Coronavirus

Out of context: Reply #5402

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 6,399 Responses
  • palimpsest-2

    I've also done my own research and found out that the actual data doesn't fit into any of the narratives we're being fed. I had a suspicion that the percentages being posted here were off. When you take all of the variables into account you get the following graph where the augmentation is largest for the case with the lowest maximum angle of attack. The phases that increase/decrease the thrust are minimally affected by the maximum angle of attack.


    There is no bias in this analysis since the data used hasn't been filtered. This is from a paper from Muscutt LE, Dyke G,Weymouth GD, Naish D, Palmer C,Ganapathisubramani B. published by the Royal Society.

    But wait, there's more:


    You can see in this graph that for both values of the maximum angle of attack the efficiency is greatest for St = 0.18, while the thrust coefficient is greatest for St = 0.36.

    Furthermore, if we look at the research done by Ludvig Beckman. His conclusions on the general account are as follows:
    Let us assume that the inclusion of A and B is sufficient for pure procedural legitimacy of a collective decision regulating membership in the demos. Now, imagine that A and B jointly decide that B should be excluded from the demos. Is the decision legitimate? One answer is that it is not, since it denies B the ability to participate in future decisions to which B will be subject. After all, the general conception of pure procedural legitimacy requires that anyone subject to public decisions should be able to participate in them. On the assumption that B will indeed remain subject to A’s decisions, democratic legitimacy apparently requires that B continues to be included in the demos.

    The problem is that this answer betrays the nature of pure procedural legitimacy. As we have seen, any outcome should be regarded as legitimate, provided that the procedural requirements are satisfied. Since we have already accepted that the decision to exclude B from the demos is made in accordance with the procedural requirements of democratic legitimacy, there is no basis for refuting its legitimacy. In sum, it is incoherent to hold that decisions made in full com-pliance with the standards of pure procedural legitimacy are also illegitimate by the very same standard.

    #DYOR

    palimpsest -2Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • 1. I think you're grasping for a narrative that fits your view. 2. The second guy who linked is a political science professor that's big on..garbage
    • ..restricting voter's rights. 3. Not really sure we're being 'fed a narrative' when more Americans have died than in every war we've been involved in..garbage
    • ..in the past two years, massive bankruptcy and economic fallout resulting in a complete change of life for almost every person on earth, etc.garbage
    • There ain't no big lie about COVID.garbage
    • "I think you're grasping for a narrative that fits your view."
      You've got it all figured out, champ!      palimpsest
    • Thanks for proving my point.palimpsest
    • jeez, some real butters/professor chaos shit right here, revealing your evil villian masterplan after one person bit the bulletkingsteven
    • It took me weeks to put it together.
      I pissed myself like an over-excited puppy.      palimpsest
    • *placesyellowtriangl... watch your stepAQUTE
    • Next time a client comes back with feedback they gathered from their nephew, and now are an expert in design - remember what you're doing here.inteliboy
    • I concur.
      Specially if the feedback is a picture of Bigfoot. Remember that you are the designer.
      #DYOR      palimpsest
    • this is a pisstake, right?hans_glib
    • Seriously, I never tried to trick anybody here. I hold you all to the same standards as I do myself. This only requires basic reading skills.palimpsest
    • I didn't expect garbage to ramble about NOTHING, nor kingsteven to read it as a stupid evil MASTERPLAN or even inteliboy to compare it to DESIGN feedback.palimpsest
    • It was more of a comment on the constant bullshit and bickering going on here. And now look at us.palimpsest
    • i was referencing a character from southpark, i read the post and got what you were trying to do, upvoted but then was disappointed when you didn't let thekingsteven
    • sidenotes go on a bit. also don't feel like the 'gotcha' was deserved as it would seem garbage was just concerned for your sanity :Dkingsteven
    • Like I said before, I really didn't expect this response. I think it's safe to say we all know South Park. I don't think garbage was concerned for my sanity.palimpsest
    • it was more the response that reminded me of this https://www.youtube.… - that second study is giving me crazy Déjà vukingsteven
    • Maybe he has concerned for his own sanity. I would really like for somebody to clearly explain where he got that reading from.palimpsest
    • It wasn't a 'gotcha'. He clearly went on a rant about MY "grasping for a narrative that fits your view" without considering the facts.palimpsest
    • If he wouldn't have gone that far I would have it let it slide. I just wasn't expecting. As I've said several times before.palimpsest
    • I REALLY would like somebody to explain where they got this interpretation from MY text.palimpsest
    • "Show me on the doll".palimpsest
    • @kingsteven
      Thanks for the video, I understand your worldview now. Thumbs up!      palimpsest
    • he was concerned you were going off the rails, took the bits he could derive sense from (opening paragraph, discursive democracy) and tried to rationalisekingsteven
    • within the context of the thread. i doubt he cared much, other than to keep the discourse going. qbn is not academic, more like a pub...kingsteven
    • So basically, he did his own research regardless of the facts.
      I even posted the sources.      palimpsest
    • But I'm the Butters figure here.palimpsest
    • You're right, kingsteven.
      I apologize.      palimpsest
    • This is amazing. The responses are even better. Well done pal.monospaced
    • What you’ve shown here is probably the most useful data I’ve seen on the thrust coefficient of the pandemic. A topic few real researchers have tackled. Bravo.monospaced
    • always consider theres users on this site that are alts, trolls doing exactly what you attempted - for years. don't get triggered and shit over your good name.kingsteven
    • @monospaced
      https://www.youtube.…      palimpsest
    • @garbage
      You were as quick to jump in as to vanish from the conversation.
      Looking forward to your insight.      palimpsest
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread