Talk about "carbon footprints"...

[Don Y]

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>

Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
took!

(but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)

[Phil Hobbs]

"Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be
looking at some actual sample to be a microscopist.

O tempora, O mores. :(

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:22:59 AM UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
> > <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
> >
> >
> > Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
> > more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
> > took!
> >
> > (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
> "Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be
> looking at some actual sample to be a microscopist.
>
> O tempora, O mores. :(

Phil ignores the amount of "looking" that is needed to provide the basic information that is required to set up that kind of simulation.

It is well known that the spike protein in the Covid-19 shell alternates between an open state - when the receptor binding domain is exposed and could latch onto a human ACE2 receptor (if there was one handy) and a closed state (when it isn't). Getting handle on how much of the time the spike proteins in an aerosol droplet might spend in the open state sounds like a useful exercise - and not easily accessible by more direct methods.

Of course what matters is the likely state of the spike protein when the aerosol droplet has hit the surface of the throat or lung and has a human cell in reach to latch onto.

This is accessible by computational simulation, and even less accessible to direct inspection.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
wrote:

Pretty pictures, but do masks work?



--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>
>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>> took!
>>
>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>
> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>
>
>

What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
masks while operating.

I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
out to do tribal propaganda now?

BTW covid or not masks in closed public spaces are a good thing,
the rate of seasonal infections has dropped dramatically since they
were made mandatory.
Good hygiene is not a bad idea, you know.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>
>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>> took!
>>>
>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>
>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>
>>
>>
>
>What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>masks while operating.

Theatre?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/

"However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
infectious contamination."

>
>I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>out to do tribal propaganda now?

I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.

>
>BTW covid or not masks in closed public spaces are a good thing,
>the rate of seasonal infections has dropped dramatically since they
>were made mandatory.
>Good hygiene is not a bad idea, you know.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>>>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>>>> took!
>>>>
>>>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>>>
>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
>> masks while operating.
>
> Theatre?
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>
> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
> infectious contamination."
>
>
>>
>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
>
> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.

So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around
when talking by a factor of about 10 does protect other people
from the infections you are carrying.
Obviously you *do* know that, you manage a lot more complex
tasks in your work than what it takes to see this.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 20:00:30 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>

If masks trapped droplets and sterilized them on the spot, they might
help a little. Of course, they don't.

But droplets are now deprecated as a major virus spreader.

The bigger picture is that, in physics and math and engineering,
theories are tested by hard experiment. In many other fields, truth is
set by social concensus, and keeps changing. So in areas like
nutrition and climate and medicine and sociology and economics, some
skeptcism is warranted.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

If we exclude the hard sciences, the rest are way over half wrong.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

[Dimiter_Popoff]

They do not need to sterilize the droplets. Capturing them is enough,
they are not meant to protect you from your infections.
And they *do* capture like 90% of the droplets a talking person
spreads, it is easy to measure.

>
> But droplets are now deprecated as a major virus spreader.
>
> The bigger picture is that, in physics and math and engineering,
> theories are tested by hard experiment. In many other fields, truth is
> set by social concensus, and keeps changing. So in areas like
> nutrition and climate and medicine and sociology and economics, some
> skeptcism is warranted.
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
>
> If we exclude the hard sciences, the rest are way over half wrong.
>

Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
*know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about.

Or will you claim that reducing the amount of droplets in the air
by a factor of 10 does not reduce the infection probability.
I know there are tons of disinformation written to support such
idiotic claims, hopefully you understand that posting links to
that sort of thing might work on a forum for housewives, not
here where most people are used to dig for cause of problems a
lot subtler than the probabilities to spit on someone's face
with and without wearing a mask.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <sodt2i$c3r$1...@dont-email.me>, d...@tgi-sci.com says...

>
> Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
> I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
> for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
> Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
> *know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about
>

Consensus is often wrong. Look at California and the consensus about
the $ 1000 crime limit.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

There are plenty of examples indeed. Not so long ago there was a
consensus the Earth was flat.

And of course there are obvious things one can check for themselves,
like the amount of saliva they spread while talking while they
wear a mask and when they don't, no need to look for consensus
on that. Like there is no need to look for it for the question
whether it is day or night, a look through the window is usually
enough.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 22:01:22 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>

What happens to the viruses next?

