The Neck of the Giraffe

@kellyjay said
Trust in or have faith in, sorry that is a distinction without a difference. You can not remove the possibility of errors out of equations while knowing that there can be, and think when you do it it’s okay, and not the same thing!

I trust my bank to let me have my money when I want it.

I don't have any faith in them not wanting to screw me for "bank fees".

@kellyjay said
Trust in or have faith in, sorry that is a distinction without a difference. You can not remove the possibility of errors out of equations while knowing that there can be, and think when you do it it’s okay, and not the same thing!

When you turn on your computer, do you think there is a high likelihood of "errors out of equations," or do you trust that it will work?

@kazetnagorra said
When you turn on your computer, do you think there is a high likelihood of "errors out of equations," or do you trust that it will work?

I spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s. I can tell
you the plans, purposes, and design efforts are tedious to the smallest details.
There are extended life experiments, these experimental tests are done to
theoretically simulate the normal processing of a CPU after years of use. This is
done so people can know what they buy will last for years not minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, or a year and a half. These tests, if accurate shows how the
processor will look like and behave as one that has been used for years. (In other
words, make something look older than it is.) The results of those tests give the
company selling them the confidence/faith that when they sell the CPUs, it is with
the understanding that so many out of a million will be faulty, because no matter
how much effort is put into it failures still occur. Perfection is always the goal for
all producers, it’s difficult to reach. When you buy a computer, you trust it will
work your putting your faith in the manufactures, and if not someone will make it
right.

You don’t have to go into details about computers for that either, as the example
I used when I was in Alaska, where the ground caved in under my feet as I walked
across the tundra with a friend. I had faith the ground would always support me, it
didn’t. People go to places for entertainment, and dance floors collapse,
balconies, or they buy food at a store that has been tainted. We make deals with
one another and can put our wealth at risk in good faith, hoping the other person
keeps their words. Faith can be on anything besides God. Limiting the faith to just
God, or assuming faith is always blind isn’t understanding the word or use at all.
This makes the statement that you can trust and put your confidence in science is
not the same thing as saying you have faith in the scientific processes laughable.

With respect to errors in equations, brain farts happen all the time. We can trust
it will always be error free, but how many error free people do you know?

@kellyjay said
I spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s. I can tell
you the plans, purposes, and design efforts are tedious to the smallest details.
There are extended life experiments, these experimental tests are done to
theoretically simulate the normal processing of a CPU after years of use. This is
done so people can know what they buy will last for years ...[text shortened]... ll the time. We can trust
it will always be error free, but how many error free people do you know?

I spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s.

Don't believe that, frankly. But moving on...

With respect to errors in equations, brain farts happen all the time. We can trust
it will always be error free, but how many error free people do you know?

The point is: there is a reason unbelievers put more "faith" in the scientific method than in what some barbarians said thousands of years ago - the former actually gives tangible results, the latter is just words. The science and engineering required to make an integrated circuit is a heck of a lot more complicated than understanding a simple concept like natural selection.

@kazetnagorra said
I spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s.

Don't believe that, frankly. But moving on...

With respect to errors in equations, brain farts happen all the time. We can trust
it will always be error free, but how many error free people do you know?

The point is: there is a reason unbelievers put more "faith" in the scientific ...[text shortened]... cuit is a heck of a lot more complicated than understanding a simple concept like natural selection.

Don't believe that, frankly. But moving on...

Agreed. Based on other things KJ has said, seems likely that at most he was a part of a team that was responsible for "black box" testing of CPUs for both R&D and production. Of course saying that he "spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s" sounds more impressive. So...

@thinkofone said
Don't believe that, frankly. But moving on...

Agreed. Based on other things KJ has said, seems likely that at most he was a part of a team that was responsible for "black box" testing of CPUs for both R&D and production. Of course saying that he "spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s" sounds more impressive...

I suspect Kelly has a better idea of what he did than you do.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I suspect Kelly has a better idea of what he did than you do.

That must be one of the most profound statements that you've ever made on this forum.

@kazetnagorra said
I spent around 20 years working in the R&D and production of CPU’s.

Don't believe that, frankly. But moving on...

With respect to errors in equations, brain farts happen all the time. We can trust
it will always be error free, but how many error free people do you know?

The point is: there is a reason unbelievers put more "faith" in the scientific ...[text shortened]... cuit is a heck of a lot more complicated than understanding a simple concept like natural selection.

Okay well we can end our conversation here.

@thinkofone said
That must be one of the most profound statements that you've ever made on this forum.

If you told me you were a Chemist I would believe you. If you told me you were an Accountant, I would believe you.

What problem do you have exactly with taking what people share here at face value? Your default setting always seems to be snide belittlement. (While of course never sharing anything about yourself).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I suspect Kelly has a better idea of what he did than you do.

I suspect I know better than KellyJay what people who work in the R&D of CPUs are like.

@kazetnagorra said
I suspect I know better than KellyJay what people who work in the R&D of CPUs are like.

What's the point exactly with this kind of post? Why not just play the ball rather than the man?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
What's the point exactly with this kind of post? Why not just play the ball rather than the man?

I guess I don’t fit into his world view so I must be lying. It occurs quite a bit, if anyone explains why they think the truth is as they see it, and those they were talking to still disagrees, if accusations of dishonesty start its the same thing. They fail to acknowledge people can disagree seeing the same data honestly.

@kazetnagorra said
I suspect I know better than KellyJay what people who work in the R&D of CPUs are like.

Apparently not!

@kazetnagorra said
I suspect I know better than KellyJay what people who work in the R&D of CPUs are like.

I suspect when you cannot handle the arguments that someone is making you resort to an ad hominem.

@dj2becker said
I suspect when you cannot handle the arguments that someone is making you resort to an ad hominem.

I don't even know if he knew he was being insulting or not, with exceptions people
can to be more insulting rather than substantive, a fault most share from time to
time, me included. I guess it is easier to disregard a person you insult and
disparage than to stay on point, failing to realize it is really the ideas are being
discussed not the personality.