In oyster50's Smart Girls series, are we just told that they are smart , or do they actually do things that prove they are smart? Like save the world from Congress? Or invent a new way to make wonderful-tasting non-fattening pizza? Or write a DoOver story without mentioning the price of silver?
are we just told that they are smart , or do they actually do things that prove they are smart
The latter.
@PotomacBob
Like save the world from Congress?
Smart things yes, impossible things no.
ROTFLMAO
Like save the world from Congress?
Smart things yes, impossible things no.
Tom Clancy's been the only one do that.
DoOver story without mentioning the price of silver?
Price of silver is an easy target for do-overs given the abundant historical resources for the Hunt brother fiasco.
There are other things that can fit the bill. I'm surprised Noone has played a bitcoin version yet. Other metals have seen dramatic increases between 1980 and now as well.
I violate the criteria in my do-over, but at least my reference is somewhat a do-over in-joke:
I'd also researched gold and silver prices, vaguely remembering the Hunt Brothers' infamous silver manipulation scheme. Prices were still far higher than they'd been just a couple of years ago.
That quote is in mid-July 1981, well after the Hunt Brothers.
My MC 'knows some things' about the past/now-present, but metals pricing isn't really one of them :)
do they actually do things that prove they are smart? Like save the world from Congress?
They do things to prove they're smart, not major miracles like making the US Congress act like it has a collective IQ in double digits.
They do things to prove they're smart, not major miracles like making the US Congress act like it has a collective IQ in double digits.
For any committee the collective IQ of the committee = (total of members IQs)/(number of members squared)
The average IQ is 100 so the IQ of the US congress can be approximated as (100 * 535)/535^2 = 0.19
The average IQ is 100 so the IQ of the US congress can be approximated as (100 * 535)/535^2 = 0.19
I'm sure that answer is very optimistic!
I'm sure that answer is very optimistic!
It is probably pessimistic. For most issues, the average IQ of the majority would be what decides issues. In others, the average IQ for the leadership makes decisions. Also there are committees that shape what happens, and there are a limited number of members that control what happens in committee. Again the majority usually rules and there may be only a dozen or so congress critters that determine what congress does. Lobbyists and staff also have significant imput, as do party leaders, but it is unlikely that the IQ of 535 members of congress impact the decisions that are made.
It seems likely the average IQ that is making decisions is above the imbecile score, and probably is moron for most decisions.
It seems likely the average IQ that is making decisions is above the imbecile score, and probably is moron for most decisions.
I doubt it, if they were that smart they'd be doing a much better job than they are now, or for the last 20 years.
While I love the joke, on a factual basis, for them to be doing a 'much better job' if they were that smart, you'd have to assume that the average moron could solve the problems we face as a nation. I'm pretty sure that's a hard 'no'. If the problems we faced weren't fairly difficult, we wouldn't be dealing with them.
I agree with the statement that Congress should be doing a better job, mind you, just not that the average moron could do better.
One of the complicating factors is that we're now so polarized that solutions which are simple and sensible become impossible because 40% or so of the population will reject them out of hand because they violate some precept of their side. And, since each side tries to cover as much ground as possible, that's true of nearly every issue.
That polarization is the entire nation reverting, as an average, to being 'the average moron', or worse. As long as we keep voting for people because of the letter after their name, and as long as followers of both parties declare people outcast ('RINO', etc) because of the tiniest deviation from the most hardcore interpretation of their side, we're not going to get a lot better.
We used to be able to compromise. Unfortunately, the absolutists have made compromise a dirty word, while pushing ideological constraints that mean they'll never be able to propose a working solution themselves.
GW,
The biggest problems with politics in the USA today have mostly been created by power hungry individuals in the upper echelons of the two major political parties deliberately sacrificing what's best for the USA and the US people in their individual quests for more power. There have also been times when they've sacrificed what's best for their party for their own power grabs.
One of the complicating factors is that we're now so polarized that solutions which are simple and sensible become impossible because 40% or so of the population will reject them out of hand because they violate some precept of their side.
You nailed it. But if you think a little further along this line it boils down to a (too) large population with too many different cultures/views that are more or less forced into a single 'culture'. I hate racism but the forced mixing and equal rights is never gonna work simply because there are too many different cultures and views. You simply can never make everybody happy. The huge advantage of smaller countries/groups is that each can keep their own identity and culture without having to deal with too many different views within that country/group. The 'melting pot' may sound as a good idea but if it really worked it would effectively kill off many of the different and colorful cultures we have in this world. If everything gets mixed up those cultures will be lost and many people will loose their cultural identity. And that is what the current problem is with BLM and similar movements. People are afraid to loose their identity and see differences in how they are treated, either real or perceived. It's classical culture clash.
