Re: Science of cycling still largely mysterious

On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
>
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012

>
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
I have no need to know.

>
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!

>
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know.

>
>
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or
awareness

>
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.

Such a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic,
ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be
ignorant of other facts.
>
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to
learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.

 
I doubt you have any idea what C++ is, let alone know how to write it.

>
I've programmed in at least five systems and/or languages. Like Zen,
I've done a little C based programming, and like him I know enough to be
dangerous; I'm certainly no expert. But C (or C++ or C#, depending on
the year) was one of the programming options for my students'
programming course requirement.

>
C++ is well beyond, and far more complicated than C.
>

I'll note that we don't know _you_ have ever really done anything with
C++, or Pascal, or Python, or Fortran, or Basic, or LabView, or Val II,
or PLC ladder logic (which is like programming in Martian).

>
You really don't much about me, and I'm fine with that.
>

Sailing a real boat, not a simple 12 foot cat rig requires a lot more
than raising the sails and handling the wheel or tiller.

>
I've never handled a boat any bigger than 35 feet, and that one was a
fairly brief experience, on Lake Erie.

>
<LOL>  So you steered a boat, which is a long, long way from actually
sailing it.
>

I've sailed smaller boats many
times, sometimes alone, sometimes with help.

>
If you did, it was probably a simple cat rig.
>
I have several very good

friends who are avid sailors. No, I'm not an expert. But (wait for it!)
I don't need to be.  ;-)

>
More imaginary friends? Like I said, You have no idea what it means
trim the sails, let alone, how one goes about it. Sailing, real
sailing requires knowledge about anchoring, and making headway against
the wind.
>

I doubt you
have any idea what a cat rig is, let alone how you trim the sails.

>
:-)  I thought you were advocating learning _only_ what one _needs_ to
know!

>
No, pay attention, dumbass.  The discussion and my position was
opposite of that. It was about not bothering to learn things you
didn't need to know.  You claimed that I was wrong about that, and now
you seem to gave changed your mind about it. No charge for the
enlightenment..
>

But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.

 
<LOL> You're the dullest individual I've ever come across.

>
Oh please! You're fascinated by me! You read every post I make and
respond to almost all of them! I give meaning to your dull life.    :-)

>
I find your "look at me posts" to be amusing. You're desperate for
recognition and respect here in RBT because you don't get it in your
real life.
>

Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how
to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.

 
I had no need to learn welding, music, woodworking either, but I did.

>
Logic alert: Does this man not realize he's now arguing against his own
position?

>
Krygowski, as usual snips out the stuff he can't deal with.
>

(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)

 
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.

>
Wow.

>
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
>