Re: Patching TPU innertube

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:07:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 11:43:02 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:12:31 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

Wow, 10 professional soloists. I wonder how much they were paid for
their part in "study."

>
Look at the top of the page for the authors (not the musicians)
employer.  They're all universities and research organizations.
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
My guess(tm) is that the musicians were very anxious to participate in
the study and likely were working for the cost of lunch and
transportation.  I couldn't find anything in the article or in the
supporting information that mentions payment.

>
Why would they disclose that?

Most research papers require a conflict of interest statement,
<https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/asjsur_coi.pdf>
which in turn required the disclosure of every organization that
financially contributed to the project.  About 20 years ago, that
changed to simply stating that there was no conflict of interest
involved.  For example, from the Neuro-Oncology Journal:
<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2940661/>
I was rather surprised when I didn't see a conflict of interest
statement in the published research report.

They're professionals, are they not? They play violins for money.

Not always.  Expenses are usually covered by whatever organizations
are involved.  Charitable events are usually done this way.  I don't
believe that there's a hard dividing line between professional and
amateur in music, like there is in athletics.

Most likely, some modern violin manufacturer(s) foot the bill.

>
I'm not so sure they would benefit from a test no matter that outcome:
<https://www.corilon.com/us/library/master-portraits/contemporary-violin-makers>
"Many contemporary violin makers feel as if they are overshadowed by
their famous predecessors, and as a matter of fact people’s
fascination with historic masterpieces can make it difficult to
appreciate the outstanding achievements of our times. But we do not
need any blind tests which pair of historic Italian violins against
contemporary violin makers' instruments to understand that we live in
a time of abundance. Our day and age may not be as strongly
characterized by trail-blazing innovations, but there is still a high
standard of artisanry amongst nowadays violin makers, and this
standard can hold its own against that of the golden days."
>
It's not like the demand or market for rare historical violins is
going to disappear because of one test.  It's also risky funding such
a test.  If the test shows that modern violins are best in a test
funded by violin manufacturers, there would be immediate accusations
that it was rigged in favor of the manufacturers.  That's a great way
to instantly destroy their reputation. 

>
IMO, the test did exactly what it was set up to do..  indicate that
some unknown brand modern violins sound as good as the classics.

I estimated that it would take me at least a full day to read the
entire report which I consider necessary to make a determination of
what the actually did.  I've analyzed quite a few RF (radio frequency)
exposure reports that failed to prove anything.  Looking at the NNTP
headers, you replied to my comments about 1 hr after I posted them.
Either you are a very fast reader, you didn't read the report, or I
screwed up the time zone calculation which doesn't matter because it's
only 3 hrs.  I also haven't read the entire report.  Therefore, I'll
reserve my judgment until I have time read and analyzed it.

Who else would do it?

>
Professional musicians, academics, teaching institutions,
universities, FundMe campaign, or authors of books on music.

>
Studies like that cost money. It costs money to publish and disburse
the data. People don't spend money unless they expect to get something
out of it.
>
Yeah, I'm a cynic.

I'm usually a cynic.  The difference is that I reserve judgment until
I'm moderately certain that I'm right.  If I'm not certain, and need
to made an immediate determination, you'll see something like "my
guess(tm)" in the  prefix.  It's a clue that I'm open to correction.

Bingo.  I didn't see this the first time I skimmed the article:

"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins"
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
At the bottom of Pg 7229 is a somewhat misplaced "Acknowledgements"
section, which includes:

"And, finally, we are grateful to the Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique and Université Pierre et Marie Curie for funding this
experiment and to the Violin Society of America for additional
financial support."

The following implies that at least some of the dealers, makers,
players, and collectors were not charging rent for the instruments or
charging for their time.  Unfortunately, there's no clear indication
if money did or did not change hands.

"We thank all dealers, makers, players, and collectors
for their kindness and trust in making available these valuable
instruments."

--
Jeff Liebermann                 jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272      http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann      AE6KS    831-336-2558