Jake you could simply ask for clarity. The negative critique of unique vocabulary is nothing more than inappropriate ad hominine attack against my character. The expectation that there should be an acceptable cultural vocabulary in this regard is the subtle conditioning I speak of. Lest not forget that as someone who has been vocal about learning disabilities which are recognized as a disability. You are expecting me to match the performance of those without the same impediment.jake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:46 amtkp67, I appreciate that is what you think you are doing but, as has been repeatedly mentioned, it is not how most people understand your writing, at all. You have a very unique vocabulary that is almost indecipherable at times.tkp67 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:45 pmJake it is simple.jake wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:13 pmAh, here is the common refrain, we're too academic or too conditioned, our minds are not open enough to fully grasp the nuance and complexity. Hear this from you a lot.
Not sure what point you are trying to make by talking of the "opportunity cost of salaries" (mixing two thing here, btw) that we are wasting trying to force you to our perspective. What are you trying to say? that we are somehow wasting money talking to you?
I am discussing the cause and effect behind such hype. Not a discourse on best practices, return on investment or the short sighted aspects of such a movement. The totality of that discussion is beyond the scope of this thread. However that type of commentary serves no benefit that I can tell. If it does I would be greatly indebted to be enlightened to the reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homine ... _authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Grah ... sagreement
Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
Now I am confident that there is no active bias against disabilities here which is why I have so gently asserting myself. I understand it too well to take it personal but that doesn’t mean it is reasonable to accept at face value either. However it does illustrate how pervasive academic conditioning is.
Please keep in mind if I lacked the ability to properly adhere to form in a meaningful way I wouldn’t be able to work with technology let alone decision makers. Please don’t mistake my perceived functional capacities as meaning my learning disabilities are a matter of volition. It is not uncommon which is why I mention it.
Jake I understand this and will gladly plead guilty as charged If it is helpful. However, an issue still remains. When I am too verbose it is also problematic. If I use the wrong words it is also problematic. I have made several adjustments according to this or that. They seem to fall apart mostly in differences of opinion. I can report outside of that there is little complaint.jake wrote: As a reader, many times what you post makes no sense or seems to have no obvious connection to what anyone else is discussing. I am sure in your mind there is a connection but you frequently neglect to explain, in clear language for a reader, how you traveled from A to B to π^2.
These are reasonable questions. I have reasonable answers. It will take up a fair amount of white space. Let me summarize and share with you my reasoning. It includes a number of variables still so please try to keep them all in relative perspective.jake wrote:For example, you say you are simply discussing the cause and effect behind such hype. Which hype, exactly? The NFT madness? Okay but you have never written clearly which specific factors you consider to be "cause" and which you categorize as "effect" nor how they are linked (effects result from causes, there is a relationship there). For example, how does your claim that bitcoin solves grid unreliability factor into either a cause or an effect of the hype linked to NFT? Or what on earth does IBM's announcement they're working with India on cloud computing have to do with any of the issues mentioned by others? Is this a cause of hype? We are frequently left to guess. Perhaps the IBM press release is somehow related to posters' comments about security of data entrusted to strangers? I don't know.
The assessment of technology is done within a scope. The scope of my assessment is the industry as it exists in all parts across the globe. Technology does not possess the same inherent traditional boundaries of brick and mortal business. The scope also includes industrial/commercial, consumer and government sectors.
The various references do not necessarily correlate directly. Some do, some don’t. However these interactions need not be understood finitely in assessment of the aggregate here. That is to say trends across the whole of the industry and those affected by it can be understood through the “big data” represented in this model. It may seem frenetic but I mention consumer, industrial and government interests in the block chain and how the tech companies can engineer this interplay to their advantage.
Some of this is easy to evaluate. For example if one were to search cisco + blockchain it would give yield something on cisco’s outlook. If this is done across several companies like IBM, Microsoft, etc there are substantial outlooks and investments. Same goes with government entities. The size of the emerging blockchain market based on current investments make a case in and of itself regarding the future of blockchain.
The social engineering aspect is a far more nuanced discussion. Not all of it need be intentional. However the dynamic of technology creating its own space through disruption is not a new discussion. I don't mind unpacking it since it is relevant but perhaps in a separate post?
I called your minds inferior? I don’t recall ever disparaging anyone. I recall pointing out conditioning. I called projecting provision in light of the absolute exactly that.Communication is a two-way street. Many people here have made great effort to understand you and give you time. At some point you have to make more effort on your own side to communicate in a way that makes sense to other people. The reasons for our lack of understanding can't always just be because of our inferior minds. At a certain point you need to wonder if there is too much "packet loss" in your messaging.
I did make clear very many times the excellent minds here. From an academic standpoint they are far superior then mine. I don’t have the same capacities. If they were inferior then they could not perform so well in an academic manner. So under the light of simple logic the conclusion is forlorn.
What happens here is conditioning. It exists against descriptive terms that do not conform to the established normative. It isn’t always stark or sharp but it exists. Not that I am offering a negative critique here. It is how subtle conditioning works so I can’t reason why speaking about it shouldn’t cause emotional distress.
I explained aggregate earlier in part to address this. Provision is another way to express relative perspective.jake wrote:See, again, I'm sure this makes total sense to you but what personal dialogue? What is a "provision?" What "phenomenon" are you talking about? What on earth do you mean by "aggregate"? Have you considered just because you perceive some dialogue to be personal that doesn't mean it was intended as such or that anyone else understands it to be "personal?"tkp67 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:45 pm The minute dialog starts the become personal MANNNN expect me to call it out for what it is. Notice I don't challenge a specific provision (individual egocentric perspective) because it is valid as such. Just not in context to the the phenomenon as an aggregate.
In this scenario individual egocentric perspective means expressing one's own individual professional understanding as a complete measurement. For example measuring the craze for NFT from any one industry perspective does not include consumer influences.
Professional expertise alone as a consultant, energy regulator, lawyer or Tibetan teacher is insubstantial. This is the same problem that plagued climate scientists. When they addressed it the outcome was completely different. They actually stopped relying on their own personal ideology and queried the body of related scientist for conclusive cross-discipline data.
The notion of looking at multiple indices regarding social phenomenon is sound practice.
As an example the following statements deny the influence of market drivers that do not align with individual reason. Yet they do not refute the actual reality of what the industry providers are doing or the points I established. So one must assume they rely on the converse. Tech survives based on fitness.jake wrote:Who on earth has made this argument? Please quote the text you have read in this thread that allows you to draw this conclusion?
I realize that this post borders on meta-discussion which is not allowed per TOS but I feel it is a necessary step to fully understand your contributions to this topic so the discussion may continue.
“Blockchain is not particularly innovative. It is useful for some kinds of data storage, and not useful for other kinds of data storage, where one is better off using relational databases that use SQL.”
“A relational database is as secure as the network it is set up on and the servers in which it sits. It is generally much superior to a blockchain database in terms data integrity (aka normalization), speed, and so on, when working with multiple data points in a complex environment. Its performance can suffer if encryption is required on tables in the database itself. But encryption load can also be downside of blockchain databases.”
“When blockchain can keep thermal plants from downrating due to extreme heat or cold, or figure out how to install utility-scale storage nationwide at a reasonable cost, or put in a bunch of transmission lines, then I'll be really interested. Until then, it might have some niche applications, but to assert that "blockchain offers solutions to all the things [he] mentions" is either hucksterism or delusion.”