Posts by Amanda Diaz

Glad to see I'm not the only one on this. Now if we could just actually get a decent moderator in here, we might have a chance.

Hey, I see the "wasteful nonsense" thread was nuked last night with a moderator note saying it’s staying gone. Does that mean I can't even start a new thread with a similar title?

I have a pretty decent memory, so I clearly remember when moderator Aaron Harris2 posted on MK that we aren't supposed to go to the PŽK corner to whine—that we should handle things ourselves instead. Interesting logic, isn't it? If you complain about him on the PŽK, you're just being a whiner who should have settled it privately. But if you actually write out what’s wrong with his behavior, your post gets deleted along with a few condescending remarks just to remind everyone who really runs the house.

Is this supposed to be some kind of long-distance writing contest now?🤣 This isn't even my first handle. When I say I've been here since the PDF was founded, I mean exactly that.

Look, if you can't handle it, don't be such a crybaby and start opening threads for the FBI. Just tell everyone "screw you" and walk away.

By the way, your obsession with the boss is getting weird. You don't even mention Leo or Rita, or even Katie, who used to be a supermod. Is this some platonic love thing, or what?🤷

1. You’re talking about how most regular CIA users tend to steer clear of the specific threads you keep posting in.

2. Look, I’ve been on this PDF since day one. There isn't some massive divide in moderation styles, except for those two specific threads that have special extraterritorial status from the CIA—those follow their own set of rules.

3. When they were picking the new mods, the line was that average CIA users weren't cut out for the job because they supposedly aren't "politically correct" enough. Honestly, based on everything I've seen, if one of us put a pro-gay message in our signature, they’d probably be fast-tracked to super-mod by now.😉

Bottom line? Neither I, nor most of the long-term CIA users, have an issue with Chuck or Dee running things over there. As for the other mods handling those two separate threads? They don't even interfere with how we talk here.

Come on, Michelle Alvarez8, quit messing around...

I'm glad we're on the same page about this: piling on more and more rules just leads to even more stupidity on this forum.👍

Ryan Gomez4 said:Amanda Diaz, nobody is forcing believers off the alternative PDF sites. But like one of the guys here pointed out, there’s a clear attempt to pivot the conversation from Nibiru to the Messiah.

I didn't even say that.🤷 What's happening on those other sites doesn't matter for my point; I was just following up on the fact that a moderator can kick someone if they aren't sticking to the spirit of the forum.

Makes for a pretty ridiculous situation, doesn't it?

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

🤣

Fine. Why don't we just go ahead and kick every single atheist out of religious discussions since they aren't "in the spirit" of the PDF?

placidranger said:No—actually, that exact property—doubling at regular intervals—is precisely what defines exponential growth. It can be described by an exponential function with a base of two.

New industries often see exponential growth in their early stages. Just as frequently, they hit a plateau after that initial surge. That's what we call a sigmoid, or S-curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function

Moore's law doesn't account for that eventual slowdown toward a plateau, though—who knows where that's headed...

I'll admit it, I was wrong.👍

Look, n increases by one value every 10 years, not two like you claimed in the post I was replying to...

For all I care, I could claim any industry is seeing exponential growth; all I’d have to do is set a massive enough time scale on the x-axis.

placidranger said:Oh, look at that. Someone’s heard the term "logarithmic scale" but hasn't actually wrapped their head around how it works. You're lost in the weeds here. 😬

--------------

Nobody has brought up Cryptocurrencies 3D as a major pillar of this new industrial revolution. Look, 3D printers are cool enough—even better if you can actually make money off what you print. But what if you have a global marketplace where you can operate anonymously without some middleman breathing down your neck? Banking and financial services haven't seen real innovation since credit cards hit the scene back in the sixties and seventies. We're looking at a massive boom in finance.

The "hot" technologies for the next few years—not necessarily in order of importance:

Cryptocurrencies 3D
3D printers
Arduino and its derivatives
Security and anonymity tech (Linux, Tor, Open Source in general)
Open hardware and collaborative product development platforms
Content publishing and voting platforms (Imgur, Tumblr, Reddit...)

Look, all I was trying to get at is that if something doubles over a set period, that isn't the definition of exponential growth...

northernsailor8 said:To calculate future speed, you use Pn = Po x 2^n, where Pn is the target speed, Po is the starting speed, and n is the number of years passed divided by two.

If that wasn't clear, we are talking about an exponential equation. For that reason, Moore's law is basically the textbook definition of Exponential growth.