>
>>
>> But droplets are now deprecated as a major virus spreader.
>>
>> The bigger picture is that, in physics and math and engineering,
>> theories are tested by hard experiment. In many other fields, truth is
>> set by social concensus, and keeps changing. So in areas like
>> nutrition and climate and medicine and sociology and economics, some
>> skeptcism is warranted.
>>
>> https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
>>
>> If we exclude the hard sciences, the rest are way over half wrong.
>>
>
>Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
>I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
>for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
>Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
>*know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about.
>
>Or will you claim that reducing the amount of droplets in the air
>by a factor of 10 does not reduce the infection probability.

A macro-scale droplet will usually fall to the ground, where it will
dry up and get walked on and such. Those viruses are mostly out of the
game.

How about the ones trapped in a cloth mask? What's their destiny?

How about virus-bearing particles that are smaller than the cloth
weave?

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:00:42 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

Some of the most-masked, most-vaccinated countries are now having
record case peaks. Germany, Netherlands, Belgium.

Florida is relaxing a lot of restrictions, and cases have dropped
about 15:1 from peak... 1 death yesterday out of 22 million. UK, with
three times the population, had 143.

The causalities here are not at all obvious. That does not stop
politicians and "experts" from pontificating all day.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

Stay trapped in the mask until it is discarded, why do you pretend
to not see the obvious.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But droplets are now deprecated as a major virus spreader.
>>>
>>> The bigger picture is that, in physics and math and engineering,
>>> theories are tested by hard experiment. In many other fields, truth is
>>> set by social concensus, and keeps changing. So in areas like
>>> nutrition and climate and medicine and sociology and economics, some
>>> skeptcism is warranted.
>>>
>>> https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
>>>
>>> If we exclude the hard sciences, the rest are way over half wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Consensus does not mean truth indeed.
>> I did suggest to you once an experiment - talk against a mirror
>> for a minute with then without a mask and compare the results.
>> Not difficult to do, if you want experimental proof; of course you
>> *know* you will see the factor of about 10 I am talking about.
>>
>> Or will you claim that reducing the amount of droplets in the air
>> by a factor of 10 does not reduce the infection probability.
>
> A macro-scale droplet will usually fall to the ground, where it will
> dry up and get walked on and such. Those viruses are mostly out of the
> game.

Those that large you can see and run away from, typically you can
see the intention of the person to spit in your face and take measures.
The rest spat at you unintentionally from 1 meter or less will reach
you before falling.

>
> How about the ones trapped in a cloth mask? What's their destiny?

Whatever their destiny they do not reach other people because they are
trapped.

>
> How about virus-bearing particles that are smaller than the cloth
> weave?
>

These are within the 10% I mentioned the mask cannot do much about.
The mask only gives about a tenfold protection, you know.
Like washing your hands without going through the
sterilizing procedures surgeons go through.
You do wash your hands from time to time, don't you :).

Wearing a mask in public spaces, especially in crowded ones, is
simply much better hygiene than not wearing one.
Since they made them mandatory I see *a lot* less seasonal
infections, running noses etc. I can't see a sane reason why
someone would not want to put a mask for the 5 or 15 minutes
while on a bus or in a shop etc., other than insisting on their
right to be antisocial and to spread infections.

[Tom Gardner]

No.

Belgium and the Netherlands have half the case rate of the UK.
(Germany has higher).

The UK has the lowest death rate, but it is tricky to compare
those figures due to the different counting methods. The only
reliable figure in that respect is the excess mortality.

> The causalities here are not at all obvious. That does not stop
> politicians and "experts" from pontificating all day.

Nor non-experts. Especially those that cherry pick data
to suit their predilection (hint hint)

[John Larkin]

One can define unwelcome or unpopular data as cherry picking. I like
to consider those things as "possibilities."

Or always Trust The Science.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 3:43:41 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
> >On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
> >>>
> >>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
> >>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
> >>> took!
> >>>
> >>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
> >>
> >> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?
> >
> >What do you think, do they work. Why do *you* think surgeons wear
> >masks while operating.
>
> Theatre?
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
>
> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
> infectious contamination."

But " More rigorous contemporary research is needed to make a definitive comment on the effectiveness of surgical facemasks."

