was precisely the same red-haired guy that I had seen trying to desperately open the door to the Domino's, a few months earlier! In my mind, I instantly realized who this detective was. He was the robber who, several months earlier, had been robbing the stores along Main Street. On the night that I saw him at the entrance door to the Domino's, he was secretly intent upon robbing the Domino's, but, unknown to him, the magnetic lock would not permit him to enter the building after 9pm. The reason he instantly RAN OFF was because he did not want anyone to recognize him, since he was actually a registered police detective for the city's police department.
    1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. These days, when the courts are aware that a large segment of the American population is likely to respond with imminent, violent riots, the courts seem to conduct a "first trial" (of a defendant) in which the courts "bend" (like a limp, wet noodle) to give the angry portion of the public whatever verdict will assuage them. LATER, however, when most of the public is no longer aware of the issue, a quiet, SECOND trial is conducted, in which the defendant is finally afforded a proper set of American rights. NOTE THAT public sentiment has historically gone either of two ways... in that... sometimes an angry portion of the public wants a defendant to be convicted... and sometimes an angry portion of the public wants a defendant to be exonerated. For example, I remember a famous case, here in NYS, in which the rich owner of a Ford car dealership was thought to have murdered, and secretly disposed of, his wife. Despite the fact that the body of the wife was never found (implying a complete lack of evidence), the enraged public wanted the defendant sentenced to life in prison. And they GOT it! The weak court "bent" to the will of angry public sentiment, and so, the defendant (despite the complete lack of evidence) was judged as guilty. LATER, however, when no one was paying any attention, on appeal, the defendant was tried again, and eventually released as an innocent man (...because, since the prosecution could not produce a dead body, no one could prove that the wife had been murdered.)
    1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. ​ @Sarah-hm1kb  Recently, for 4 years, I worked for a custom fabrication steel factory, right here in the USA. Starting with stock steel, we performed custom welding/machining/painting. The first task, where the stock steel came into the factory, was for the "saw" man to cut the stock steel into sections. A short while before that job, I worked in construction, and one of my job bosses had two LARGE bandsaws, where the saw sat at about a 35° angle, and, against the force of a spring, you had to push the blade down, closer and closer to a 0° angle, to make a "cut" with the bandsaw blade. Anyways, regarding your domestic (American) Family Business, you will probably understand the point that I have been trying to make, in the course of many back 'n' forth discussions, posted throughout this overall Reply section (which now has around 186 posted Replies.) When USA-based Steel Distributors automatically (and opportunistically) raise their price TO MATCH that of the incoming tariffed imported Chinese steel, then doing so potentially KILLS a large portion of the American steel-purchasing market that they sell to. I liken this to how, state-by-state, every state has a Fish and Wildlife department, that issues hunting licenses, and enforces hunting seasons. 👈 Why do states do this? Ans: they do this because they want to make sure that each of the various "hunted" animal species ARE NOT HUNTED TO EXTINCTION. Think about it. What good does it do to always, and automatically, apply the unwritten "rules" of Capitalism (which the conflationist USA steel distributors interpret as... If imported Chinese steel is tariffed, then we USA steel distributors must automatically raise our price to match! ) ...if doing so puts a MASSIVE count of their USA-based customers out of business? It is with my point in mind that I suggest that the upcoming Trump administration enact laws and/or regulations that address this "kill-the-entire-customer-base" possibility. At the same time, such laws or regulations need to be crafted with great care. For instance, do you remember the now defunct Blockbuster Video rental chain? Just before BV went out of business, it was backing an outmoded technology (when compared with renting movies off of Netflix.) In no way would I ever want the US government to uselessly "prop up" a business that backs an outmoded technology method, and thereby assure that such a business (like BV) never goes "extinct." I would want laws and regulations that PRESERVE competitive pricing among all the USA-based distributors, especially when they sell to USA-based customers. Do you agree?
