Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Frans Waterlander]

Yep, a cop-out.

[digitaldog]

Yep, a cop-out.

Only for you, sir. You've earned it. Your dissatisfaction with a solution brightens my day; thanks for that.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

[Frans Waterlander]

Only for you, sir. You've earned it. Your dissatisfaction with a solution brightens my day; thanks for that.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

Chicken!

[digitaldog]

Chicken!

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/722201-solux-bulb-replacements/#findComment-6041666

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/722201-solux-bulb-replacements/#findComment-6041722

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/722201-solux-bulb-replacements/#findComment-6041793

Your dissatisfaction with a solution continues to brighten my day; thanks again for that.

[Frans Waterlander]

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/722201-solux-bulb-replacements/#findComment-6041666

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/722201-solux-bulb-replacements/#findComment-6041722

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/722201-solux-bulb-replacements/#findComment-6041793

Your dissatisfaction with a solution continues to brighten my day; thanks again for that.

And what might that "solution" be?

[digitaldog]

And what might that "solution" be?

Your displeasure from your misunderstanding of a solution continues to brighten my day; thanks again for that.

[Ray]

A better question is, why would someone hallucinate without the aid of AI and post about the first ‘true’ scientist without a lick of data to back up another strong opinion here.

Hallucinate! What on earth are you talking about? The Google AI review is useful because it does a very quick search of the available information related to one's question, and summarizes an answer based on the available evidence.

When I do the following search on Google Scholar, on the topic of "ibn al haytham scientific method", I get 20,600 results.
Obviously, I don't have the time to read over 20,000 scientific studies, but I do read a few of them.

Here's one for example:
https://www.annsaudimed.net/doi/full/10.5144/0256-4947.2007.464

"Ibn al-Haytham developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing in order to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures. Ibn al-Haytham’s scientific method was very similar to the modern scientific method and consisted of a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification.

The first real appreciation of the action of a lens, in particular the ability of a convex form to produce a magnified image of an object, appears to be credited to Ibn al-Haytham. It was not until the late 13th century that spectacles were invented, representing the first practical use of magnification in society.

Finally, Ibn al-Haytham left his impact on many scientific disciplines through his genius insight, and novel and original observations. Without doubt, he is considered as the pioneering father of modern optics."

[digitaldog]

Hallucinate! What on earth are you talking about? The Google AI review is useful because it does a very quick search of the available information related to one's question, and summarizes an answer based on the available evidence.

When I do the following search on Google Scholar, on the topic of "ibn al haytham scientific method", I get 20,600 results.
Obviously, I don't have the time to read over 20,000 scientific studies, but I do read a few of them.

Here's one for example:
https://www.annsaudimed.net/doi/full/10.5144/0256-4947.2007.464

"Ibn al-Haytham developed rigorous experimental methods of controlled scientific testing in order to verify theoretical hypotheses and substantiate inductive conjectures. Ibn al-Haytham’s scientific method was very similar to the modern scientific method and consisted of a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification.

The first real appreciation of the action of a lens, in particular the ability of a convex form to produce a magnified image of an object, appears to be credited to Ibn al-Haytham. It was not until the late 13th century that spectacles were invented, representing the first practical use of magnification in society.

Finally, Ibn al-Haytham left his impact on many scientific disciplines through his genius insight, and novel and original observations. Without doubt, he is considered as the pioneering father of modern optics."

So long-winded without any data to back up your exact statement:

My statement was: "He's widely regarded as the first true scientist and the "father of the modern scientific method."

Your audience is still not taking you seriously. Tip on holes; when you are deep inside one, stop digging. 🤫🤫🤫

[Ray]

For those who are interested in the history of science, here's another scientific publication on Ibn al-Haytham's role in the development of the scientific methodology.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Venkateswaran-Tv-2/publication/342802058_INFLUENCE_OF_IBN_AL-HAYTHAM_ON_VISION_OPTICS_AND_EXPERIMENTAL_SCIENCES/links/5f069adc299bf188160e5c94/INFLUENCE-OF-IBN-AL-HAYTHAM-ON-VISION-OPTICS-AND-EXPERIMENTAL-SCIENCES.pdf

"Most popular accounts of the history of science would typically mention a few ancient Greek philosophers, followed by the ‘revolutionary’ work of Roger Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton, resulting in the modern science and scientific method.  This version of the history of science, typically the period between 9th and 13th centuries, would be dubbed as dark ages where little or no development took place.

However, what was the dark age in Europe was the Golden Age of Arabic science, when great advances were made in Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine, Physics, Chemistry and Philosophy. The truth was that the post ‘dark age’ European scholars stood on the shoulders of Persian and Arabic scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham that resulted in the European Renaissance.

Apart from being one of the first to operate on the scientific method, Ibn al-Haytham was also a progenitor of critical thinking and scepticism. He was the first to make a systematic use of the method of varying the experimental conditions in a constant and uniform manner, in an experiment showing that the intensity of the light-spot formed by the projection of the moonlight through two small apertures onto a screen constantly diminishes as one of the apertures is gradually blocked.