Agreed - yet, if we (society as a whole, not just 'leaders') were more capable of compromise, we could get a lot of things done. We'd never achieve perfection for everyone, and there would always be grievances and injustices (perceived or real), but we could have more happy people, fewer unhappy people, and meet some real needs.
I'm not sure 'never' is correct. We are seeing more and more mixing with less and less hesitancy generation over generation. I agree there is a cost to that in vibrancy.
I can see someone 100 years ago saying 'Irish and Italian immigrants will never be happy with each other'. Today that's seldom an issue (not never, but seldom). The cost is that neither has quite the identity and culture they had 100 years ago, yet there's still a positive identity there.
I do wish he'd do a Fine Stories friendly version without the actual sex acts as I haven't been able to read any of the series for some years due to local law changes making the download of stories with graphic descriptions of sex with someone under 18 y/o is now seen by the law as the same as blowing up bridges and is a major felony. - Yeah, the law on stories and images of people perceived as under 18 y/o is in the same section as terrorist acts on infrastructure.
I keep the thought of a PG-rated version of the Smart Girls on my list of things to do when I retire.
Right now, though, a job seems to be a good thing to have in uncertain times.
Oyster
I keep the thought of a PG-rated version of the Smart Girls on my list of things to do when I retire.
I'm anxiously looking forward to that. Perfect for Finestories and should do pretty good in sales.
> due to local law changes making the download of stories with graphic descriptions of sex with someone under 18 y/o is now seen by the law as the same as blowing up bridges and is a major felony.
Not only is that a stupid law, but isn't it also a lot more intrusive? Such laws can't be implemented without extensive violation of internet privacy.
Not only is that a stupid law, but isn't it also a lot more intrusive? Such laws can't be implemented without extensive violation of internet privacy.
While I agree with the first sentence, I have to disagree with the second sentence as there is no such thing as privacy on the Internet. We can try to have some, but it doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as privacy on the internet.
The internet is a mass surveillance system that has been made so useful and pervasive that people will put up with the surveillance. Facebook started up the day that DARPA's Life Logger shut down. Google Earth was a CIA product called Keyhole. Two exceptionally useful and pervasive 'free' apps started as military/intelligence programs.
23&Me is 'Google adjacent', Anne Wojcicki is the sister of Google founding employee Susan Wojcicki & Youtube boss, Anne married Sergey Brin and runs 23&Me.
Adobe Acrobat reader now scans the meta data of the documents you read and sends them to Adobe.
Android devices constantly scan for wifi ports. You can have apps blocked from sending data, but the location of your device can still be triangulated from passing devices on the road, in your workplace or near neighbors.
I regularly receive Youtube suggestions based on topics mentioned in forums I read, including this one. Lock Picking Lawyer is an example. Mentioned on here, in my feed the next day. This an example of relationship mapping. Other people who visited the site probably searched for the topic and I was fed their results.
Relationship mapping is the way to track criminals and potential rebels. No need to run honeypot militias these days, just track the people who visit like minded sites then see which meet up in real life by following the handy little radio beacon they carry in their pocket. Know who their family members are. Know the roads they travel and the times. Know the locations they work and shop at. Know who their friends are. Know what they read, videos they watch and you have a near complete mind map of neatly every human in the West.
We put up with it because its so useful. The only way not to lose is to refuse to play and everyone wants to play. The internet is Las Vegas. People keep putting their privacy in the slots because the floor show & lights have them bedazzled.
There is no such thing as privacy on the internet.
True, but from your post I understand that you don't care because you could severely limit exposure by not using Google, Adobe, Facebook, and other well known sites/software.
Optimist
"Dictionary
opΒ·tiΒ·mist
/ΛΓ€ptΙmΙst/
noun
1.
a person who tends to be hopeful and confident about the future or the success of something.
"only an eternal optimist could expect success"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
a person who believes that this world is the best of all possible worlds or that good must ultimately prevail over evil.
Definitions from Oxford Languages"
The alternative is pessimist. Or possibly a realist.
I would think that earning a BSEE degree at age 16 would be a good example of a smart girl.
I would think that earning a BSEE degree at age 16 would be a good example of a smart girl.
Was it shown, with samples of EE porn, or was it told to the readers?
AJ
Was it shown, with samples of EE porn, or was it told to the readers?
What if one of the scenes is her receiving the diploma, is that showing or telling?
What if one of the scenes is her receiving the diploma, is that showing or telling?
Telling, IMO. Like pregnancy is a way of telling that someone has had sex.
AJ
Speaking of smart engineers, there is likely the antithesis of that responsible for this disaster. Someone had to screw up by the numbers on the building modification for a long standing building like that one to collapse out of the blue.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/building-partially-collapses-miami-beach/story?id=78459018
What modification? No modification is mentioned in the article you linked to, and the photos of the collapse in that article show no evidence of an active construction site at that location.
My guess would be previously undetected structural damage (probably from past hurricanes).
What modification? No modification is mentioned in the article you linked to
In the video was stated works on the roof had started.
This wouldn't be the first building collapsing because heavy equipment and building materials were deposited on the roof.
HM.
In the video was stated works on the roof had started.
That could just be re-water sealing the roof, which wouldn't require that much weight in materials.
Also, none of the photos or the areal footage of the building from the video show any evidence of a crane or debris of a crane in the collapse area.
If they put so much material on the roof as to cause a collapse in a building that was not already structurally compromised, how were they getting it up to the roof?
This wouldn't be the first building collapsing because heavy equipment and building materials were deposited on the roof.
Doesn't appear to be the case here. The building had already been noted for sinking a little. That was my first thought, the 'ground' under it finally gave way. It's Florida, nearly the whole damned state is simply limestone, and it gets sinkholes. All it'd really take is one relatively small sinkhole to overstress the concrete in one spot, and it's pancake time.
Sometimes you have to look beyond your own nose to get the full picture.
A quick search would come up with a lot of information. Such as the building had a long standing problem with it sinking. The piles those buildings are built on would jump to the front of the line for suspects given that.
Given the history, there should have been some acoustical emissions (AE) monitoring set up in the structural members of that building from the first time it was noted to have been sinking. That couldn't stop the collapse but it could have been an early warning.
The hurricane idea doesn't wash for a litany of reasons. Especially since there is no recorded increase in rate of sinking after a hurricane. Structural damage is inherent for a sinking building.
In this case, a catastrophic failure would again point to one or more of the piles failing.
The hurricane idea doesn't wash for a litany of reasons. Especially since there is no recorded increase in rate of sinking after a hurricane. Structural damage is inherent for a sinking building.
A hurricane could cause immediate structural damage to a building having nothing to do with accelerated sinking. Though you are correct, if the building was known to be sinking, that's probably suspect number one.
But even if it was a sinking issue, that still probably has nothing to do with an engineering failure.
But even if it was a sinking issue, that still probably has nothing to do with an engineering failure.
You're wrong there. The sinking is very likely environmentally driven, but the engineers that signed off on that building being safe screwed the proverbial pooch.
The sinking is very likely environmentally driven, but the engineers that signed off on that building being safe screwed the proverbial pooch.
Which engineers that signed off on it when?
When did the sinking become a known problem vs when the building was constructed?
You're either being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to yank my chain, or you're showing a disturbing level of ignorance.
I just saw another article that says "Miami-Dade County regulations requires recertifications for high-rise buildings every 40 years"
The building that collapsed was built in 1981 and they had just started the recertification process before the collapse happened.
So it seems unlikely that any engineers had signed off on the building being safe since it was first constructed.
Any efforts for recertification begin with an initial assessment. Given the construction activities there, it obviously failed that assessment. The ongoing sinking should have shut the building down when added to that mix.
If you watch the video of the collapse, it looks like a controlled implosion sans the charge detonations. Read multiple simultaneous pile failures. A blind bum off the street likely could have told them the building wasn't safe.
I rather doubt the engineering firm handling the recertification would have the authority to order the building evacuated.
Considering the 40 year span between required recertifications in a coastal area of a state known for sizeable sinkholes, I'd call that a government failure rather than an engineering failure.
Considering the known issue with the sinking of buildings in that area generally and that building in particular, why hadn't the city/county acted to condemn the building before now?
They don't have to order anything. Simply refusing to sign off the building as safe to occupy is enough. It's someone else's problem then.
No, that's not enough, not when the building is already occupied.
The local government would have to move to condemn the building and order the current occupants out.
And no, at this point, we don't know that they didn't warn the local government.
Also, considering the sinking issue, the local government could (probably should) have acted without waiting for the recertification process.
Also, considering the sinking issue, the local government could (probably should) have acted without waiting for the recertification process.
You can wordsmith it anyway you wish, but the end result remains. Be it a private or government engineering group, this falls on the heads of engineers somewhere. Most likely a job scared version.
I carried my P.E. through the beginning of this year. I've witnessed this scenario from the inside one time too many. Their next move will be to attempt to blame the inspectors.