    1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. It would seem, from inspection, that the summation results initially produce two odd numbers, followed by two even numbers, and this basic pattern repeats... Example: Using 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36... note that... 1, 3, both odd, followed by 6, 10 both even, followed by 15, 21 both odd, followed by 28, 36 both even . This suggests a second pattern, which can be "layed over" the thus-far presented pattern. In other words... (odd) + odd = even (1+2) + 3 = 6 ...and next... (even) + even = even (1+2+3) + 4 = 10 ...and next... (even) + odd = odd (1+2+3+4) + 5 = 15 ...and next... (odd) + even = odd (1+2+3+4+5) + 6 = 21 Extracting the paradigm of this 2nd Pattern, we get... (odd) + odd = even (even) + even = even (even) + odd = odd (odd) + even = odd . 👆Let's call this column the parentheses column, Pc. □□□□□□👆Similarly, let's call this column the NO parentheses column, NPc. From inspection, it would seem that the identified EVEN perfect numbers only happen for the case... (odd) + odd = even . Additionally, such perfect numbers only seem to arise when the number appearing in the NPc column is an integer factor of the associated sum that appears NEXT TO it, in the Pc column. For example... □□□□ ᴾ ᶜ □□□□□ ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ □□□(1+2) +□□□□□3 [👈note that ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ 3 is an integer factor of ᴾ ᶜ 3 ] (1+2+3+4+5+6) + 7 [👈note that ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ 7 is an integer factor of ᴾ ᶜ 21 ] (1+2 • • • 29+30)+31 [👈note that ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ 31 is an integer factor of ᴾ ᶜ 465]. [note that... 31 × 15 = 465 ...and that... (1+2 • • • 29+30) = 465 ...and that... (1+2 • • • 29+30) + 31 = 496 ] Using... (1+2 • • • 29+30) + 31 ...as a model, we could rewrite this as... ( ᴾ ᶜ sum ) + ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ . We can then factor out ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ to yield... ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ ( odd + 1 ) ...or... ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ × ( even ) ...or... odd × even . And here's another cute elucidation!... Going back to... □□□□ ᴾ ᶜ □□□□□ ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ (1+2 • • • 29+30) + 31 = 496 ...note that the LARGEST INTEGER in the ᴾ ᶜ sum is the number 30. Taking HALF of 30, we get 15 . Wouldn't ya know it!... 15 happens to be the crucial number in... 31 × 15 = 465 [👈which is the sum of (1+2 • • • 29+30) ]. Let's try this for the other ones! Going back to... □□□□ ᴾ ᶜ □□□□□ ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ (1+2+3+4+5+6) + 7 = 28 ...note that the LARGEST INTEGER in the ᴾ ᶜ sum is the number 6. Taking HALF of 6, we get 3. Wouldn't ya know it!... 3 happens to be the crucial number in... 7 × 3 = 21 [👈which is the sum of (1+2+3+4+5+6) ]. Look at that!! It worked AGAIN! Now, going back to... □□□□ ᴾ ᶜ □□□□□ ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ □□□(1+2) +□□□□□3 = 6 ...note that the LARGEST INTEGER in the ᴾ ᶜ sum is the number 2. Taking HALF of 2, we get 1. Wouldn't ya know it!... 1 happens to be the crucial number in... 3 × 1 = 3 [👈which is the sum of (1+2) ]. But all of this is to be expected... Going back to... (1+2 • • • 29+30) + 31 = 496 ...note that we can form pairs within the ᴾ ᶜ sum. For example... (1 +30) = 31 (2 +29) = 31 (3 +28) = 31 □□□ • □□□ • □□□ • (13+18) = 31 (14+17) = 31 (15+16) = 31 So, of course, the ᴾ ᶜ sum always has the ᴺ ᴾ ᶜ integer as a factor.
