Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".
Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a >tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.
Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!
Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."
The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.
So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.
But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".
Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.
Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!
Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."
The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.
So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.
But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.
Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"
On 8/15/2020 1:55 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".
Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.
Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!
Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."
The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.
So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.
But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.
Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they
probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"
One problem of a public discussion group is imprecise or colloquial use
of technical terms. And some of the people who use those terms
imprecisely seem to take offense at the notion that the terms have
actual technical definitions. They seem to find that idea elitist.
How are your skin transplants doing ?
On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:55:46 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
How are your skin transplants doing ?
I'm getting increasingly fed up with the need to keep the scars out of
the sun, but aside from that (and aside from looking red in the
mirror) I'm pretty much unaware of them.
My nose still feels peculiar if I poke it, but not when I wiggle it
(who knew that I can wiggle my nose?). The donor site still feels >thin-skinned and sensitive.
My dental hygenist told me that it's normal for donor sites to be
slower to heal than the grafts. Apparently, dental surgeons do grafts
too. I didn't ask for details.
I am interested as I need to have one ear "done". I assume that where
the transplant is made one has a swath of new skin with a seam all way
round but the donor site is what? A place where there isn't any skin
at all? Or do they pick a place where one has loose skin and simply
cut out a piece and sew the sides together rather like my wife "taking
in" a pair of my pants when I lost weight?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 293 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 220:30:40 |
Calls: | 6,622 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,171 |
Messages: | 5,318,027 |