Relatively late in his life, apparently stimulated by controversies with contemporaries about truth, authority and the role of criticism in scientific research, Ibn al-Haytham articulated some remarkably sophisticated statements on the practice of science and the growth of scientific knowledge.

In a critical treatise, Aporias against Ptolemy, he stated that “Truth is sought for itself” and the scientific authorities (such as Ptolemy, whom he greatly respected) are “not immune from error….” Further, he wrote, “The seeker after truth is not one, who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them ... but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration.”

Until recently historians of science often used to credit Galileo Galilee with the birth of modern science, in particular, the emphasis on experimentation and use of mathematics. However, it is clear that Ibn alHaytham is rightly a founder of modern science. Rosanna Gorini correctly says, “According to the majority of the historians, al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method."

[digitaldog]

“Clever gimmicks of mass distraction yield a cheap soulcraft of addicted and self-medicated narcissists.”
Cornel West

[Ray]

And here's another scientific study that supports the AI summary that Ibn al-Haytham was the first true scientist.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396507118_Analysis_of_Ibn_al-Haytham's_Foundational_Role_in_the_Development_of_the_Modern_Scientific_Method

"The genealogy of the modern scientific method is frequently truncated to start with the European Renaissance, often obscuring the crucial methodological innovations of the Islamic Golden Age. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the foundational role of Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in constructing the epistemological architecture of modern science.

While historically celebrated for his corrections to Ptolemaic optics, this paper argues that Ibn al-Haytham’s contribution was far more fundamental: the systematization of a cyclical methodology based on critical doubt (shukuk), empirical verification (i’tibar), and mathematical synthesis (burhan). By conducting a methodological-historical analysis of his seminal works, Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics) and Shukuk ’alaa Bathalamiy (Doubts Concerning Ptolemy), and contextualizing them within the framework of Islamic Hadith scholarship, this research positions Ibn al-Haytham not merely as a transitional figure, but as the primary architect of the empirical method. The findings suggest that the integration of rigorous skepticism and controlled experimentation—hallmarks of the “Scientific Revolution”—were fully articulated in the 11th century."

[digitaldog]

“You can always find a distraction if you're looking for one.”
Tom Kite

[Ray]

After using a strong opinion without a lick of data to dismiss the economic facts of wind/solar, real renewable energy based on data (LCOE) is ignored here again to digress away from the facts provided, which clearly oppose the strong opinion.

I don't ignore the data. I examine the results and the claims that are purported to be based on data. If there's something that appears to be wrong or contradictory, that is based upon other data, then I question the original claims, because I understand the importance of skepticism in the methodology of science.

For example, there is data that shows that the states in the US that have the most expensive electricity are the ones that have mandates requiring 100% of their power to come from renewable or carbon-free sources in the near future.

If someone, like you, Andrew, claims that LCOE results show that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, then you should explain why certain states in the US, and many countries world-wide, that are reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, have escalating electricity costs.

Following is a research paper that addresses this problem in the USA.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Blue-States-High-Rates.pdf

"According to Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, each of the top five most expensive states for electricity have mandates requiring 100% of their power to come from renewable or carbon-free sources, making their electricity unnecessarily more expensive.

In contrast, eight out of 10 states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red, and seven of these states have no 100% carbon-free mandates.

California’s sky-high electricity rates are not the result of scarcity, or being in the middle of the Pacific Ocean like Hawaii, but rather are the direct consequence of policies that deliberately sidelined reliable, conventional fuels (including large hydropower) in favor of mandating and subsidizing preferred renewables.

Florida’s subtropical climate, characterized by hot, humid summers, mild winters, and a hurricane season, presents unique challenges for providing affordable electricity.

Despite these intense demands, Florida delivers electricity at prices 2% below the U.S. average at 13.27 cents per kWh for all sectors. It achieves this mainly by generating 75% of its power from natural gas, even though the state has no significant natural gas production of its own and must import virtually all of it.

In 2025, Louisiana had the third-lowest electricity rates in the United States. The reasons are simple—73% of Louisiana’s electricity is generated by natural gas and unlike California or New York, Louisiana has not attempted to implement carbon dioxide or renewable energy goals through its electricity generation system.

Kentucky’s rates are 21% lower than the national average. The reasons are straightforward—67% of Kentucky’s electricity is generated by coal and 26% by natural gas."

Got it? 

[digitaldog]

Some confuse scientists with photographers (inventors)! 🤣

[digitaldog]

As a warning, if most readers here are expecting to see a clear correlation and acceptance from an AI posting member, not likely:

Do US states with more renewable energy have more expensive electricity?
Despite California being the poster child of high prices, the data suggests no.
HANNAH RITCHIE
FEB 10, 2025
As a warning: if you’re expecting to see a clear correlation — that all states with lots of [solar / wind / nuclear / gas] have much [cheaper / more expensive] electricity — then I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.

But there are plenty of other examples where states have rolled out renewables, and prices have remained the same or even fallen. Look at Texas, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota in the charts below (there are more examples if you flick through the states on the interactive chart).

In fact, if we look at data for the US as a whole (select “US total” on the interactive chart), we can see that prices have gone down slightly while solar and wind power have grown.