    1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. Sabine, I'm not a physicist. My degrees are in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Electrical Engineering. Just the same, a collection of related ideas occurred to me, and I was wondering if you would critique my ideas, while remembering that I am not a physicist. That out of the way, here goes!... The physics for the interaction between Gravity and Electromagnetism would seem to come down to noting the well-documented phenomenon known as gravitational lensing AND TO examining Maxwell's derived equation for the speed of light. Gravitational lensing demonstrates that Gravity can bend the otherwise straight path of light. Since light is an electromagnetic propagation, Gravity apparently interacts directly with Electromagnetism. Additionally, Maxwell's derived equation for the speed of light... c = √(1/ε₀µ₀) ; in which c is the speed of light expressed in units of (ᵐᵉᵗᵉʳˢ/ₛ) ...shows that the speed of light is exclusively dependent upon TWO experimentally measured values, namely ε₀ and µ₀. ε₀ is the permittivity of free space... ε₀ = 8.85×10⁻¹² (ᶠᵃʳᵃᵈˢ/ₘ) . µ₀ is the permeability of free space... µ₀ = 4π×10⁻⁷ (ʰᵉⁿʳʸ/ₘ) . [Note that henry is the unit for electrical inductance and that farads is the unit for electrical capacitance. ] I will hypothesize that, in a region of free space, both ε₀ and µ₀ are exclusively determined by Gravity. I will also hypothesize that, just as gravitational lensing demonstrates that Gravity directly interacts with Electromagnetism, Electromagnetism can warp/manipulate (i.e. interact with) Gravity. I will further guess that, in order for Electromagnetism to manipulate Gravity within a localized region, it would have to... • exert a very strong field (since Gravity itself is extremely weak) AND • the EM field would have to be shaped into a necessary and unique vortex. So, Sabine, what do you think? Could Gravity be strongly connected with Electromagnetism? Via the physical units for Electricity (i.e. the Farad; and the Henry), could Gravity be secretly electrical in nature, and we simply haven't made the necessary discoveries that would reveal such a connection? Please don't be too savage with me. As I already stated, I'm not a physicist. However, I do like to dare to dream.
    1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. Electric suspended-from-a-steel-cable elevators will not even attempt to plummet to the ground in the event that Electrical Power is discontinued. That's not how their electric control works. I know, I used to service such elevators. You see, up on the roof of the building, there is a little shack where the ELECTRIC elevator control resides. Just before the large, electric motor in this shack begins to turn (either Clockwise or Counterclockwise), the spring-actuated brake (which prevents the large motor from turning) has to be DISENGAGED by activating an ELECTRIC SOLENOID. In the event that electrical power is discontinued, the Electric Solenoid will no longer be activated. When this happens, the SPRING on the Brake will mechanically engage the Brake. As you might expect, when the Brake is engaged, the steel cable (from which the elevator is suspended) can neither raise nor lower the elevator. The result is that it would be impossible for the elevator to plummet to the ground. Yes, there exists AN ADDITIONAL brake that is mounted onto the Elevator Car, itself. This particular brake ONLY ENGAGES in the event of a freefall event. However, there will be NO NEED for it to engage, because, as I have already pointed out, the Elevator Car will not go into a state of freefall, anyways. There is yet a THIRD reason why suspended-from-a-steel-cable Electric elevators WOULD NOT plummet to the ground (in the event that Electrical Power is discontinued.) On one end of the Steel Cable is the Elevator Car. On the OTHER end of the same Steel Cable is a large COUNTERBALANCE weight. So, even if BOTH brakes (the one up in the roof-mounted Elevator Shack; and the one mounted ON the Elevator Car itself) DIDN'T work, the Elevator Car would still NOT plummet to the ground. Instead, under the influence of Gravity, the Elevator Car would smoothly oscillate Up 'n' Down, until, eventually, the Up 'n' Down oscillations would cease and the Elevator Car would uninterestingly come to a safe stop, somewhere near the mid-height of the elevator shaft. If the elevator in question IS NOT a suspended-from-a-steel-cable elevator, then it must be the type of elevator that is supported, from beneath, by a vertical-action Hydraulic Ram. Since a Hydraulic Ram could care less if electrical power is discontinued, once again, no elevator cars will suddenly plummet to the ground.
