Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 05/10/2024 19:49, Brett wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 04/10/2024 19:59, Brett wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 03/10/2024 21:10, Brett wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 03/10/2024 05:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 01:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
>

Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics:

>
Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery?

>
He invented the MRI machine and the Liquid Metallic model of the sun ...

>
And Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize and went nuts over Vitamin C.
>
In science, we don’t go by “this guy has a legendary reputation and/or
sounds like a credible witness, let’s believe him”, we go by evidence.

>
Indeed.
>
Also note that the two guys who won the Nobel Prize for the development
of MRI - the /real/ inventors of the MRI machine - are both long dead.
>
But this particular crank is mad enough and influential enough to have a
page on Rational Wiki, which is never a good sign.  (It seems he did
work on improving MRI technology before he went bananas.)
>
<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille>

>
One day I will be on rational wiki. ;)
>
Watch his videos and try to debunk what he says.
>
Good luck with that. ;)
>

>
There are more productive uses of my time which won't rot my brain as
quickly, such as watching the grass grow.
>
A bit challenge with the kind of shite that people like this produce is
that it is often unfalsifiable.  They invoke magic, much like religions
do, and then any kind of disproof or debunking is washed away by magic.
When you make up some nonsense that has no basis in reality or no
evidence, you can just keep adding more nonsense no matter what anyone
else says.
>
So when nutjobs like that guy tell you the sun is powered by pixies
riding tricycles really fast, he can easily invent more rubbish to
explain away any evidence.
>
There's a term for this - what these cranks churn out is "not even
wrong".  (You can look that up on Rational Wiki too.)
>
And while the claims of this kind of conspiracy theory cannot be
falsified, there is also no evidence for them.  Claims made without
evidence can be dismissed without evidence - there is no need to debunk
them.  The correct reaction is to laugh if they are funny, then move on
and forget them.
>
We are all human, and sometimes we get fooled by an idea that sounds
right.  But you should be embarrassed at believing such a wide range of
idiocy and then promoting it.

>
>
A gas cannot emit the spectrum we see from the sun, liquid metallic
hydrogen can.
>

>
You do realise that the sun is primarily plasma, rather than gas?  And
that scientists - /real/ scientists - can heat up gases until they are
plasma and look at the spectrum, in actual experiments in labs?  Has
your hero tested a ball of liquid metallic hydrogen in his lab?
>

Gases do not show the pond ripples from impacts that we see from the sun
surface.
>
And a long list of other basic facts Pierre-Marie_Robitaille goes over in
his Sky Scholar videos.
>
Stellar science is a bad joke, such basic mistakes should have been
corrected 100 years ago.
>

>
You think one crackpot with no relevant education and no resources can
figure all this out in a couple of years, where tens of thousands of
scientists have failed over a hundred years?  Do you /really/ think that
is more likely than supposing that he doesn't understand what he is
talking about?
>
In real science, lab experiments, observation of reality (such as the
sun in this case), simulations, models, and hypotheses all go hand in
hand in collaboration between many scientists and experts in different
fields in order to push scientific knowledge further.
>
"Maverick" genius scientists who figure out the "real" answer on their
own don't exist outside the entertainment industry.

  So science ended 100 years ago and we should close our eyes and ears and
say not anything that would counter our sacred flawless scientists of old.

No, that's not /remotely/ what I wrote.  New science builds on previous science - mostly refining it, and only very occasionally throwing out old stuff entirely or coming up with something entirely new.

 Stop being a religious zealot and watch the videos.
 

I have read enough about the people behind them - there is no need to waste time watching them.

If he is a crackpot you should be bright enough to figure it out and prove
it for the world to see. Crackpots cannot survive scientific rigor. A five
minute search crushes such fools with ease, I have done this a dozen times.

Again, did you read anything that I wrote?