Re: Patching TPU innertube

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:48:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/13/2025 9:16 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 1/12/2025 9:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/12/2025 4:19 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>
As Andrew has pointed out, there are exceptions. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

>

>
I suspect that someone Frank knows wrote that idiotic Wikipedia
entry. That is why such things are not considered proof of anything
whereas entries from the Encyclopedia Britanica are.

>
OK, try this: https://www.britannica.com/money/conspicuous-consumption
>

 
I really don't understand this hair across the ass of conservatives
about wikipedia. Every article has a "references" section, which
hopefully supports the article. If there is a doubt as to the veracity
of the claim, a review of the references is usually enough to sort it out.

>
It's just the usual scorn for any published research that indicates
their dearly cherished prejudices may be wrong. Look at the tricycle
guy. He claims all research is biased, because in his view nobody would
ever do research unless they could make money off of its results. Look
at Tom, who still claims stocks lost great value during Obama's
presidency, even though few things are as easy to document as stock prices.
>
Their strategy matches the first two of these monkeys:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/816f1gf3rcL._AC_UL480_QL65_.jpg
>
Unfortunately, they don't emulate the third monkey.

Krygowski counters with one of his strawman aguments. I never said
anything about "all research, but indeed, the "studies" that Krygowski
has posted and that led him to his nonsense conclusions are heavily
biased.

The idea that studying whether people who someone calls experts can
detirmine the value of a violin or wine doesn't benefit mankind. It
only benefits the marketers and producers of violns and wine.

--
C'est bon
Soloman