    1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104.  @Americanmamaistired  I am going to address your first sentence. You are absolutely right, in that managers who do not have a college degree do not want employees under them who do have a college degree. As a holder of 2 significant college degrees, I can tell you that it is a quiet Hell to work under such managers. I have worked under 3 such managers. They don't want employees in their department who will potentially advance past them. Now, keep in mind, there exist two major categories of college degree holder... • those that are not savvy when it comes to working with industrial machines and industrial hand tools • those that are extremely savvy when it comes to working with industrial machines and industrial hand tools I am in the 2nd category. I am proficient in my college majors (computer science; mathematics; electronics/electrical engineering), but I am also proficient and experienced in a wide range of tasks that most people would associate with a Trade School education. When a guy like me gets assigned to work in a department that is managed by someone who does not hold a college degree, then a guy like me usually ends-up being professionally "suffocated" (like a man forcibly held underwater.) In one case, I was "two managers" deep in this situation, in that my immediate manager, along with HIS manager, did not hold a college degree, AND, both expressed a dim view of the value of a college degree. It is a lousy form of exploitation and discrimination to be "held down", relative to any possibility of career advancement within a company, just because you happen to be a college degree holder who works under two-layers-deep of non-degree managers. But it happens, just the same. And nobody talks about it.
    1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265.  @jeffh.8127  Thank you for your reply. For the benefit of others, I want to mention that LLM stands for Large Language Model, and can be looked up at W_ _ _pedia. Recently, Elon Musk et. al. have made a lot of progress with their humanoid Optimus robot, and the following is my critique of such robots, which I have been regularly posting... Real World Tools require struggle… In order for an autonomous humanoid robot to have any value in a factory, the robot needs to be able to use Real World Tools. However, such tools, even when they are top-of-the-line AND brand new, always require struggle. For example, consider the Jacob's chuck of a hand drill. After you tighten a drill bit in the chuck, you then start the drilling task, at which point the bit will probably demonstrate some rotational SLIP. You then have to STOP drilling, immediately followed by re-tightening the drill bit in the chuck. Once re-tightened, you immediately resume drilling. The intelligence of a robot won't be able to duplicate this. A robot's intelligence won't be able to assess that... • the drill bit is rotationally slipping; • excessive rotational slip is unacceptable; • the cause of the rotational slip is due to a need for more Chuck Tightening; • at the very least, the drilling operation needs to CEASE; • the drill bit needs to be repositioned and retightened (within the Chuck); • the Drill Key (which is used to tighten the Jacob's chuck), will always SLIP, even if the drill is top-of-the-line and brand new; • once the drill bit is suitably retightened, the drilling operation needs to resume. □ In other words, the task of using a Real World Tool always includes the need to struggle with the tool. The intelligence needed to efficiently perform such struggle goes way beyond what the intelligence of an autonomous humanoid robot is capable of.
    1
  1266. ​ @jeffh.8127 Thank you for your reply. For the benefit of others, I want to mention that LLM stands for Large Language Model, and can be looked up at W_ _ _pedia. Recently, Elon Musk et. al. have made a lot of progress with their humanoid Optimus robot, and the following is my critique of such robots, which I have been regularly posting... Real World Tools require struggle… In order for an autonomous humanoid robot to have any value in a factory, the robot needs to be able to use Real World Tools. However, such tools, even when they are top-of-the-line AND brand new, always require struggle. For example, consider the Jacob's chuck of a hand drill. After you tighten a drill bit in the chuck, you then start the drilling task, at which point the bit will probably demonstrate some rotational SLIP. You then have to STOP drilling, immediately followed by re-tightening the drill bit in the chuck. Once re-tightened, you immediately resume drilling. The intelligence of a robot won't be able to duplicate this. A robot's intelligence won't be able to assess that... • the drill bit is rotationally slipping; • excessive rotational slip is unacceptable; • the cause of the rotational slip is due to a need for more Chuck Tightening; • at the very least, the drilling operation needs to CEASE; • the drill bit needs to be repositioned and retightened (within the Chuck); • the Drill Key (which is used to tighten the Jacob's chuck), will always SLIP, even if the drill is top-of-the-line and brand new; • once the drill bit is suitably retightened, the drilling operation needs to resume. □ In other words, the task of using a Real World Tool always includes the need to struggle with the tool. The intelligence needed to efficiently perform such struggle goes way beyond what the intelligence of an autonomous humanoid robot is capable of.
