CharlieMungus – this is you, admit it!

No, clearly that puppy has not been stitched up properly

so.. i think
e) (1-l)log(r)=log(1-n)

so
f)log(r)=log(1-n)/(1-l)

ok, from where i can see it.

a) (1/(r^(l-1)))= 1-n

b) (r^(l-1))=1/(1-n)

inverse of each side (put 1 over..on each side)

c)1/(r^(l-1))=1-n

1 over a power gives you the same as that power as a negative

d)r^(1-l)=1-n

well, you can get to r^1-l=1-n ?

need logs?

Does the rear windscreen of your sweat shirt have a sticker on it with the name of the car dealership company it was purchased from?

That’s one that I don’t get.

Why would you drive go about for years giving free advertising to someone who was undoubtedly done their very best to stitch you up?

Does the rear windscreenframe of your car bicycle have a sticker on it with the name of the company it was purchased from?

That’s one that I don’t get.

Why would you drive ride about for years giving free advertising to someone who was undoubtedly done their very best to stitch you up?

indeed, the scientific method on display here seems to be ‘disagreement on the data’ = ‘must have been explosion in the basement’

What scientific method would you apply here? Or how would you apply scientific method here?

Will be down to 50% by the end of November and everyone will be happy.

Which means it will be down to 0%

Did he submit it for peer review by any chance?

Are there many academic papers on this topic?

Stationary – we seem to have tons of stationary (biros, rulers, calculators, note pads) is there anything useful that can be done with any of it? Ship it off to a 3rd world country or something like that?

Christmas Shoebox appeals?

That is not the same thing though as saying that one problem is more important than the other, which is where we end up when we take an adversairial, my problem is bigger than yours, approach to these issues

I think I agree there too. However, this argument usually emerges when one group identifies and issue which affects them particularly, then the other group shouts “me too”.

I don’t wish to disappear down the same rabbit hole for the umpteenth time. If you wish to characterize that as me being too stupid to participate, that’s your choice.

Of course it is! :|
I can’t imagine what the alternative might be!

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “ad hominem” actually means.

That’s your choice!

But, it at least made some people consider their position

First, the question of whether men delay seeking help or find it hard to access is interesting….

.all that stuff…..

it’s not enough to just remove obstacles (such as they exist or have existed), you have to be proactive in order to get equality.

That seems entirely reasonable.

To put it another way, if 80,000 women and 30,000 men experience instances of spousal abuse or domestic violence in a given year, what the hell difference does it make that more women than men are affected?

That would depend on the commonality of the experience.if women’s experience of it were particularly different from men’s. Either directly or societal, then there is a case for addressing these separately. Here, one size does not fit all.

those issues are represented across all groups and if the only difference is the degree to which they are represented,

Same response I think, in many cases the difference is in experience rather than degree. But,if the only difference is degree, then I can see why that would seem reasonable. However the fact that it affects one significantly more than another implies that we need to look at the underlying structures which result in one section of society being subject to or more susceptible to whatever issue it is we are considering.

I think you can consider previous posts, but they too must be considered on their merits, so to look back on previous posts and point out inconsistencies is just fine. But if you aren’t equipped to deal with the content and reasoning of the argument on its own merits,regardless of who is making the points, then perhaps you should just admit to that and not get involved in that side of it. By all means, if you feels compelled, stand outside of the argument and call people names. At least it doesn’t interfere with the discussion.

I suspect that is a very good question, but I confess I don’t quite understand it. Can you rephrase it?

Men face a variety of problems. The variety of men means that not all men experience these problems in the same way. Women also face a variety of problems. The variety of women means that not all women experience these problems in the same way. In trying to address these problems it can be helpful to look at these as problems faced by a community or a group. Is the natural grouping one which is based on sex / gender or is it one which goes across sex / gender. Do the men who suffer have more in common with other men or with women who suffer. What is the stronger commonality of experience?

Maybe if you had a description of the problems faced by individuals, would you be able to separate them into piles depending on what they described and if so would you then find that those piles were predominantly of one gender?

correlation is irrelevant. The experience of the men effected is what’s important

Agreed, but is that experience different from that of women or is the difference withing groups larger than the difference between groups. The answer to that should inform whether the reponse should be one which is focused on men or one which is united

D’ya reckon it tastes like chickeny-fish…?

Erm… What are we talking about now?

What bothers me more is the way that some people chose to misrepresent and twist what I say in order to paint me in a vile and negative way and accuse me of things that just aren’t true. That’s borderline libel and people should remember that this stuff doesn’t get deleted.

