studiot

No not really. People can't loose what they never had. The abacus was 'invented' to carry out calculations that most (99.999 %) of the population could not carry out anyway. Slide rules were in general not accurate enough for other than rough calculation, which was why Seth (and myself amongst others used Chambers Tables. there was in fact a special operation in WWII to steal German tables that were more accurate that any the British had). There were special purpose slide rules that were more accurate but these wereexpensive and bulky, as the accuracy depends on size, so there would only be a few organisations that would have such a thing. One other calculation aid not mentioned is the nomogram. Like a slide rule the acuracy depends upon size, but they were once very useful but have fallen out of fashion. Their USP was that you did not need to know the mechanics of the problem to use one.

This seems rather familiar. Haven't we seen it before ?

+1 Thanks for the info and link. I noted the article said the Finns wanted 'simple'

I think you need to state clearly what you mean by a pattern, and also why numerology is a search for patterns.

Well it seems to say that the sand is heated by heating air and passing that through large bore ducts within the sand. It also says that the designers wish to keep it simple which is perhaps why did not use water/steam as MigL suggests since corrosion is a very real problem with steam at those temperatures and special materials ( probab;ly expensive) are required. Also in the event of a breakdown the pipes will not be damaged by frozen water.

I have received the following notification of an online conference, that is free to attend, about the ethical use of AI Should any member be interested there is more information here https://alfasoft.com/ai-in-research/ And contact details here https://alfasoft.com/about-us/#contact-us I have found alphasoft to be a reputable company in the past.

Which is why I said However there is a difference between being very UK centered and very UK biased. UK centered means the subject matter was largely about what happened to the UK. Not what happened to say China or South America etc at the same time, unless there was an interaction. So it was not biased, just accepting the fact that unless one studied History exclusively one could not cover every where and every time. And yes, despite your protestations, the teachers tried to be objective so the 'British' did not have a 'glorious victory' ove the Dutch under Van Tromp. We spent a lesson learning that the said Admiral fixed a broomstick to his mast and declared he was going to 'sweep the British from the seas', and he nearly succeeded, sailing up the Thames and destroying the poor British fleet. I call that objective acceptance of reality. I said some was objective and your reply is a flat negative. That can only be true if none of it was objective, so how can it become less objective ? I do however agree the qualifying statement about closer to our times and that too was in my post. I really don't see why you should think our lessons in stone age man would not be the best available information at the time (ie objective). What possible motive could modern man have for deliberately falsly presenting the local version of the stone, bronze or iron ages? I really don't understand these figures, or what history might be taught to a 7 or 8 year old in this many minutes.

Social History is one of the big sub categories of history I mentioned. I don't know where you went to school, what sort of school it was, but here are some facts about schools in England, those in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are all different. History was a compulsory subject in primary school, though the subject matter was very limited and piecemeal, such as "who discovered America, Australia etc ?", " Who built the first steam engine?" and many such important social and economic points in History. When I went to the grammar school, History was also compulsory in the first few years, after which it became optional and I had to choose History or Chemistry at some point. Before I chose Chemistry, the syllabus started with stone age Man - we had school trips to Stonehenge and Avebury and the British Museum. The syllabus then worked it's way through the bronse and iron ages and into Saxon, Norman and medieval times. I got as far as the Renaissance before I had to abandon History. As for being objective, or written by Winners. Some of it was objective but very UK centered. So let us objectively examine my 'study' of the history of the Saxons. The Saxons lost the war to the Normans in a very big way. Yet the Normans wrote almost nothing at all about the Saxons or the history before them of the Romans, or the Celts before them. The history of the Normans I learned in school was restricted to the Norman Conquest of England. They did not conquer Wales, Scotland or Ireland. But I have recently watched an american series of programmes (PBS America) about the Normans (nothing to do with them at all, they were neither winners nor loosers in relation to the Normans) and I greatly expanded my knowledge of the Normans and I found out that they created an empire in Europe as far as Sicily. I also learned the reasons they did not conquer the other parts of the UK. Wales and Ireland came by later dynasties, Scotland was left for agreed economic reasons. What is probably but not necessarily true, yet a good 'rule of thumb' would be that the more remote the historian is in time and perhaps also in distance from the subject time the more objective (s)he is likely to be. Certainly they cannot be winners or loosers in a history they have had no part in.

Rather than the knee jerk reaction it would have been better if you had actually considered what I said. I consider your reasoning powers far better than that. I said nothing about a statement. AIs cannot deduce. I have no quarrel with your rephrasing but there are only three terms and I only agree with the term 'write'. Winners imply that History is only about winners and loosers. There is far more to History than that. History, as a subject, is not immutable but develops over time and has many parts/ sub categories. Only some of these categories are about winning and loosing. Edit I see I xposted with exchemist.

That would be a fallacious deduction, stemming from false premises. The extent of the fallacy would depend upon the exact meaning of the terms employed in the phrase "winners write history".

If it's substantiation you seek try the 2025 book 'Proof' by this guy. There's pages and pages of documented cases, studies and reports in the back.

Thank you for taking an interest in my thread. I fully understand both your points of view about statistics, but would respectfully remind you that statistics has little or nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about legal matters. Before leaving the matter I would like to point out that you are both considering entirely different statistical circumstances. Gees haas a sample size of 1, but swansont is considering very large sample sizes. The topic asks about the legal responsibility of some form of computer system (AI) driving vehicles. Apparantly nobody in some cases. This issue of significance has recently come to light in California, resulting in a change in their laws. BBC NewsCalifornia to begin ticketing driverless cars that violat...Under the new rules, police will be able to issue tickets directly to the car's manufacturer when an autonomous vehicle breaks a traffic law. BBC NewsWaymo cars become trapped in Atlanta suburb after glitchThe company said the vehicles, which use AI to drive, had encountered "a routing problem" that kept taking them to the same cul-de-sac.

I like the statement "The result of a die roll is random in the sense of lacking predictability, not lacking cause."

If that were true then why do we bother cleaning asbestos or lead paint out of old buildings, or why does the US bother with the DEA (even trumpy knows drugs are wrong) or.....? In other words once we know something is wrong should we not put it right ?

It is disappointing that more don't see through the 'numerology' promoted by the shamans of the subject. This stuff is no more or less than the showmanship offered and used by religeous and political leaders throughout history. I'm pretty sure the OP specifically said he did not mean that stuff, but was asking a serious question. Meanwhile ordinary folks in all sorts of walks of life user numbers all the time for all sorts of purposes , from musicians to visual artists to engineers, technologists, scientists geographers and many many more. Noe of this is numerology. BUT Thousands of years ago some thinkers noticed that 1 + 2 =/ 1 x 2 and 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 =/ 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 yet 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 This sort of accidental coincidence led to the only practical use of numerology in early cryptology. All the rest is promotional sham.