It’s interesting to watch some forum users fail to distinguish between trolling and just digging their own graves. ☕

Do you still not get it? The graph of a function like that would be a straight line—just the diagonal of some imaginary rectangle—not a parabola like you see in a standard exponential equation.🤷

northernsailor8 said:Vague platitudes? I suppose not. Everything I've said is backed by data, including scientific papers.

And by the way, if processor speeds double every year, that isn't exponential growth...😉

How is that not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tr...Law_-_2011.svg

Under the entry for Exponential growth on Wikipedia, computer technology is listed as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

So, perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending. I'm dealing with people who struggle with basic math and probably don't even know how to use Google. ☕

🤣
I don't need Google to tell me how an exponential equation works, but you're such a whiz kid—why don't you remind me exactly how that formula goes?

northernsailor8 said:I honestly don't see the point of your posts.

Technology isn't advancing? Right. I suppose microprocessors, mobile comms, LEDs, lasers, GPS satellites, MRI, neural chip interfaces, the internet, and all that aren't exactly special achievements in your book. Without any of that, life, work, and leisure in developed nations wouldn't even be imaginable. And the internet is usually ranked among the top ten discoveries of all time...

Right now, there is work being done on quantum processors, large-scale 3D printing for complex metal structures, usable graphene, stem cell organ engineering, artificial vision, and so on. All of this will fundamentally change how we live on the Planet.

I won't even get into the scientific potentials already being touched upon—like cold fusion, the origin of mass, or two new states of matter—because in a few decades, they'll likely result in technologies currently reserved for sci-fi movies.

Back in the 1900s, even prominent scientists argued that technological progress would grind to a halt because everything important had already been discovered. We can see how that turned out, I guess. ☕

And as for today's tech being just a refinement of existing tools—well, everything is just a refinement or an application of something else, mostly found in nature. Nuclear energy is just a simulation of what happens in the Sun, electric power comes from electromagnetic force, and internal combustion engines rely on basic pressure and fire, things humans figured out in prehistory... The first weapon was a knapped stone; the first wheel was just curved wood used to drag things. Refining existing technology and processes is the very foundation of progress. 😉

everything mentioned above was already present in the developed world, and often it was more accessible to the average person back then than it is today. Incremental medical progress is enough to manage civilization-related diseases for now, but lifestyle remains far more vital to health than any medical technology.

What exactly were they working with back then? Cell phones? High-speed internet? Personal computers? GPS? Digital TV on flat-screen monitors? MRI machines and other advanced diagnostic tools? Maybe an 80% success rate for treating certain types of cancer? Or even heart, kidney, and liver transplants?

What used to be more accessible? I guess back then, every household had two cars. Or maybe everyone just had their own phone for... $0.33You could have bought household appliances with a single paycheck. You could have carried mountains of data and documents on a tiny piece of plastic in your pocket. Now, you're just making things up...

Since we’re on the topic of health, I suppose it’s worth noting that over the last two decades, the average life expectancy in the West has climbed by about seven years. Meanwhile, per capita antibiotic consumption has actually trended downward—well, excluding the US, of course.

Quincy:

Epidemics? If you want to talk about epidemics, look at obesity and infertility. It isn't even limited to humans, which suggests this goes way beyond just what we eat. I guess the toxins pumped out by industrial civilization are essentially turning us all into sterile little spheres.

Obesity is primarily a psychological disorder, much like addiction. It seems to emerge wherever there is a certain level of prosperity.

The infertility epidemic isn't actually happening. If you look at the numbers, the global population is still growing quite effectively, especially in developing nations where industrial pollution is higher and food safety regulations are a bit more lax, I guess.

Quincy:

Not even close to the old standard. It seems some people fail to see true exponential growth in technology just because we can stream ten times more videos on YouTube than we could five years ago. Real technological progress would be if groceries were ten times cheaper than they were thirty years ago. It would be if building a house—complete with plumbing, sewage, and electricity—was ten times less expensive. It would be if transportation was significantly faster and much more affordable. Or if healthcare was actually accessible and cheap. All of that, ideally, without destroying the Planet the way current tech does.

I suppose you don't quite grasp the actual meaning of the word "technology."

Jack Johnson6 said:

Industrial civilization has certainly made life more comfortable for a while, I suppose. But the cost might just be the destruction of the Planet.