In other words they aren't against facemasks but they would like a nice big grant to prove that they work, exploiting all the new (and expensive) modern technology to confirm what we already know.

> >I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
> >out to do tribal propaganda now?
>
> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.

John Larkin doesn't know much at the best of time. There's no way that they could make things worse.

> >BTW covid or not masks in closed public spaces are a good thing, the rate of seasonal infections has dropped dramatically since they were made mandatory.
> >Good hygiene is not a bad idea, you know.

But John Larkin isn't good a recognising good ideas that aren't his own. "Not invented here" does seem to [part of his mind-set.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 6:22:18 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 20:00:30 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> If masks trapped droplets and sterilized them on the spot, they might
> help a little. Of course, they don't.

As soon as the droplet is trapped, it isn't going to go off and infect anybody else. Sterilisation isn't necessary (though it would be nice).

> But droplets are now deprecated as a major virus spreader.

By whom? Cite?

> The bigger picture is that, in physics and math and engineering, theories are tested by hard experiment. In many other fields, truth is set by social concensus, and keeps changing.

Science as whole is a device for establishing "truth" by social concensus. What's accepted as true does change as the evidence builds up, and experimental sciences do lend themselves to collecting more reliable evidence.

> So in areas like nutrition and climate and medicine and sociology and economics, some skeptcism is warranted.

Skepticism is always warranted. You do have to look at - and understand - the evidence, which isn't something that John Larkin seems to be able to manage.

> https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

> If we exclude the hard sciences, the rest are way over half wrong.

There are more defects in papers where the evidence is less definitive. "Half wrong" puts a number on something that isn't well defined. The papers in question may not have been as precise as one would have liked, but finding many that led to false conclusions would be difficult - it won't anything like half.

The PLOS paper didn't cite one. They were being rude about medical research, which is notoriously sloppy - for the sake of their mental health doctors are trained to make up their minds rapidly and not spend time worrying about the patients that end up dying, and this isn't a good mind set for finding confounds to ostensibly persuasive evidence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Rick C]

Masks don't work very well if they aren't worn properly which many people don't do if at all. In Puerto Rico the virus seems to be taken seriously in most places, especially in the more urban areas. I've actually had to show my vaccine card to enter restaurants. But in the states, I enter a gas station and I might be the only person wearing a mask other than the workers and often they pull the mask down as soon as the customer walks away.

It is sad that a country like the US can get so outraged that we were attacked by a group of radicals who killed 3,000 on our home soil, which we responded to by allowing 4,000 more to die overseas and instituting all manner of rules about air travel costing billions of dollars and requiring us to take off our shoes to get on a fucking airplane... unless you pay for the expedited clearance which allows them to wave requirements. But when it comes to a global pandemic we can't listen to doctors and scientists, instead decide that quack remedies will deal with the pandemic. Meanwhile millions of people die... because of stupidity.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Rick C]

I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.

The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Tom Gardner]

Indeed.

Cherrypicking and confusing 2x with x/2 are antithetical to science.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 09:07:23 +0000, Tom Gardner

Covid cases here have decreased by 140%.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
so part of the 85% won't fall prey.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
news:bc5ce526-a948-4794...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 6:22:18 AM UTC+11, John Larkin
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 20:00:30 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff
>> <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrot
> e:
>> >On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff
>> >> <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>> >>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y
>> >>>> <blocked...@foo.invalid> w
> rote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If masks trapped droplets and sterilized them on the spot, they
>> might help a little. Of course, they don't.
>
> As soon as the droplet is trapped, it isn't going to go off and
> infect anybody else. Sterilisation isn't necessary (though it
> would be nice).

Larkin is sporting some pretty stupid 'logic' there.
Ask any open cut surgery patient if they are glad the surgeon wore a
spittle mask. Any 8 year old kid from my generation knew what a mask
was and what the different types could and couldn't do. I was spray
painting out in the garage as a kid. Industrious kids learn about
real world mechanisms. Fake jackasses become Trumpers.

>> But droplets are now deprecated as a major virus spreader.
>
> By whom? Cite?

Yeah, I want to hear that one too. It is the primary transmission
vector, and there are not many others since folks are not going
around licking discarded masks. No scientist anywhere ever said that
microdroplets are not a transmission vector, nor would such a thig be
"deprecated". John Larkin's brain was self deprecated years ago.
Slash that... DECADES AGO.

DING!

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>

When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
clucking.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:10:49 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> >> I never understand why people respond to trolls. It is very clear that Larkin starts these discussions so he can argue meaninglessly with people. There's no thought to what he writes. The article he linked to simply says the hard evidence that surgical masks prevent infection is not robust. The article discusses no evidence they do NOT protect, yet Larkin suggests masks may make "things worse". I suppose based on the same line of reasoning we could say wearing surgical masks *may* make you sterile or they *may* make you a millionaire. The report found no evidence to contradict any of this.
> >>
> >> The guy is a troll. Why respond to such stupid posts. It's like responding to skybuck2000. I suppose some people find stringing him along to be entertaining. "Let's get Larkin to show what a fool he is"...
> >>
> >
> >He is not doing it for "meaningless discussions". He does have a tribal
> >agenda and feeds the search engines in favour of it, adds to the
> >sea of disinformation meant for people who could be misled (85%
> >of the population is my estimate). Replying to that kind of posts
> >feeds the search engines as well but also provides some context
> >so part of the 85% won't fall prey.
>
> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
> clucking.

John Larkin doesn't post "objective content". He posts tribal opinion of a rather primitive sort. He's not exactly well-informed, so he may have an inflated idea of the value of his contributions. He doesn't respond to informed criticism - the idea that he might be wrong is not one that he is capable of entertaining, so people expressing opinions that he doesn't want to pay attention to are expressing opinions that may be no more informative to him than hens clucking.

The problem isn't in what is being said, but his in his incapacity to listen to anything except fulsome flattery.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Don Y]

On 12/2/2021 3:22 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>
>>
>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>> took!
>>
>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>
> "Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be looking at
> some actual sample to be a microscopist.
>
> O tempora, O mores. :(

I'm not interested in the *use*, rather trying to wrap my head around
the number of operations involved to tackle the problem. It brings
the issue of "optimization" to a whole new level"!

Early in my career, I'd tweek solutions to fit in less resources
than they (apparently) needed. Because resources cost recurring
dollars.

Now, I piss away fetches as if they were free, preferring, instead,
to focus on what I'm trying to do and not trying to pinch pennies.
But, then again, hardware is dirt cheap, nowadays. No more
$300 for 12KB of EPROM! :> ("EPROM"? What's that??)

OTOH, when I first started cataloging my disks, I wrote a shell
script (same "concentrate on goal, not economy" mindset). *That*
quickly proved itself to be folly (think hundreds of millions of
files and many times that in terms of fork-exec's!)

OToOH, there's no one waiting for cycles on my machines so...

[Dimiter_Popoff]

So stop clucking.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:tjmmqglehfe9a07ek...@4ax.com:

> When the objective content gets uncomfortable, the hens start
> clucking.
>
>

Post some. Didn't see it.

Declaring that "droplets got deprecated" doesn't cut it as valid
objective content.

Calling you and the crap you post stupid is valid objective content.

I've got nine inches of hen cluck to go up in your clucktard ass
with.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>

The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me. You
are one experimental case.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:22:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Don Y wrote:
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
>>
>>
>> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
>> more than a day to build.  Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
>> took!
>>
>> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
>

>"Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be
>looking at some actual sample to be a microscopist.
>
>O tempora, O mores. :(
>

>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Folded proteins are hard to sketch looking into a microscope. Tricks
are required.

Folding turns out to be a big problem in biology. A cosmic problem.

[Tom Gardner]

That's one of my bête noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.

Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".

[Dimiter_Popoff]

Your clucking around the subject of masks is a study of... whatever.
OK then.

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 18:33:15 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>

As regards design creativity, you might try inventing your own
insults.

[Dimiter_Popoff]

I do not need to insult other people so I'll just put in use the
several millennia old expression you want to have invented when you
call for it, don't be so tight.

[Phil Hobbs]

Nah. Things go down by orders of magnitude all the time. "Decreased by
a factor of 3" is perfectly OK, and is generally easier for folks to
understand than "decreased by 67%".

It's percentages where journies get into real trouble.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

>> That's one of my bęte noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.

