🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@General

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

#TerryPratchett #DiscWorld #Fantasy #magic #magick #Literature #Book Quote #Quotes

@dogs

Some adorbz for your day.

#dog #dogs #doggo #pupper #puppers #puppy #animal #animals #cute

@Yashima Me want!

@tatzelbrumm

> I don’t care what you think.
Physics is NOT a Social Construct!!!

No, of course not, what I think doesnt matter.. But it does help if you bother reading what someone says before restoring to insults, rudeness, and calling them wrong... when you very clearly misread what I said and in fact the entire rant and tirade you've went on since then continues to argue a point I never once disagreed with. In fact the point I did make (that the signal, not the energy is at the same frequency as its resonant frequency) is entierly correct and in line with all the spewing you've done since.

I already went over this and pointed out my exact quote an hour ago... clearly your not even bothering to read it as your still going on about how I am wrong and arguing over some imaginary thing you think I said and I didn't. See my earlier post:

https://qoto.org/@freemo/105353375463830513

No i am not concerned with either of our images.. I am concerned with:

1) the fact that your arguing against something I never said and still continue (I previously quoted myself to show you as much)

2) you are being rude and insulting in how you go about doing this.

As was already stated and made very clear.. I stated that the **signal** in the resonator is at the same frequency as the resonant frequency... You are arguing that the **energy** between them is at twice the rate. At no point did I state anything contrary to this.

You are literally arguing with ghosts of your own imagination of what you thought was said. Even after quoting myself and showing it to you, you still continue.

I do appreciate that you are sharing the explanation for anyone who may be reading this.. but you literally told me to go read a textbook and to shut the fuck up over somethign over something i said that turned out to be entierly correct and now have far too much pride to even admit you misread what I said and instead continue to go on as if you didnt even hear me correct you the first time.

@Science

@tatzelbrumm

by the way notice what you just showed agrees perfectly with my statement and is not in disagreement.

> Also just to clarify the signal is not twice the resonant frequency. It should complete once back and forth cycle for every cycle of its resonant frequency.

In your graph you clearly see the signal, V(f) for the voltage signal, is at the given frequency not twice. I did **not** state the energy is at the same frequency, you did. But you decided to misread what I said and then go on a tirade and try to act like an ass and then go on about how your being right not pompass. You really need an attitude check, especially when your arguing about things someone didnt even say.

It seems you may be the one who needs to go back to a textbook. I clearly used the word signal, here is the definition of a signal, just to demonstrate that both my original assertion, and the graphs you showed, bioth agree with what I stated.

> In signal processing, a signal is a function that conveys information about a phenomenon. In electronics and telecommunications, it refers to any time varying voltage, current or electromagnetic wave that carries information.

@Science

@tatzelbrumm

Ok, so we have the same diploma (I never said you didn't by the way).. your point? You do realize the irony in asserting you have a diploma and thus some authority to someone who also has the same credentials as you right?

@Science

@tatzelbrumm

Just to be clear as I stated earlier I do not disagree with your definition, as i said it is common enough. But there are multiple definitions and no one official definition. so it is very much a matter of interpretation, there is not a single answer.

One could even argue that the definition involving an actual transfer between potential and kinetic energy holds true for a resistor at a molecular level. If i have a red object and shoot EM waves at it that is red then the red object absorbs more energy than if i shoot green EM at it. Because at a molecular level the molecules are resonant to one color and not the other, and thus absorbs one color more than the other. similarly if the object is black it is equally responsive at all frequencies, but the process is no different.

We can see a similar analogue in all resonant systems, whereby the system can be made to resonant to any frequency equally. We call these "universal resonators". In that sense a black body can be thought of as the universal resonator for that example. If we are talking about caviry resonance this has been demonstrated with air cavities as well where the Helmholtz resonance is universal. In my mind a resistor is really no different, it is simply the universal resonator in an electrical system (though again i agree it is unusual to refer to it as such technically speaking it is valid).

@Science

@tatzelbrumm

I asked people to offer their opinions, and i am happy you did so. lol you just told a professional Electrical engineer with an advanced degree that includes RF engineering to pick up a text book on capacitors, really... What a pompus response.

I appreciate your opinion, but I know full well what the cycle in a resonant circuit looks like, and no it does not complete a full round trip at twice the frequency. As i stated it completes one cycle, from capacitor to inductor and back to capacitor once per cycle. The fact that you are disagreeing with this fundamental fact puts your credentials in question if you are really going to hold steadfast to that.

The fact that you are defensive over being corrected, particularly over such a fundamental assertion doesnt really help your image IMO.

@Science

@tatzelbrumm

Well depends on who you ask. That is certainly one perspective you might hear, though not necessarily a universal definition.

Also just to clarify the signal is not twice the resonant frequency. It should complete once back and forth cycle for every cycle of its resonant frequency.

The problem with your definition, rather than the one I gave, is that it excludes most resonant things.. A crystal oscilator is clearly resonant and yet has no reactive components of any kind.

