Re: Patching TPU innertube

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:50:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/1/2025 7:49 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
 

On 1/1/2025 6:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>

On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 17:54:03 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

>
I read Frankie's violins. If I remember the test correct it was
carried out in a hotel room and the test players got to play each
instrument for something like 1 minute.

>
Perhaps you should read more than one article before wading into a
discussion you know nothing about.

I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the difference
between Strads and modern violins.  It's not important to my point,
which is that *someone* can tell the difference, even if it requires an
electron microscope.  That is all that is required to explain the
difference in price.  Even if the preference is completely unrelated to
the sound actually produced by the violins.
A preference for old violins based completely on history and emotion
may
be a problem for you, but it makes perfect sense to economists.  The
multi-million dollar price seems to be the biggest issue for you; I'm
not sure why.

>
It's not an issue for me, and I didn't say it was. I'll never attempt
to buy a Strad, and I'll never expect to get millions if I sell one of
my fiddles.
>
But since this is Usenet, so you can read back to see the flow of the
thread. We got into this kerfuffle from Roger's statement that "feel"
of a tire can be important, apart from rolling resistance.

 
I did read the thread.
 

I expressed some skepticism, saying "Given what I've read about
violins (Stradivarius can't be told from modern ones in blind hearing
tests) and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure centers in the
brain if tasters are told the wine is expensive), I'm somewhat
skeptical of a lot of "feel" judgements regarding bike tires - and
bikes."

 
The issue you introduced with violins and wines is price. Not much was
made of price differences with bike tires, although if you can't tell
the difference cheaper is always better.  Paying large amounts for
something that may not be objectively better certainly seemed to bother
you.  If that's not really the case then perhaps you should review your
communication style.

>
OK, I'll try again - not that I'm hopeful.
>
I mentioned price because in our society, it's common to assign a higher
price to things that are reputed to be better. Price is thus considered
a signifier of higher quality.
>
What characteristic of a violin is thought to be signified by a high
price? Its sound. More expensive violins are expected to sound better,
and much more expensive violins are expected to sound much better.
>
What characteristic of a wine is thought to be signified by a high
price? Its flavor. More expensive wines are expected to taste better,
and much more expensive wines are expected to taste much better.
>
But do super expensive violins sound better? Do super expensive wines
taste better? It's not obvious! Sound and taste are not directly
measurable. They are "soft" properties, entirely subject to the judgment
of the observer. So can observers _really_ tell "better" from "worse" in
a way that corresponds to price?
>
Nope. With violins, it's been shown dozens of times by careful tests
that listeners do not consistently rank the sound of Strads far better
than violins costing one five hundredth as much. In careful blind tests,
wines have gotten similar results.
>
I think the same likely applies to the "feel" of bicycle bits, at least
among close competitors. Many of us have been around here long enough to
remember the blind test results of several bike frames made from
different grades of steel tubing, back in those days of steel. Road test
"experts" couldn't agree on what "felt" best, and often ranked the
cheapest as the best riding. I suspect the same would be found for the
"feel" of roughly similar tires.
>
In a sense, on this particular issue I'm agreeing with Mr. Tricycle, who
claims over and over that almost _everything_ is subjective.
>
But again, I'm not hopeful that he or you or John will agree with me
regarding judgments of "feel." The default posture of you three is that
I'm wrong no matter what I say. You won't let yourself admit anything else.

Krygowski's problem is that at the same time he complains about people
being duped into buying things they don't need by clever marketers, he
is regularly duped by clever marketers, himself. In his case, the
clever marketers take the form of data analysts or people with a
similar title.
 
The data analysts, like the advertising marketers are assigned the job
of telling people how they should evaluate things. The usual method of
doing that is to convince them that a number of people evaluate
something thus and so and since many people are group thinking
followers, they quickly fall in line.

It's sad that while humans are blessed with the power of reasoning, so
many choose coherence above critical thought.

"Look at the data," Krygowski says, "there are many people who agree
with me, why don't you?"

Life is hard for a group thinker who needs to follow the data
analysts' directions while the people he associates with directly
won't fall in line.