Riddle me this all you "Men of Science"

Just check and see how many trans athletes there are at the tops of their sports - none that I know of.

How about a huge-muscled cisgender female, doesn't she have an advantage too? How many athletes are chromosomally intersex but assigned female at birth? How many have unusually high natural testosterone levels? Competitive sport is founded on a basis of unfairness, so don't take it out on one very small minority group that isn't even involved.

I hope that doesn't that include facts.

Binary numeral systems were created by humans.

Nature doesn't give a s*it if anything it does is always readily classifiable, or makes sense to talking apes.

When talking about competitions between individuals, any random individuals who play sports, the differences between individuals inherent abilities and skill levels outweighs the differences between sex, except at the top levels where the ability of biological males to build more muscle mass for raw speed and power becomes a factor, when talking about direct competition between world-class athletes of both sexes.

And even team are finally competitions between individuals, they're not competition between sexes in the abstract.

Now if you put the JV girls soccer team up against the JV boys soccer team in high school is the boys team going to win most of the time due to the boys genetic advantage? Sure. why's that. Because the sporting divisions and selection process was _set up to be that way_ in the first place; if sports are organized such that they end up being a competition between sexes if you put sexes in competition then that's what they'll be. The argument is circular.

Absolutism in physics was destroyed in the early 1900s by among others Einstein and Schrodinger, and absolutism in mathematics was destroyed around the same time by Kurt Godel.

sex

se?

g:

hat

he

when the female world champions team play against U15 boys they lose

The first step in creating new designs (not purely electronic designs) is to have a lot of wild and crazy ideas, to explore the strangest parts of the vast possible solution space. Better yet, include the impossible parts. That is a distributed, unconscious, quantum-computer sort of use of your brain. Finding and playing with goofy ideas is fundamental to invention. Skepticism and orthodoxy are lethal to that stage of invention.

The next step in engineering is picking one viable idea and brutally implementing it, getting everything right.

Not many people have both skills. Both can be taught.

Smart big companies often segregate the process. Some people have the new ideas, and they are pampered and indulged and often called "fellows." They have occasional meetings in very nice places to swap ideas. I know a few and they are happy to play with ideas that don't outright violate conservation of energy.

Gigabit Ethernet inputs/outputs are based on five-level signaling, unless you scope 'em when they're falling back to low speed. A convenient way to get input into a microcontroller is sometimes to use a pot and the built-in ADC, so that control knob is outputting a half dozen useful bits.

It's economic to put more than one bit at a time on a precious wire or pin.

Cool: nothing is true. Sqrt(2) is rational and 7 is probably not prime.

Design some electronics based on that thinking. Violate COE and build a perpetual motion log splitter. Maybe you can sell a few on ebay.

It does, and it means that that particular input doesn't do anything when the state machine is in that particular state.

For a particular - rather subtle - interpretation of the word "absolutism".

It's difficult to get there from Godel's incompleteness theorem. John Larkin thinks that he has managed it, but that's because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

As if John Larkin knew how to design electronics, as opposed to tinkering with circuits until they appear do what he thinks he wants them to do.

Relativity doesn't provide any route to violating the conservation of mass-energy. It did suggest - correctly as it turns out - that mass could be converted into energy and vice versa - but John Larkin does seem to have missed out on that bit of the story.

The only way you could think that is if you have never designed anything containing digital ICs. All you have to do is look at the truth table of a TTL latch (such as a 7474) or shift register (such as 74164).

As happens too often, you are spouting off without thinking.

I am pleasant to pleasant people. But s.e.d. is not a kindergarten. You are not here to show off scribbles and have a kind adult tell you that it's a very nice picture, but next time try some different colours.

My job is based on what people /need/, rather than trying to push things to (or beyond) physical limits just for my own amusement. Certainly /some/ customers have requirements that are ground-breaking, or require strange new methods, or extensive research. But for most customers, smaller, cheaper, faster, more reliable is more important to them than that the developers have fun playing with cool toys.

Oh, and we don't work out of ignorance. In particular, we don't do our designs based on ignoring reality, dismissing maths and physics and stuff as some sort of foreign "cultural supremacy", and giving equal credit to every idea simply because someone calls it "an idea".

I am designer - it's my job to /design/ things.

"Making things up" is fine if you write fantasy novels for a living. It is not engineering.

I am sure you design perfectly good electronics. I am just not at all convinced you know /how/ you do it - or perhaps you are simply appallingly bad at communicating it. You seem to think you do magic, rather than actually understanding the science. Various possible explanations spring to mind:

You design based on trial-and-error and luck.

You make the first designs, and pass it on to one of the other engineers in your company who says "That's a wonderful idea. Let me just tweak the details for production" - and then goes on to change it into something that actually works.

You plug together various ready-made parts and designs that will do the job, while mumbling to yourself about the pixies playing tunes in one part and the happy electrons dancing in the other part.

You actually /do/ understand the maths and physics required for designing the kind of electronics you work with, but feel that admitting it would spoil the mystique of the image you have of yourself.

This exhibition/training game stuff? A team of adults losing to teenagers isn't great PR, a team of adults demolishing teenagers isn't great PR, either.

Pro athletes don't play their hardest against teenagers even extremely good ones. They have too much to lose they're getting paid big money every time they show up on the field. Imagine getting knocked out by an injury in an exhibition game against teenagers, you have to sit out most of the real season and end up ending your career that way. Lol

The NFL used to play exhibition games against college students back in the day and the college teams won regularly, they stopped doing this in part when both college ball and the NFL became all about the money and "pro" teams getting beat by teenagers looked kinda bad.

Yeah pro sports....it's a racket...

Faster to us, is gigahertz and picoseconds. We avoid "cheaper".

Ideas are one way to avoid "cheaper."

Does some truth table include an input state beyond 1, 0, and don't care?

X or dash can mean don't care, but it doesn't mean a third logic level. I've never seen a 3-level logic gate.

Well, I have a lot of ideas. As I noted, the way to design new stuff is to have a lot of ideas, most wrong or goofy or impossible, and use that collection to converge on something sellable.

Brainstorm sessions spread out the parallel search space among multiple brains. Anyone who instantly shouts "wrong" is not invited to the next one.

Quite the contrary, it includes things that are goofy and impossible. They may be the path to the good stuff.

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

What do you design?

If they compete with men, it's unlikely. If they compete with girls, they can dominate.

There's a lot more to sex differences than testosterone.

just as there is a lot more to an immune system than antibodies. The press and politicians like to keep things simple, so obsess on one thing at a time.

When they attempted to put boys and girls together from an early age and have them do all the same things and play with the same toys in kibbutzes in Israel back in the 60s I believe it was, it did not create some genderless society from nothing. The young boys in the main wanted to play with the toy trucks. The young girls wanted to play with the doll.

However, these types of experiments didn't show that it was universal, it only worked out this way _most_ of the time. From time to time there were biological males who from an early age wanted to play with dolls and vice versa.

Indeed, lots of types of people like to "keep things simple", engineers too. However a theory of anything that doesn't have an explanation for the edge-cases isn't much of a theory of anything.

When Mercury was found to not be behaving according to Newtonian mechanics Mercury was not simply written off as being a "freak of nature." What it turned out to be wasn't that the theory of how orbits worked wrong, exactly, but it was over-simplified.