The Non Linear Plasma Reactor

[MK14]

I suspect that he’s overdosed on magic mushrooms and currently thinks he’s a clown fish.

Which swallows water (plasma, according to OP), to give limitless, free energy and perpetual motion.  As the fish travels the seas, without needing to use any nuclear fusion, at all.  Which then through heat radiation, heats and powers the sun, so it doesn't need to use any fusion at all.

[TimFox]

I think it’s more that there’s so many idiots that it’s inevitable some of them get to rule us.

Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts.  Here are two of my postings about the standard textbook on stupidity from another thread:

[1]  I like my definition of stupidity.  Being unaware of one's ignorance is another form of ignorance.
However, yesterday I started reading a very short book:  C M Cipolla, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Doubleday, 2019 (original version 1976), where the author discusses (axiomatically) the nature of stupid people, rather than stupidity itself. 
Looking ahead past my present bookmark is his Third Law:  "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
The author is describing harmful stupidity, worse than in my definition.

[2]  By the way, the five basic laws of C M Cipolla, discussed in the book I mentioned, are

    (1) Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
    (2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
    (3) A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
    (4) Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
    (5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
    (Corollary)  A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

The book has a strange publication history:  originally privately printed (in English) in 1976, then translated into Italian in 1988, finally published in English in 2011 by an Italian publisher, then by a British publisher in 2019.  Only 81 pages.  The author, a serious professor of economic history, died in 2000.

[MK14]

Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts.

Assuming they (OP) are telling the truth.  They must be reasonably bright, intelligent, capable, intuitive, sensible, to be able to sail half-way round the world.

[PlainName]

In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

Wouldn't that make the non-stupid person stupid? Perhaps it's contagious.

[RJSV]

MK14, I'm thinking, as in case of a child, that silence your comment on the OP, the OP / and or BOT, goes silent, perhaps, simply cause the algorithm has no response; maybe sometimes random insert a completely dis-jointed irrelevant response...just to appear HUMAN.  Maybe we should start calling (the OP)...The     'OP-BOT'.  !
   I did notice (let's maybe just call'em: 'ThreadBot?'), that author habitually dispenses insults...
Perhaps that 'whatevwr' ducks out, to go criticising THIS site...(I'm not sure what other blogs)

[PlainName]

that author habitually dispenses insults...

Really? Maybe you could list a few.

A quick check shows 'flat-earther' popping up now and then, but you have to go back 12 posts before seeing a bit of short-temper on his side.

OTOH, practically all comments posted by you have been insulting towards him, and the vast proportion of comments by nearly anyone else have been, let's say, 'unkind' at best.

[bd139]

Not sure if you've had to pitch stuff to investors before but we're being quite nice in comparison and giving some really good advice.

He didn't take the advice, proceeded to throw insults when evidence and proofs were requested which are minimum bar here and turn totally evasive revealing the true extent of his knowledge and motivation.

After that, game was over.

Edit: then again if he really had a clue he wouldn't be pissing this garbage all over the Internet. He'd have found someone to work on it with and pitched already. I suspect however that this is just narcissistic ball fluffing and he's gone quiet after finding another forum to stoke discussion and ego on.

[Simon]

We seem to live in a time when people want to be gullible to any "miracle" of technology. Figures like Elon Musk who have now gone a bit stale but stand up to present total non starters to whooping spectators, this then counts in the news as a big product launch even if it was probably done to employees. News outlets do not employ people who have any expertise in the field they report on so they will just pick up the press release and run with it.

Just look at all the crap that comes out of indigogo with massive amounts of overfunding when it does not take much to realize that it's a non product. Having just re-watched life of Brian, the way the crowd takes to him by accident and makes him a messiah seems to be about as easy as modern day pranksters take people for quite a bit of cash. I mean solar roadways? tax payers money is going into that, a massive scam propped up by the money of people that had no say in it being spend because a stupid politician was too incompetent to take proper advice.

Maybe our OP aspires to that kind of scam. You only have to get lucky once and you use your first funding to sell the idea to more stupid people for more money. And of course stupid people that invest in these scams will not want to admit that they were had. Fake bomb detectors made out of tennis racket handles and radio aerials anyone? I mean, seriously, how the fuck did that one get out? The history of successful scamming is an illustrious one for the scammers, many more want a piece of that cake.

[bd139]

That hits the nail on the head perfectly.

There is a desire in a portion of society to be lead, blindly. This is seen as a market from which you can extract money. Musk is exactly on point as I've had a close victim of that cultist who was so absorbed in it that he spent his entire retirement fund on a car and was going on about self driving being only a week away now on his death bed. That was several years ago now...

[MK14]

MK14, I'm thinking, as in case of a child, that silence your comment on the OP, the OP / and or BOT, goes silent, perhaps, simply cause the algorithm has no response; maybe sometimes random insert a completely dis-jointed irrelevant response...just to appear HUMAN.  Maybe we should start calling (the OP)...The     'OP-BOT'.  !
   I did notice (let's maybe just call'em: 'ThreadBot?'), that author habitually dispenses insults...
Perhaps that 'whatevwr' ducks out, to go criticising THIS site...(I'm not sure what other blogs)

I would be interested in knowing how they create their (OP's) word-salad replies.  Does it involve any computer assistance ?