>>
>> Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
>> Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".
>
>Nah. Things go down by orders of magnitude all the time. "Decreased by
>a factor of 3" is perfectly OK, and is generally easier for folks to
>understand than "decreased by 67%".
>
>It's percentages where journies get into real trouble.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

And rates vs amounts. And millions vs billions.

What does "it increased by 200% mean" ? 2x? 3x?

[whit3rd]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:22:18 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 20:00:30 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> >> wrote:

> >>
> >>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> >>>> Pretty pictures, but do masks work?

> >> "However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support
> >> claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from
> >> infectious contamination."

Substantial evidence relevant to a surgical theater? Not applicable to
masking of the general population against COVID. Don't generalize
too far, it's like extrapolation: often invalid.

> >>> I know you know how they work and that they *do* work, why are you
> >>> out to do tribal propaganda now?
> >>
> >> I don't know that they work. They may make things worse.
> >

> >So you don't know that reducing the amount of saliva you spread around ,,,

> If masks trapped droplets and sterilized them on the spot, they might
> help a little. Of course, they don't.

No, that 'if' clause is grotesquely incorrect. Masks can stop some droplets, and
sterilize/degrade/bind-to would be nice additions, but inessential to
the basic function: lower transmission probability of an airborne pathogen.

The facts we DO need to make a decision, are: can one avoid spreading
or inhaling some COVID pathogen by wearing a mask? Answer: clearly yes. And,
can one survive mask-wearing better than survive COVID-spread events? Answer, again,
clearly yes.

It's a probabilistic situation, and absolute requirements, like "sterilize them" ,
are inapplicable.

Also inapplicable, are childish 'what happens to the virus next' questions. The
humans are the threatened ones, ask what happens to the PERSONS, if you care about
your species.

[Tom Gardner]

>>> That's one of my bête noires, as is measuring time in Siemens.

>>>
>>> Journalist: "something was X but has now decreased by a factor of 3".
>>> Me: "so that means it something is -2X?".
>>
>> Nah. Things go down by orders of magnitude all the time. "Decreased by
>> a factor of 3" is perfectly OK, and is generally easier for folks to
>> understand than "decreased by 67%".

Some folks avoided 1/3lb hamburgers, since they would obviously
get less meat than with a quarter pounder.

Some folks complained about not winning a (scratchcard?) gambling
prize, because they couldn't comprehend that -6 was less than -4.

Should all comms try to take account of such innumeracy?

>> It's percentages where journies get into real trouble.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> And rates vs amounts. And millions vs billions.
>
> What does "it increased by 200% mean" ? 2x? 3x?

The answer is clearcut and unambiguous.

But where journalists are involved, there is a lingering doubt :(

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:54:28 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 17:22:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >Don Y wrote:
> >> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609898/pdf/nihpp-2021.11.12.468428v1.pdf>
> >>
> >>
> >> Christ, I gripe when a simulation, 3D rendering or animation takes
> >> more than a day to build. Gotta wonder what sort of effort THAT
> >> took!
> >>
> >> (but, it's an entertaining use of ZFIPs!)
> >
> >"Computational microscopy", eh? In the palmy days, you had to be
> >looking at some actual sample to be a microscopist.
> >
> >O tempora, O mores. :(
>

> Folded proteins are hard to sketch looking into a microscope. Tricks are required.

You don't do protein folding with a microscope - you use X-ray diffraction, which is a total swine.

> Folding turns out to be a big problem in biology. A cosmic problem.

It was, but artificial intelligence has made it a much more manageable problem - a whole lot less "cosmic" that it was last year.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02025-4

The Nature paper got quite a lot of publicity, but apparently not in the media that John Larkin reads. It does seem to be quite a significant step forward.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:50:17 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:09:48 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>wrote:
> >On 12/4/2021 14:10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 13:31:27 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>> On 12/4/2021 5:36, Rick C wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/3/2021 18:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:46:56 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/3/2021 16:21, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:56:03 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> The issue of social determinism of scientific truth interests me.

But only to the extent that you can use it to make insults. You don't know anything like enough about science to know how the scientific community reacts to new information and new ideas. The community as a whole does determine what is accepted as plausible, but the opinions of the best informed carry more weight because they are known to be have been well-informed in the past.

> You are one experimental case.

As if John Larkin would know what that might mean.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney