exchemist

Yes. The ability to exert personal dominance is what he enjoys.

There’s no discernable idea here. It’s just meaningless ballocks. The sort of verbiage a chatbot might come up with. Don’t waste our time.

I think with Trump you have to factor in the personal motivation too. Tariffs hurt people ( or whole countries) and the exercise of power to hurt is what gives Trump a hard-on, along with keeping him at the top of the news agenda of the world. I think he has only a hazy idea of the economic consequences. What matters is it is an expression of personal dominance. He enjoys seeing the consternation he causes and the spectacle of leaders of foreign countries crawling to him to beg for relief. And a lot of his supporters enjoy it as much as he does. They too want to hurt “other” groups. This feeling is a large part of the attraction of fascist movements. Supporters feel at last allowed to indulge their inner wish to beat someone up. The feeling turns sour only when they too get hurt, which is what will probably happen. That I think is why Carney is handling this the right way.

As I indicated before, economics is not an exact science. This is due to the immense complexity of interactions in societies and the role of non-rational factors, such as psychology of groups , which are hard to predict. Because of this, analysis of issues in economics inevitably involves human judgements, since the interactions cannot be objectively calculated out. Results cannot therefore be determined unambiguously with any confidence. However likely outcomes can be established, on the basis of majority view. This applies to the effects of tariffs as much as to any other economic policy question.

You always get some disagreement on economics, as it is not a hard science. One of my brothers once commented (pace von Clausewitz) that economics sometimes appears to be the continuation of politics by other means. I think I agree. So you won't get uniformity of opinion. However it seems a safe prediction from the economists I have read (mainly in the Financial Times), that 80% or so of them will say the tariffs, especially in the disorganised way Trump is going about them, will be bad for the USA. They are expected to put up the price of goods, make most people poorer and will not repatriate much manufacturing from overseas because there is no reason to believe that, once imposed, they will remain in place long enough to rely on to justify new manufacturing investments.

Can you provide an example?

Xi is also trying to get the birth rate up. It looks as if there is a strand of thought among some of the Project 2025 people that recreational sex should be discouraged. They are certainly obsessed with banning abortion but it look as if some of them might like to extend the principle to banning contraception too. No chance of that getting anywhere in a functioning democracy of course, but once that is killed off or neutered all manner of unpopular policies become possible.

I know nothing about baseball but doesn’t this win the No Shit Sherlock prize for obviousness? A wider thicker bat makes it easier to hit the ball?

OK but that’s the firefighters’ foam, which would ordinarily be the method of choice for putting oil an oil fire. (I’ve done that myself on a safety course). But, to be clear, electrical cooling oil itself is an insulator, not a conductor.

The cooling oil is not electrically conductive. In fact its dielectric properties are a key part of the specification. But it is a hydrocarbon, fairly similar to gas oil (diesel fuel) in nature, so it will burn if ignited. It's just an oil fire, but obviously one needs to isolate the high voltage feed into the substation before anybody can get near it. There seem to be a lot grandstanding by politicians over this incident. Whether it is worth the considerable cost to arrange duplicate supply into the airport will need careful study. Something like this is a very rare occurrence. The airlines that are huffing and puffing about lost business and disruption will have to pay for any new supply system, in the form of higher landing fees. Let's see what they think when confronted with the numbers.

I'm not sure whether this just funny or sinister: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-ridiculed-fertilisation-president-b1219162.html QUOTE “We’re gonna have tremendous goodies in the bag for women too,” he said during his speech. “The women, between the fertilization and all the other things we’re talking about, it’s gonna be great. Fertilization. I’m still very proud of it, I don’t care. I’ll be known as the fertilization president and that’s okay.” He added: “That’s not bad. I’ve been called much worse. Actually, I like it.” His remarks instantly drew ire from the internet, with many taking to social media to express their mounting concern in regard to the current administration. “Well this gets weirder by the day,” wrote on social media user. “I do not consent to receiving a girly goody bag from the fertilization president,” wrote another. A third wrote: “Everyday we're one step closer to a Handmaid's Tale reality.” Trump’s remarks appeared to have referred to a recent executive order centred on lowering the costs of IVF treatments in the US. However, his administration has also made considerable efforts to roll back women’s rights in other areas, most notably in regard to reproductive rights and abortions. UNQUOTE This seems to be his way of hinting, in his characteristically rambling yet vaguely threatening style, at a kinder küche kirche, trad-wife role for women in the Project 2025 utopia. Perhaps we should refer to Trump as the FP. Could be an abbreviation with a pleasing degree of ambiguity in interpretation......

Nor sarky comments neither. 😉

Yes I think it is slaked lime Ca(OH)₂ that is used in Bx mixture.

Fair enough. But your proposed idea of applying just lime powder will not be fungicidal. You need the Cu for that which, as I say, is the key ingredient in Bx mixture for its intended application, in vineyards.

But there is a real, scientifically based health threat to at least some of their customers. That was explained in the thread. Legal liability, in this case at least, is not disconnected from scientific reality.

Ah, I see, thanks. I suspect @grzegorzsz830402 thinks they are actual observed timing errors in orbit.

I notice @grzegorzsz830402 repeatedly quotes some numbers, without providing a link to where they come from, viz: Orbit Gain in ns/day: Cesium: +10 Hz → +93.916 ns/day. Rubidium: +10 Hz → +126.403 ns/day. Maser: +10 Hz → +608.342 ns/day. I'm not an expert on GPS. Does anyone recognise these numbers and can they explain what they signify? This seems to be important to his idea that different types of atomic clock acquire different errors in orbit. I feel that if we can address this, the issue may be solved. Perhaps @grzegorzsz830402 can provide links to the source or sources?

Then your previous post means what?

The Big Bong? 😎

Don’t be a jerk. The issue has been explained to you. The precaution of recalling the product is perfectly sensible as there is a risk, to immunocompromised users of the product, if to no one else.

When I don't qualify it I mean natural science, as most people do. I said nothing about double blind by the way. I meant what I said.

I don’t. But then I don’t feel I have to just pull something out of my arse to fill the gap.

There is also an attack on law firms who have represented causes or individuals that have displeased Trump. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/politics/law-firms-trump-attacks/index.html Security clearances are to be revoked, hamstringing their ability to carry out certain kinds of work, they are to be denied access to federal buildings. Government work is to be denied even to the clients of these law firms, forcing them to change their lawyers to another firm, to avoid losing government business. This is transparently an attempt to intimidate the legal profession, so that nobody who mounts any sort of legal challenge to Trump can get legal representation.

Science requires reproducible evidence, that is, evidence obtainable by more than one observer, in more than one observational setup. That precludes experiences unique to an individual from being scientific evidence. So they cannot be considered part of a scientific "test".

What pompous ballocks. Even the first line is meaningless. How can "everything from 1 void" be a mathematical statement? And it just gets worse from there on.