These days, it is getting increasingly difficult, to tell real human from computer (BOT) generated responses.

Anyway, let me assure you, I'm 100% human %(&*$(**(Divide_By_Zero error in printf line 23263, before first %d in function_EmulateHuman().  Please reboot.$%£^*%$^&

[Simon]

Well someone set up the site. I suspect they are either very persistently sad in pedalling their junk or they were using prewritten replies maybe with the help of a program. Maybe a bot will do the same as a human that is talking rubbish, keep changing the subject to keep you on the run and not notice that he has not actually answered anything.

[Stray Electron]

   That sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to look for a copy of it.  His five rules certainly match with what I've observed in life. 

   BTW I'm just wondering, does the author consider people that ruin their lives with alcohol, drugs, gambling or other vices to be stupid or something else?   

I think it’s more that there’s so many idiots that it’s inevitable some of them get to rule us.

Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts.  Here are two of my postings about the standard textbook on stupidity from another thread:

[1]  I like my definition of stupidity.  Being unaware of one's ignorance is another form of ignorance.
However, yesterday I started reading a very short book:  C M Cipolla, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Doubleday, 2019 (original version 1976), where the author discusses (axiomatically) the nature of stupid people, rather than stupidity itself. 
Looking ahead past my present bookmark is his Third Law:  "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
The author is describing harmful stupidity, worse than in my definition.

[2]  By the way, the five basic laws of C M Cipolla, discussed in the book I mentioned, are

    (1) Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
    (2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
    (3) A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
    (4) Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
    (5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
    (Corollary)  A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

The book has a strange publication history:  originally privately printed (in English) in 1976, then translated into Italian in 1988, finally published in English in 2011 by an Italian publisher, then by a British publisher in 2019.  Only 81 pages.  The author, a serious professor of economic history, died in 2000.

[TimFox]

   That sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to look for a copy of it.  His five rules certainly match with what I've observed in life. 

   BTW I'm just wondering, does the author consider people that ruin their lives with alcohol, drugs, gambling or other vices to be stupid or something else?   

I think it’s more that there’s so many idiots that it’s inevitable some of them get to rule us.

Idiocy and stupidity are related concepts.  Here are two of my postings about the standard textbook on stupidity from another thread:

[1]  I like my definition of stupidity.  Being unaware of one's ignorance is another form of ignorance.
However, yesterday I started reading a very short book:  C M Cipolla, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity, Doubleday, 2019 (original version 1976), where the author discusses (axiomatically) the nature of stupid people, rather than stupidity itself. 
Looking ahead past my present bookmark is his Third Law:  "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
The author is describing harmful stupidity, worse than in my definition.

[2]  By the way, the five basic laws of C M Cipolla, discussed in the book I mentioned, are

    (1) Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
    (2) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
    (3) A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
    (4) Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
    (5) A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
    (Corollary)  A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

The book has a strange publication history:  originally privately printed (in English) in 1976, then translated into Italian in 1988, finally published in English in 2011 by an Italian publisher, then by a British publisher in 2019.  Only 81 pages.  The author, a serious professor of economic history, died in 2000.

I think that self-destructive stupidity is included in his rule (3) "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.", but the author does not discuss this topic explicitly.  He makes an important distinction between a "bandit", who harms others and profits from this harm himself, and a "stupid person" who does not derive gain from his harm to others.
By the way, the book is very, very short and may not be cost-effective.  The part I liked is his rule (2) "The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.", where he explicitly states that "men are not equal, that some are stupid and others are not, and that the difference is determined by nature and not by cultural forces or factors".  He compares that to the universal value of the female-to-male birth fraction, that does not depend on race, socio-economic status, geography, or other factors.

[RJSV]

StrayElectron:
   Just a word to the wise (? Is that an acronym WTTW)
Us (California) folks worked pretty hard, to separate Cannabis (ie 'POT'), from all the METH crazies (1990's),
and now, as result of FENTANYL - opiode overdoses 2020's and easy access, including the social networks.
I'm hearing calls for 'ZERO TOLERANCE',...due mainly to the overdose deaths...
   So my point is, that big BIN called 'drugs' has so many flaws...I guess I'm trying to ask for more specific substances, being called out...(but I'm a pergectionist),
How about, maybe, accuse people of being,
   'On fake Opioides'.
The whole Marijuana thing, historically, is actually with racist leanings...(try look up 'muggles').
Thanks,
   - - Rick B.

[Simon]

well someone is going to see a spike in sales of that book, mines ordered

[PlainName]

a "bandit", who harms others and profits from this harm himsel

What could profit be? Presumably he is thinking money or status or similar, but suppose someone just enjoys harming someone else. Does his enjoyment count as profit? What if he has a grudge - someone else ran off with his girlfriend, perhaps, or nicked his motor - would 'taking down' the other person be profit since it might discourage others from doing the same?

Perhaps that section might better read as "a 'stupid person' who unwittingly does not derive gain from his harm to others".

[TimFox]

a "bandit", who harms others and profits from this harm himsel

What could profit be? Presumably he is thinking money or status or similar, but suppose someone just enjoys harming someone else. Does his enjoyment count as profit? What if he has a grudge - someone else ran off with his girlfriend, perhaps, or nicked his motor - would 'taking down' the other person be profit since it might discourage others from doing the same?

Perhaps that section might better read as "a 'stupid person' who unwittingly does not derive gain from his harm to others".

In the author's discussion, an example of a bandit is one who steals your money at gunpoint.  He gains money and you lose money.  Even if he drops some of it while escaping the crime scene, he still profits by an amount less than you lose.  Sadistic enjoyment could be one form of profit.
"Unwittingly" would be synonymous with "stupid" in the author's usage (but redundant).  The author sees the harm to others and loss to himself as the basic nature of a stupid act.

[PlainName]

OK 

[RJSV]

That's an interesting dynamic (stupidity that harms others).  That phrase 'unwittingly' hurt (others).
I think, maybe add to it: 'unwittingly,...in appearance',
That gets into the whole, subtle dynamic; Perpetrator saying, in apparent innocence, "DID I do THAT ?", That one courtesy of TV's Erkle, while other folks might get spotted: hiding a 'devious' grin.
   Yes, We love our Humans...very subtle yet complex, and the least of devious.

[TimFox]

A stupid perp need not be aware that his actions hurt others and himself.
A bandit knows that his actions hurt others, but hopes to profit himself.

[MK14]

A stupid perp need not be aware that his actions hurt others and himself.
A bandit knows that his actions hurt others, but hopes to profit himself.

As far as I can tell.  The book is just causing/stirring up confirmation biases, in the people that read it.  I don't think, it is a good/sensible/valid book, as such.  It might have a little bit of merit, but even that, I'd not be sure about.

I suspect the reality, is that we need an extremely wide range of abilities/skills/experience/manual-abilities/studying/inventiveness/perception/personality/dexterity/leadership, etc.  To make up a successful, vibrant/prosperus/successful society.

By definition, 50% of the population, have an IQ of less than 100.  But life, is way, way, way more complicated than that.  Which is part of the reason why Einstein wasn't world leader, and Thomas Edison wasn't President of the United States of America.

TL;DR
If the book had significant validity, then surely there would be many other similar books and/or it would be more widely well known.

[Stray Electron]

TL;DR
If the book had significant validity, then surely there would be many other similar books and/or it would be more widely well known.

   I don't agree.  For example, just because most of the human race hasn't seen the new 'Top Gun' movie don't mean that it isn't a good movie.  The number of viewers of a movie or the number of readers of a book or the number of purchasers of any given product is often more about the amount of advertising than the quality. That's why we had to suffer through YEARS of TV advertisements for the trashy Ronco products.

  I'm sure that pretty much everyone on this list can name some very good books that most of us have never heard of.   Have you read Obed Macy's 'History of Nantucket' printed in 1835?  I have but I doubt that anyone else on this forum has.  Yes, that book is OT for this forum but so is Cipolla's book.  But if your interest lies in those areas then both are probably worth reading.

[MK14]

TL;DR
If the book had significant validity, then surely there would be many other similar books and/or it would be more widely well known.

   I don't agree.  For example, just because most of the human race hasn't seen the new 'Top Gun' movie don't mean that it isn't a good movie.  The number of viewers of a movie or the number of readers of a book or the number of purchasers of any given product is often more about the amount of advertising than the quality. That's why we had to suffer through YEARS of TV advertisements for the trashy Ronco products.

  I'm sure that pretty much everyone on this list can name some very good books that most of us have never heard of.   Have you read Obed Macy's 'History of Nantucket' printed in 1835?  I have but I doubt that anyone else on this forum has.  Yes, that book is OT for this forum but so is Cipolla's book.  But if your interest lies in those areas then both are probably worth reading.

There is some truth to your post, but by and large, I don't think it shows the true picture.
There are going to be (I suspect, in some cases), real gems, among things which are very largely overlooked.  But by and large, there are very good reasons, why something has never hit the popular sales, for that item.
In other words, if a video sales place has block-busters for sale, for £20 (blu-ray/DVD), reasonable ones for £5 each.  Sale/special ones for sale at £2.  Bargain basement ones for £1.  Extreme bargain basement ones, for £0.49  then I suspect, ones for sale for £0.05 , or 10 for £0.25, or the entire bin (basket), for £0.99 if you remove them today.  Are going to be of terrible/uninteresting to most people.
I.e. for £0.05, the general idiom, 'You get what you pay for', probably will apply here as well.
TL;DR
Just because there are rare (opinions might vary) exceptions, something which appears to be unpopular etc, probably is NOT very good.

[Gyro]

Please stop peppering your posts with TL;DR, it doesn't appear to have any relevant meaning, and irritates me as much as DK syndrome references!

[MK14]

Thanks for letting, me know.

EDIT:  I'm pleased you told me (in real terms), because I didn't realize there was such a problem.  Now you mention it, on reflection, I do seem to be over-using that term.