@Science

@tatzelbrumm

Your perspective is not uncommon of course. Though from that perspective the "non-vanishing" part isnt true. Any combination of capacitive reactance and inductive admittance, no matter what values are picked, will vanish at their resonant frequence. That is the textbook definition of resonance, the frequency at which the system is purely resistive without measurable reactance. A resistor just happens to satisfy that at all frequencies.

@Science

@curt

indeed, would seem so.

@realcaseyrollins

@curt

For sure, I wasnt trying to say that all genetic traits do not contribute to our survivability. Only that due to our intellectual evolution even when a trait is counter to our survivability we can still thrive due to our intellectual evolution.

Due to this and going back to your original question genetic traits, such as masculine traits do not necessarily contribute to our survivability in modern times even though generally genetic traits in most species would not and could not exist without being vital to survivability.

@realcaseyrollins

@curt

While that statement is true I do not see it as being at odds with my last one. Yes when cultures clash our intellect will only take us so far.. that does not imply however that all of our genetic traits will help us deal with that scenario any better.

@realcaseyrollins

@curt

Hard to say without a bit more detail. Certainly if we still lived in pre-historic times then a defiency of traits evolved to deal durvive would reduce survivability. But as a species we live in a unique situation where our genetic evolution was shadowed by our intellectual evolution. Instead of passing down genes we learned to pass down ideas to much greater effect.

As suchwe have an unusually high holdover of genetic traits from pre-historic times that do not improve survivability in modern times or even, in fact, reduce our survivability by the shear fact that our intellectual evolution happened to lap our genetic evolution.

As such it is no longer a truism that everything that is a evolved trait is useful to our modern day environment or survivability.

@realcaseyrollins

@realcaseyrollins

Because it turns masculinity in a term that has no meaning outside of your own personal cultural framework. Moreover to the vast majority of people there is nothing that a man or a woman should or shouldnt do, only things people should or shouldnt do.. so by redefining masculinity in this way would make it a word that no longer exists to the vast majority of society outside of a few traditionalists. Those people do not and should not be able to claim ownership of a word that has been around for many hundreds of years and never limited to said group.

Moreover it would completely eliminate the use of the word when applying to things other than humans, which is quite common in language, so it would completely rewrite the usage of the word and redefine it, something I am not a fan of. For example lace and frilly things is generally considered feminine as physical objects, if we decide to rewrite the dictionary and make "feminine" only mean "Character traits a woman should have" then it would make no sense in this context and contextes like it.

@prageru

@realcaseyrollins

> Well, we have countless examples of men not beating up their wives. So, using this same logic, not beating up women “is not at all intrinsic to males”, and thus not beating up women is not masculine.

Exactly thats what I said when you first brought up the example, beating up your wife is not masculine, it is also not counter-masculin. It simply does not describe gender one way or the other. The fact that we have countless examples of men who dont beat up their wives, and examples of wives beating up men, is as you say (and as i said earlier) evidence of that.

It is not about what men do, or dont do.. its about what is intrinsicly male (in other words, those characteristics that there is more commonly genetic expression for in men over women).

While I might agree that what men should do is a **more important** thing to talk about, I dont that is an accurate way to describe what masculinity is, at that point you are simply describing what a healthy male in modern society would be, that isnt the same thing IMO.

@prageru

@realcaseyrollins

thats fair but from my perspective it doesnt appear you are refering to intrinsic character traits but rather societal ones.

I used a physical example simply because it is less easily confused with societal norms from a specific time period, not because such traits are purely physical.

Take for example the idea of a male being the "provider". we have countless examples of historic socities where women do the providing and males tend to take care of the home. so this is not at all intrinsic to males.

Now if we want a masculine character trait in my view there are some of course. I would say logic over emotion, would be masculin where women tend to consider the emotional effects of their decisions more so than men tend to.

The importance here to me is separating out a traditional male role as seen from the USA early 1900's (which is hardly a universally masculine description) vs those qualities that are intrinsically male.

@prageru

@realcaseyrollins That wording is confusing to me on two points..

1) I didnt suggest beting up your wife was masculine. That wouldnt be masculine or feminine, as a wife could also beat up her husband and it is not a trait I'd say is any more intrinsic to one over the other. Its just that the man is likely to do more damage.

2) saying something is "A sign of" is the same as saying it is a masculin trait.. if all your traits are signs of masculinity, then you are masculine. if you have some signs of masculinity and some that arent, then you are neither masculine or not.. a trait which is a sign of masculinity is a masculine trait, having a single masculine trait without consideration of your other traits does not dictate you are masculine though, but also doesnt suggest the trait is any less masculine.

@realcaseyrollins Well to me "masculinity" is something that is not restricted to social norms of any one culture and time of place.. to define "masculinity" as strictly the qualities a traditional male had in the early 1900s seems like a narrow definition that isnt partcularly accurate outside of a minority of people who prefer that sort of life style and world view.

Yet the term masculinity is much older than that and both today and historically we have used it to describe things other than humans or even living things, but is inspired by a more universal and intrinsic set of properties of males..

For example physical strength is masculine because it doesn't depend on any world view, it is inherent and undeniable that the vast majority of men are physically stronger than the vast majority of women. So this would be an accurate term.