I suppose the Planet will be just fine. It has managed to endure supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, ice ages, collapsed ocean currents, and solar flares. I imagine it will manage to survive us, too. 😉

I'm trolling you because your condescending replies don't deserve anything else. You clearly have no idea who you're even debating, yet you throw around these vague clichés thinking they actually land. Maybe they work on people who don't know better, but they certainly don't work on me.

And by the way, if processor speeds double every single year, that isn't "Exponential growth"...😉

northernsailor8 said:Why? I am specifically talking about training staff after the technology is rolled out. It just seems like people in America still think "lifelong learning and upskilling" is some concept from a sci-fi movie. I guess the ability to learn doesn't just vanish once someone turns 25, believe it or not.

I wonder where you actually live. Globally, access to everything you mentioned is constantly increasing. Nowadays, you have gas pipelines reaching even smaller towns, subsidies for home energy production (like solar panels or biofuels), car loans available within a week, and a massive selection of vehicles ranging from EVs to hybrids. We have high-speed rail, jets departing every five minutes, the highest percentage of highly educated people in history, and college—or community college—is essentially free. We see high survival rates for various cancers, organ transplants, and prosthetic manufacturing. We have tools like the MRI that perform diagnostic work more precisely than ten doctors could. It has been decades since any major epidemic, and even AIDS has been largely contained.

Standard of living and quality of life according to the University of Alabama metrics are at an all-time high; statistically speaking, things have never been better, whether looking at individual nations or the world as a whole.

If you happen to be a nostalgic old man terrified of the modern era, well, that’s your problem. 😁

Go ahead, throw in a mention of the local gamblers or the guys living off their savings, and you’ve checked every single box for the modern American "wannabe yuppie" cliché...

Try reading the thread and the replies one more time. Maybe then you'll actually get it.

northernsailor8 said:This isn't really a question of whether copyright should exist, but rather its scope. I think most people would agree that limiting reproduction has become nearly impossible, but that's more a matter of distribution models, accessibility, and middlemen than the creators themselves.

In fact, it seems many people are actually willing to pay for high-quality service and bonus content if there are minimal intermediaries, the content is easy to find in one place, and the price is reasonable.

However, that mostly applies to the entertainment industry. Intellectual work that has practical utility—meaning its application creates tangible value—is a different story altogether. In those cases, the work becomes an intellectual tool in production, much like manual labor, machinery, or other physical assets. We are talking about the foundations of an economic system here. There could be a drastic decline if we rely solely on enthusiasts who prioritize the "public good."

I think you might be off by a century or two. Nowadays, you train a worker in a very short timeframe, and new technology is implemented within a few years. Welcome to the 21st century and our era of global knowledge and communication. 😉

😁

Do you realize you're basically tripping over your own feet with that response? You're suggesting we should have trained workers *before* the technology even existed...

northernsailor8 said:Specialization.

Maybe learn everything about them. Learn how to build, how to code, and how to develop ideas and products faster and better than anyone else.

Americans didn't invent windshield glass, nor do they produce most of it, yet Ferrari buys theirs from American suppliers. Americans didn't invent polymer semi-automatic pistols, yet the top-selling model in the US comes from an American manufacturer. Americans didn't invent fuel regulators, but a huge chunk of global production would vanish overnight if a major American component maker disappeared.

A 3D printer is just a tool. Success depends on whatever you decide to make with it.

:fejspalm ko kuća:

Here's an example. Glass was invented ages ago... then cars were invented... after that, cars started using better and better glass... long after Enzo Ferrari founded his factory and went looking for glass suppliers... long after Enzo's first car, someone in Lipstick starts producing high-end glass, and now modern Ferrari buys from them.

And you want me to start training people right this second to make glass for Ferrari? We don't even know when Ferrari will actually need that specific glass—is it in 5, 10, or 30 years? We don't know if the specs will match what we imagine today, because we have no idea what kind of Ferrari they'll be building then, or what the market will even demand.

I hope you caught the analogy...

At this rate, we might as well start training tour guides for Mars...

Are we even preparing for the future? And honestly, what can a country with an economy the size of America's mid-sized states actually do about it? Invent a 3D printer? No chance—it’s already done. Throw a few billion dollars at improving existing tech? Forget it, because some global superpower will just dump tens of billions into the exact same thing tomorrow.

So, how exactly is this "preparation" supposed to work? I'd love to know, just so I can actually get ready...

Honestly, I’d love to just take this entire post and stick it in my signature...