    1
  1267. ​ @jeffh.8127 Thank you for your reply. For the benefit of others, I want to mention that LLM stands for _Large Language Model. Recently, Elon Musk et. al. have made a lot of progress with their humanoid Optimus robot, and the following is my critique of such robots, which I have been regularly posting... Real World Tools require struggle… In order for an autonomous humanoid robot to have any value in a factory, the robot needs to be able to use Real World Tools. However, such tools, even when they are top-of-the-line AND brand new, always require struggle. For example, consider the Jacob's chuck of a hand drill. After you tighten a drill bit in the chuck, you then start the drilling task, at which point the bit will probably demonstrate some rotational SLIP. You then have to STOP drilling, immediately followed by re-tightening the drill bit in the chuck. Once re-tightened, you immediately resume drilling. The intelligence of a robot won't be able to duplicate this. A robot's intelligence won't be able to assess that... • the drill bit is rotationally slipping; • excessive rotational slip is unacceptable; • the cause of the rotational slip is due to a need for more Chuck Tightening; • at the very least, the drilling operation needs to CEASE; • the drill bit needs to be repositioned and retightened (within the Chuck); • the Drill Key (which is used to tighten the Jacob's chuck), will always SLIP, even if the drill is top-of-the-line and brand new; • once the drill bit is suitably retightened, the drilling operation needs to resume. □ In other words, the task of using a Real World Tool always includes the need to struggle with the tool. The intelligence needed to efficiently perform such struggle goes way beyond what the intelligence of an autonomous humanoid robot is capable of.
    1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. ​ @ravenatorful  First of all, I want to mention that I once owned a 1903 unabridged Webster's dictionary. One day, I decided to look-up the word, empathy. Guess what? It wasn't there! Apparently, during the publishing and printing effort, immediately prior to the year 1903, the word empathy hadn't been invented yet. Seems like a point that we ought to at least touch base with. Next, I was thinking deeply about my "argument", at around 3am, this past morning. Here's what I came up with. A humanoid robot, possessing a synthetic AI as its intelligence, can continually improve upon producing responses, expressed in Real Time, that persuade an actual human to believe that the robot is a feeling-and-caring being, yet, all the while, absolutely NO CAPACITY TO "feel" feelings is taking place, regarding any place inside of the robot. Inside of the robot, the robot is as completely inert as a 🪨stone. The capacity to "feel" a feeling (as opposed to merely numerically processing an incoming byte stream of numbers; numbers which represent an input signal, received from a peripheral sensor) is a physical dimension of Human Life (and, I would imagine, Animal Life, as well) that even the best thinking, put forth by our best philosophers and scientists, can only reach towards, but never quite grasp. I sometimes like to think that some truly greater intelligence, much greater than our entire human intelligence, DOES know the answer to the "riddle", and this intelligence regularly amuses itself, by snickering at us, every once in a while.
    1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. I took more math (to get my 2-year AS Computer Science and Math degree) than my prior 8th grade Math Teacher (who had a Masters Degree and a Teaching Certificate.) Here's my story... Right after I graduated from my 2-year Associates Degree (majoring in both Computer Science and Mathematics), I couldn't find a Computer Science job in the private sector, so I went back to my college and signed-up to be a tutor. This turned out to be a great choice. I then decided to go back to both my high school and my junior high school (with the intent to sign-up to be a tutor in Math.) Things got interesting when I went over to my previous junior high school. When I went into the main office of my junior high school, I told the ladies there what I was up to, and they told me that I would have to speak with the "head" of the junior high school's Math department. I asked "who's that?", and they told me the name of my prior 8th grade math teacher. I replied "he still works here?!?", with a bit of surprise in my voice. Anyways, I walked down the appropriate hallways, located my prior math teacher, and we began to have an interesting chat. He asked me "What math have you taken?", and I told him Calculus, Linear Algebra, Numerical Analysis, and Differential Equations. He immediately told me "Back when I got my Masters, they didn't require us to take Linear Algebra (nor Numerical Analysis nor Differential Equations.)" I was astounded! From what I could discern, his Masters degree was more about psychology classes than it was about learning math. By the way, this all happened in New York State. Also, this all happened many years before anybody had conceived of STEM or STEAM programs.
