3 ms·

Nah, the analogy is excellent and you are dumb. In both cases you can't see the important parts: calculations/energy conversion, and in both cases you can see t

Nah, the analogy is excellent and you are dumb. In both cases you can't see the important parts: calculations/energy conversion, and in both cases you can see the part that doesn't really tell you anything: CPU lid/the colors of the thing. Do you realize how many bright gazzy things have visible layers? Hell, even a match flame has visible layers and is also part plasma.

devaiops9001 3y ago
You're just digging yourself into a dumber and dumber hole. Analogy is not a substitute for argument. >> In both cases you can't see the important parts: calculations/energy conversion The layers they postulate were very clearly visible to the naked eye. >> Hell, even a match flame has visible layers and is also part plasma. These layers were not postulated. Another analogy. >> Nah, the analogy is excellent and "yaY i WiN", okay champ
- lostmsu 3y ago
  > Analogy is not a substitute for argument. I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy Thanks, but I am done. You're too stupid. Too bad you will forget about that by the time that pseudoscientific snake oil company collapses.
  - devaiops9001 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      Whoa—your comments in this thread have been way over the line at which we ban accounts. Worse, you've done it in other threads recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39532499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39532499. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't seem fair to give the other user a pass and not you; plus we haven't warned this account before. But please don't post like this to HN again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
  - dang 3y ago
    Whoa—your comments in this thread have been way over the line at which we ban accounts. Worse, you've done it in other threads recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577225, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573437. This is way over the line at which we ban accounts. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've been here a long time and it doesn't look like your account has a long history of being abusive. But please don't post like this to HN again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
    - lostmsu 3y ago
      Sorry, you are right. I've been replying in kind instead of just flagging.
devaiops9001 3y ago
>> even a match flame has visible layers and is also part plasma. I actually do much appreciate that you point this out. A while back working with a group I had pointed out that "fire is a cold plasma" and that there were electrical properties to fire. I got scolded by those of Soyence orthodoxy for saying such things. A US Navy patent reveals a fire-fighting technique that projects an "ionic wind" that "cuts the circuit" at the base of a fire, which had also vindicated what I was talking about.

devaiops9001 3y ago

You're just digging yourself into a dumber and dumber hole. Analogy is not a substitute for argument. >> In both cases you can't see the important parts: calculations/energy conversion The layers they postulate were very clearly visible to the naked eye. >> Hell, even a match flame has visible layers and is also part plasma. These layers were not postulated. Another analogy. >> Nah, the analogy is excellent and "yaY i WiN", okay champ

lostmsu 3y ago
> Analogy is not a substitute for argument. I mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy Thanks, but I am done. You're too stupid. Too bad you will forget about that by the time that pseudoscientific snake oil company collapses.
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Whoa—your comments in this thread have been way over the line at which we ban accounts. Worse, you've done it in other threads recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39532499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39532499. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't seem fair to give the other user a pass and not you; plus we haven't warned this account before. But please don't post like this to HN again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
- dang 3y ago
  Whoa—your comments in this thread have been way over the line at which we ban accounts. Worse, you've done it in other threads recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577225, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39573437. This is way over the line at which we ban accounts. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've been here a long time and it doesn't look like your account has a long history of being abusive. But please don't post like this to HN again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    Sorry, you are right. I've been replying in kind instead of just flagging.

devaiops9001 3y ago

>> even a match flame has visible layers and is also part plasma. I actually do much appreciate that you point this out. A while back working with a group I had pointed out that "fire is a cold plasma" and that there were electrical properties to fire. I got scolded by those of Soyence orthodoxy for saying such things. A US Navy patent reveals a fire-fighting technique that projects an "ionic wind" that "cuts the circuit" at the base of a fire, which had also vindicated what I was talking about.