4 ms·

> and I can say that as someone who has served on technical standards committees. Covid has shown me the fragility of society, and that you never appeal to aut

> and I can say that as someone who has served on technical standards committees. Covid has shown me the fragility of society, and that you never appeal to authority, especially one that is objective in name and subjective in essence.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hilbert42 4y ago
The matter of what constitutes formal technical standards is clearly and precisely defined, and standards documents usually comprise of very carefully crafted text some of which constitutes the most precisely accurate documentation ever written. Simply, in standards documents definitional precision and information/data accuracy are everything, there being absolutely no room for ambiguity or error. For that to occur, a necessary prerequisite is for those involved in the standards process must know and understand the meaning and definition of the word standard in all of its broader contexts so that a new much more accurate and narrowly-honed definition is agreed upon before it can be applied to standards work. How you can claim standards are 'subjective in essence' is beyond my comprehension, as in fact they are the antithesis of any such notion. Clearly, you've had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of standards. In effect, what you are saying is that the hundreds of years' worth of precision science and engineering work that's gone into say ISO standards such as the definitions and concomitant standards which comprise the SI System of Units and Measurements is essentially poppycock nonsense. So presumably it would be alright with you if say on a whim that Planck's constant and the Speed of Light were to take on different values on weekdays than they would do at weekends. Sorry, but that's utter nonsense, it's postmodernist thinking at its worst. I actually agree with you on the matter of COVID and the fragility of society, but from your comments it's pretty certain that I do so for opposite reasons.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hilbert42 4y ago

The matter of what constitutes formal technical standards is clearly and precisely defined, and standards documents usually comprise of very carefully crafted text some of which constitutes the most precisely accurate documentation ever written. Simply, in standards documents definitional precision and information/data accuracy are everything, there being absolutely no room for ambiguity or error. For that to occur, a necessary prerequisite is for those involved in the standards process must know and understand the meaning and definition of the word standard in all of its broader contexts so that a new much more accurate and narrowly-honed definition is agreed upon before it can be applied to standards work. How you can claim standards are 'subjective in essence' is beyond my comprehension, as in fact they are the antithesis of any such notion. Clearly, you've had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of standards. In effect, what you are saying is that the hundreds of years' worth of precision science and engineering work that's gone into say ISO standards such as the definitions and concomitant standards which comprise the SI System of Units and Measurements is essentially poppycock nonsense. So presumably it would be alright with you if say on a whim that Planck's constant and the Speed of Light were to take on different values on weekdays than they would do at weekends. Sorry, but that's utter nonsense, it's postmodernist thinking at its worst. I actually agree with you on the matter of COVID and the fragility of society, but from your comments it's pretty certain that I do so for opposite reasons.