    1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. ​ @jeffh.8127 Thank you for your reply. For the benefit of others, I want to mention that LLM stands for Large Language Model. Recently, Elon Musk et. al. have made a lot of progress with their humanoid Optimus robot, and the following is my critique of such robots, which I have been regularly posting... Real World Tools require struggle… In order for an autonomous humanoid robot to have any value in a factory, the robot needs to be able to use Real World Tools. However, such tools, even when they are top-of-the-line AND brand new, always require struggle. For example, consider the Jacob's chuck of a hand drill. After you tighten a drill bit in the chuck, you then start the drilling task, at which point the bit will probably demonstrate some rotational SLIP. You then have to STOP drilling, immediately followed by re-tightening the drill bit in the chuck. Once re-tightened, you immediately resume drilling. The intelligence of a robot won't be able to duplicate this. A robot's intelligence won't be able to assess that... • the drill bit is rotationally slipping; • excessive rotational slip is unacceptable; • the cause of the rotational slip is due to a need for more Chuck Tightening; • at the very least, the drilling operation needs to CEASE; • the drill bit needs to be repositioned and retightened (within the Chuck); • the Drill Key (which is used to tighten the Jacob's chuck), will always SLIP, even if the drill is top-of-the-line and brand new; • once the drill bit is suitably retightened, the drilling operation needs to resume. □ In other words, the task of using a Real World Tool always includes the need to struggle with the tool. The intelligence needed to efficiently perform such struggle goes way beyond what the intelligence of an autonomous humanoid robot is capable of.
    1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. I see what you are trying to say, but I’m also thinking that your claim is not true. I don’t know what delivery Supply Voltage EV charging stations provide, so, for the sake of argument, let’s say it is 115 Vac. If the supply voltage is reasonably regulated, then it should stay pretty close to 115 Vac across a wide range of Current Draws. Since EV cars each carry their own individual Battery Charger, then, per Ohm’s Law, the Current Draw for a single EV car will be the impedance of the Battery Charger PLUS the impedance of the Battery. This impedance, considered with the 115 Vac supply voltage, will exclusively determine the Charging Wattage for a single EV car. If the transformer that delivers power to an EV charging station is selected properly, then the transformer should be able to deliver, per individual EV car, the same charging wattage to each car of a 4-car charging station, regardless of whether one car is charging or even 4 cars are simultaneously charging. You have to remember that, on the Electrical Grid, if the voltage “dips”, there are folks who monitor for this possibility, 24 hours a day, and accordingly adjust the amount of Electrical Power supplied to The Grid. With all this in mind, the whole problem comes down to merely selecting a sufficiently hefty Power Transformer at the EV charging station location. NOTE: From reading the other comments in this forum, I am guessing that Australia has a lot of trouble when it comes to maintaining sufficient power on the electrical grid. I say again, if the GRID can supply enough power, then the whole matter comes down to the selection of a sufficiently hefty power transformer AT the EV charging station location.
    1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. The mind-blowing concept that was implied, but not expounded upon, has to do with the connection between... • Meaning • Direction within a finite dimension vector space, such as 3D • the way that an infinite "count" of possible vector directions, within a vector space of dimension 𝑛 , increases to an EVEN LARGER infinite "count" of possible vector directions, within a vector space of dimension ( 𝑛 + 1 ) □ What am I getting at? Recall that there is an equivalence between Direction and Meaning. Keep that in the back of your mind, for a second. Now picture a flat 2D plane, with a bunch of vectors that all have their "tails" at the (0,0) origin, and these vectors point in all possible directions, going around the entire 360°. Within the 2D flat plane, this describes an infinite "count" of Directions, and, because of the equivalence, a likewise infinite "count" of Meanings. Now picture in your mind a transparent 3D sphere, with a bunch of vectors that all have their "tails" at the (0,0,0) origin, and, like before, these vectors point in all possible directions, going around the entire 360° by 360° by 360°. For a moment, try to appreciate the MASSIVE INCREASE in possible vector Directions, within the 3D sphere, WHEN COMPARED with the already infinite "count" of possible vector Directions within the previous flat 2D plane. This massive increase in possible vector Directions (when going from 2D to 3D) is equivalent to a corresponding increase in possible Meanings. SO, why do I think this is an important point to make note of? It reveals that AI will be capable of appreciating a dimensional "depth" of Meanings THAT NO HUMAN could ever achieve. What we humans see ONLY AFTER arduously going through 10 pages of a math proof, a future AI, working with vectors that have a dimension of 𝑛 = 2048 , will be able to "see" and appreciate at a single glance.
    1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. Personally, I think that every child in America, despite what their public school or their teachers might tell them, should commit themselves to believing that they are capable of learning anything, up to any degree of proficiency. That said, I think that such children, as soon as possible, should discover the Khan Academy videos (which are all over YouTube.) On top of that, I think a group of wise people should identify approximately 15 high-quality textbooks, and that anyone who wants a world class education should commit themselves to reading (cover to cover) every book in this yet-to-be-identified list of textbooks. If I could recommend at least one textbook for this proposed list, it would be a Calculus textbook (which was written by Howard Anton; I believe he taught at Drexler University) titled simply Calculus with Analytic Geometry. This textbook went through many published editions, across many years. I would recommend finding a used copy that was published around the years 1982 through 1985. You know, in many ways, attending a college lecture is a lot like your days back when you were in either the 1st grade or kindergarten, when you would walk to the Library (the one within the walls of your elementary school building), and once there, sit on a carpet as a group, and listen to the librarian read to you from a book. Similarly, at a college lecture, the lecturer is presenting to you information that you could have read, all on your own, from a book. Ask yourself this... do you really need someone TO READ TO YOU, just as if you were still in either the 1st grade or kindergarten? Of course not. In the end, to get through college, you still have to take the time TO ACTUALLY READ textbooks. There is no getting around this. These days, because of well-crafted YouTube videos, life is actually easier, because the identical Textbook Information is now all in video format, all over YouTube. If I was empowered to, I would ordain that every school-age child could avoid public school, altogether, and, instead, spend their years (up until the age of 19) reading from the list of 15 high-quality textbooks, that I have proposed. In my opinion, it would be a much better use of time.
    1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. Engineers tend to "run over" Mathematics, with about the same disregard that a charging Monster Truck displays towards a parked VW Super Beetle. When that TV show The Big Bang Theory was in production, they always depicted the ongoing rivalry between a Theoretical Physicist and an Engineer, but I think they should have included the classic rivalry that goes on between Engineers and Mathematicians. Afterall, Mathematicians define that... only a square matrix can possess an inverse ...but meanwhile, Engineers regularly produce non-square matrices, and state that such a matrix suddenly becomes 'singular' (i.e. suddenly possesses no inverse) in the event that one of the rows of the matrix has all of its terms sufficiently approach ZERO (i.e. the matrix "loses rank.") Engineers also unilaterally take it upon themselves to redefine the Euler Angles [that is to say α (alpha), β (beta), and γ (gamma)], so that these angles indicate rotation about the x-axis, rotation about the y-axis, and rotation about the z-axis, respectively. Engineers do this because they are interested in partial differentials and Jacobian matrices, for the purpose of controlling 6DOF (i.e. 6 joint) robots. Meanwhile, back over in "math class", the Euler Angles (α β γ) are always stated with respect to some 3D vector, whose "tail" is at the Origin, and with respect to the angles that such a vector makes relative to the x-axis (this would be α ), relative to the y-axis (this would be β), and relative to the z-axis (this would be γ.) The Mathematicians' definitions for α β γ came FIRST, but the Engineers don't care. Engineers just go ahead AND RE-USE the already defined angle variables α β γ, while simultaneously instantiating COMPLETELY NEW definitions for these variables. In this way, Engineers "run over" Mathematicians.
    1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1