You can wordsmith it anyway you wish, but the end result remains. Be it a private or government engineering group, this falls on the heads of engineers somewhere. Most likely a job scared version.
I'd say it fall on the politicians for letting high rise buildings go so long between recertifications in an area where the ground is generally unstable.
And even where it comes to government engineers. It's the higher level bureaucrats in the building inspection department, not the engineers, that make the final call on condemning a building and ordering the current occupants out.
Remember the "job scared" I mentioned earlier? The only way a politician gets away with what you said, is if that engineer is in fear of being fired aka forced to reword the report to give cover to the politicians.
Therefore if the engineer is testicularly challenged, they fold.
It's been tried on me on more than one occasion. However, "one life trumps my job" every time is the correct attitude for an engineer. For a contract engineer like I was, it's especially true.
The first time you sale out to keep your job, will be the highest price you ever get. Once word gets out you're easy to fold, you'll be hired just for that purpose. That's a vicious cycle to be in.
You may as well find a job flipping burgers after that first time as jail is the inescapable result otherwise.
Remember the "job scared" I mentioned earlier?
Remember my first paragraph.
Primary responsibility lies with the politicians that set the 40 year interval between recertifications in an area that is not stable.
The engineers have exactly squat to do with that. Your "job scared" is irrelevant to that.
And that interval was set more than 40 years ago. Which means the politicians that made that decision are probably long gone and beyond the reach of any real consequences.
Incorrect. Somewhere that politician had a study performed by engineers that said 40 years was sufficient.
Politicians don't unilaterally make decisions like that as a rule. They are all about CYA.
At this time I have to assume it's not just to yank my chain, and that the disturbing level of ignorance applies.
https://www.townofsurfsidefl.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/town-clerk-documents/champlain-towers-south-public-records/8777-collins-ave---structural-field-survey-report.pdf?sfvrsn=882a1194_2
The 2018 survey in the hands of local government was evidence enough to shut down the building. Somewhere within the town of surfside government, there is an engineer that gave his or her boss cover that will likely be going to jail.
Somewhere within the town of surfside government, there is an engineer that gave his or her boss cover that will likely be going to jail.
Or a corrupt politician/bureaucrat took bribes to ignore what the engineers were telling him and it will be the politician/bureaucrat and not the engineer who will go to jail.
Even if so, want to bet it's the engineer to takes it in the neck, unless he kept a copy as CYA.
want to bet it's the engineer to takes it in the neck, unless he kept a copy as CYA.
Only an idiot would take that bet.
Divergence alert:
CYA
Brits have the same, only we say 'cover your arse'. But in the concept story I'm fleshing out, I don't want to use American vernacular and I find the word 'arse' somewhat crude. Can any Brits suggest equivalent phrases I could use instead?
AJ
Can any Brits suggest equivalent phrases I could use instead?
I'n not a Brit, but funny synonyms are jacksie or keister.
https://www.freethesaurus.com/arse
Thanks, but I was looking for alternatives to the whole phrase. The impact of 'covering your ...' is lacking if it's not followed by 'ass' or 'arse'.
AJ
Thanks, but I was looking for alternatives to the whole phrase.
Context makes a difference: bureaucratic/political environment vs. military/ops environment give a different meaning to CYA.
To make it clear: CYA can mean protect yourself or divert (possible) blame. Each can have different alternatives.
Their next move will be to attempt to blame the inspectors.
I worked for an inspector for a while. One of the projects that we had (I was not involved) was inspecting a VERY tall sign. While under construction the wind blew it down. The designer had no insurance. Our company was found partially libel, to the limit of insurance, because the welding inspector "should have known the welds were too short." Even though there were a number of non-compliances on the welding for being improper.
whil
should have known the welds were too short.
If it was stitch welding fillet welds, that is a valid response, assuming they were detailed out on design dwgs. You get what you pay for there. Was the weld inspector certified AWS CWI or ASNT LII visual?
As far as looking up someone's arse to read their minds, the weld inspector has no choice but to stick with the EOR (engineer of record) call outs. Assuming the weld inspector was properly certified he or she would have to be stupid to go against the EOR call outs. The design apparently wasn't thought out very well, and or properly executed if a wind load took it down during construction.
There were a number of non-compliances on the welding for being improper.
The only thing that separates farm code from structural code is application of a welding/construction standard such as AWS D1.1 and a proper design engineering firm. Which must have been present if there was anything to measured as non-compliant to begin with.
You didn't mention anything about a court. If this case didn't go to court, but rather your company just accepted the insurance companies edict, then your company screwed itself.
