Re: Patching TPU innertube

On 1/2/2025 5:11 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:30:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 1/2/2025 12:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:

>
Now, as for the various and sundry studies, tests, and sample polling,
I think it safe to say that people do not finance them without a
purpose. In the case of he aforementioned tests of violins and wines,
I can't see any other purpose than an attempt to coercively devalue
the more expensive units.

>
YOU can't see any other purpose. That's merely a description of your
limited knowledge and mindset.

 <LOL>  So, what are all the other purposes that you say I missed?

You really don't deserve response, but:
Most people really interested in science are not in it for monetary return. Your assumption that it's all about money just indicates your own mindset.
I just had dinner with a retired biologist and naturalist. He still actively attends conferences to further his knowledge, still writes for publication, etc. His greatest passion is learning and passing on knowledge. He makes no money at it, and never really did make a lot of money.
Jim Papadopoulos is currently one of best researchers advancing the scientific knowledge of bicycling. He's definitely not doing it for money.
There are people who study volcanoes, people who study bird migration, people who study ancient music, and people who study countless other topics, simply out of curiosity, of love of learning, or of desire to increase mankind's knowledge.
I get that you're not one of them. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
I suspect that some of the people studying perception of violin sounds are interested in advancing the technology of violins. Some of them might be doing it hoping to personally make money by selling violins they produce. But I very much doubt those people are in the majority.
--
- Frank Krygowski