More renewables do not have to mean higher prices. It can — and in many cases, will — mean lower ones. But, the lack of consistent trends and strong correlations across different states makes it clear that other factors play a big role in determining consumer prices.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/us-states-electricity-sources-prices

[digitaldog]

Levelized Cost of Electricity is a metric that calculates the average total cost of building and operating a power plant over its lifetime, divided by the total energy it produces, showing the minimum price needed to break even (e.g., $/MWh). It helps compare different generation technologies (solar, wind, gas) by considering capital costs, operations, fuel, and financing; this is data that is not ambiguous, and wind/solar have the lowest LCOE of any other generation, full stop, period. Electricity rates are more complex and depend on many factors, but if we look at the cost to generate just the power, LCOE is a valuable data point. In my state, the cost of electricity generation affects what we pay; YMMV—lower cost to produce, lower cost set by our PRC; period, full stop. The last article I posted (in part) illustrates that what consumers pay for electricity is complex, varies, but the point one AI-driven only pundit here will hopefully parse is that wind and solar have the lowest LCOE (this is a fact) and that more wind and solar doesn’t correlate to higher prices to consumers because they are wind or solar. But I kind of doubt it based on the posting history and the lack of acceptance of defined data (like that from 90%+ of climate scientists as just one example). Period, full stop hopefully (got it, I doubt it).

[Rob C]

Well, well well!

Interesting day in Caracas, don’t you think? It will be particularly interesting to see whether there will be any popular changes, such as a new head honcho coming up through the ranks to dislodge the present replacement, which is just a continuation of the Maduro power structure.

Personally, I doubt whether old Venezuelan supporters like Russia and China will actively interfere: the danger of superpower conflict, as was just avoided over the Cuban missile crisis, is too real to risk, showing, I believe, the true power of the nuclear deterrent. Those who hold it understand it best: it represents a step too far for any of them to take - at least amongst themselves.

[digitaldog]

Interesting indeed.

[Robert Roaldi]

Well, well well!

Interesting day in Caracas, don’t you think? It will be particularly interesting to see whether there will be any popular changes, such as a new head honcho coming up through the ranks to dislodge the present replacement, which is just a continuation of the Maduro power structure.

Personally, I doubt whether old Venezuelan supporters like Russia and China will actively interfere: the danger of superpower conflict, as was just avoided over the Cuban missile crisis, is too real to risk, showing, I believe, the true power of the nuclear deterrent. Those who hold it understand it best: it represents a step too far for any of them to take - at least amongst themselves.

Trump's polling will go up. Nothing Americans like better than a military victory. He'll install a puppet regime who will let him insert himself as middleman in oil extraction. Headlines have already indicated as much when they talk about "running" the place. Maybe Trump will increase Venezuelan tariffs, that's working so well at home.

The avg joe at home will feel bolstered because the US has respect again although why that will actually improve his own life is less obvious.

Trump has threatened Mexico already (again) and Rubio made some comment about Cuban leaders needing to be careful. Careful about what? What exactly could Cuban leaders do to threaten the US. I figure threats against Canada and Greenland will be voiced again soon, maybe Panama too, they haven't mentioned Panama in a while. That should be another easy victory, nobody will shoot back there either. Or maybe Trump will find some new country to threaten. I saw a satirical article about Carney having to shut off geo-location on his phone. One thing is certain, country leaders will be reluctant to travel to the US in the future. Zelensky should not go to the White House again, better to use Zoom.

When they kidnapped Maduro, why did they also take his wife? I wonder if they focus-grouped that.

History has shown that the US is good at headlines but less good at the long-term and neither is Trump. But most people don't give a rat's ass what happens in Venezuela in the aftermath, all they need to do is bring in the "free market" and everything will be rosy like in Afghanistan. AI will make everyone rich soon anyway, that's what Musk said. If Elon can install his Neural Link brain implant into enough people, maybe he can get everyone else to believe that too. He says that's only about a year away, so the future is bright.

Nobody has talked about ICE for a whole day now. If they can keep this up for 24 more hours they will be forgotten completely. Numbers I heard mentioned on a podcast suggest that both the Biden and Obama administrations deported more criminal foreigners than ICE has (per day), it's just ICE does it in a way that gets on the news. If a few non-criminals end up in CECOT, well, hey, wrong place, wrong time, life is a bitch man.

So far, the Epstein files are the best distraction yet.

This is all aided by the fact that Maduro was no saint and not popular at home, so in that sense he was a good strategic target. It's not like anyone is going to be too vocal about backing him. And I predict that no one will try to figure out why Venezuela went down the tubes in the last few years except maybe some historian who will write a book that hardly anyone will read. The only thing they will remember, and the only thing the media will mention, is that Trump took out a bad guy. The elevator pitch can't be more than 2 sentences long. Anyway, with AI coming along, it's not like some auteur film maker will make an embarrassing documentary movie exposé. I'd keep an eye out for Venezuelan coastal real estate development in the next few years, plenty of jobs for maids and gardeners and pool guys.

[Rhossydd]

The avg joe at home will feel bolstered because the US has respect again

Except Trump's madness has destroyed respect for the USA around the globe.