I agree and you are constantly subjected to this. What you need is a clear statement of your position with regard to the plight of men in today’s society. Without reference to important but loaded issues such as domestic abuse or suicide or educational inequalities

I dont see how the addition of the phrase “coming across as” makes one a statement and the removal makes it an insult

I know! I know! Is this the one where offence is taken and not given? Where you can say rude things but because you did not intend them to be rude, then they are Ok and you are not rude? Is that the answer?

It’s health and safety gone mad I know, but I’d assess any building that has just been hit by a plane as likely to collapse.

Well, in that case you’d often be wrong. The impact of the plane was actually quite small compared to the load design

I think you misunderstand my questions. I am merely try to ask you for the data to inform any probabilistic calculations. So when you ask me to provide different modes and mechanisms, you miss the point

There’s been nothing stopping us moving forward at all!

Well, without an a priori estimate, I’d like to see how you move forward with a Bayesian calculation!

it used to be quite a common way of establishing ownership of ideas and similar things

Adversarial or not you haven’t actually put forward another manner of collapse, you’ve said things like ‘differential loading’ and chaotic interaction but not said how you think this would chnage the mode of collapse, what difference would you expect to see? how would you explain such differnces?

no, i was talking of another mode. What would i expect to see? As the result of a chaotic process?

Well, anything. For example, it would collapse unevenly, or stop collapsing, or topple, or split, anything really. The mechanism isn’t the issue here. The probabilistic approach only needs to know that it is possible.

If as you say
“The only way to get that building to do anything other than fall into it’s own footprint would be with massive external lateral forces acting on the majority of the mass of the building as it fell, something which demonstrably did not happen.” Then as an aside you would have to accept that all the talk of 6 months of demolition planning etc. was just wrong. I can’t remember if that was a point you made. But just for clarity. Pretty much any large randomly placed internal explosion would have produced the same result?

It’s not to make a point, it’s to establish a probability. but if you say that probability is .00000001% then fine. For all intents and purposes, that’s the only way the building can fall. It allows us to move forward.

If there’s another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.

This isn’t supposed to be adversarial. I put forward another mode of collapse, that of uneven failure rates.

The nature of chaotic behaviour is precisely that the results are not minor.

I understand that you are saying that given the way it failed, there was only one possible mode of collapse (though 100% is very unusual). But… uneven heat distribution, loading, pre-loading or other effects could have resulted in it failing in a different way. The ‘could have’ is the important bit here. You seem very definite that the actual outcome was the only possible one.

Don’t you think his last tweet and some of the writing on his website hint that he may have left to live out his days with this remote tribe?

With no WiFi???

If there’s another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.

Well, for example not all columns failed at the same time or cracks propagated faster in some concrete, not all steel was affected in the same way. Any kind of chaotic behaviour which might have resulted in differential effects across the tower.

Bzzzzzzt, error! it can ONLY fall neatly therefore the probability of neat collapse is 100%, so no change in probability of demolition.

So you are saying that there were no other possible failure modes for the tower?

So until someone does we’re stuck on the made up number, which was a terrible place to start anyway.

You appear to have used some Bayes at least. I’m not sure how you arrive at this

“Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”

Not really a Bayesian formulation

Except that you were trying to generate proababilities based on a limited set of predetermined and non-sequitur assumptions.

ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

Not really. The whole point of using this approach is to calculate or use conditional probabilities, exactly not non-sequitur.

Yes, it’s not ‘scientific method’ but I’m not sure how those who intend to use that in here will be testing their hypotheses anyway.

If you try to claim that you will need evidence of the value of the contents, have you got evidence of the cost of your soul?

You would have to play guitar and find the equivalent cost in lessons required to read your standard

Where we lack proof, and in this situation we do, the popperian approach fails. So we can turn to statistical and probabilistic approaches, which is why I was asking for some a priori probabilities many pages ago. Bayesian methods or Markov chains might give us some likelihoods to compare. This is why I was asking about the way the Towers fell and if that was likely given the planes and fire

Yeah, Heathrow is massive and can be a bit confusing sometimes.

Were they just for going dowhill, fast?

CharlieMungus seems to be genuine, although it is important even to question that as some of his responses border on trolling/wilfulignoring.

Really? I haven’t wilfully ignored anyone. There have been a variety of genuine answers and ideas put forward by folk and others which are less rich and tinged with derision. I happily engage with the constructive discussions.

I’m not entirely sure where the trolling idea comes from, perhaps from Junkyard’s comment early in the thread. But let me assure you, neither here nor elsewhere am I trolling.

Oh, yes, it looks like it might be those GPVs.

20 inch wheels?

But only if they are explanatory. A few too many in here are along the lines of,look – I know this stuff, yeah!?

Very true, it’s important to be able to question things. BUT if you don’t listen to the answers, don’t accept that other people have expertise in those areas etc. Then you are heading fast to nut job conspiracy theorist

Of course, but we should question the experts too.

:) meant looked like bmx