hddsx

They have enough skill to be dangerous, not enough skill to work on actual products.

You missed the point. Here’s the same point without the sarcasm:

You need to prove your hypothesis before finding a solution.

Why?

Let’s say my goal is to guide objects into a hole.

I choose a red ball. I drop it into the system. It does not make it into the hole.

I pick up an identical red ball and drop it into the system again. It also does not make it into the hole. We have an issue: objects are not making it into the hole.

What hypotheses can we make?

1. Red objects are not making it into the hole.

2. Round objects are not making it into the hole.

3. No objects are making it into the hole.

The next step isn’t to pick one and fix the perceived issue. All of these hypotheses are supported by the evidence thus observed. If you spend time and effort building a red item detector that guides things onto the ramp but the issue isn’t that it’s red, you haven’t fixed the root cause. You need to find out if your hypothesis is right or wrong.

Drop a red cube into the system. Drop a green ball into the system. Drop a bigger item into the system. Drop a smaller item into the system. Drop many different balls at the same time into the system.

Improve your hypothesis. If red cube makes it into the system, hypotheses 1 and 3 are wrong… etc etc

Correlation does not imply causation. Fix the cause not the symptom.

Who’s the ghost writer this time? Pladimir Vutin?

Apparently I edited without finishing lmao. I meant face criminal charges

I’m not sure that’s what you’re looking for. It looks like you are looking for perceived issues (ie. Widespread obesity), picking a hypothesis (ie. Too much sugar in food), trying to solve your hypothesis, but never proving the hypothesis (ie. Is too much sugar the issue or is it a symptom of another issue (high fructose corn syrup? Sugar cane?) and to see if there are root causes that can be systematically fixed

Your approach seems to qualify for a job in DOGE. Perceived issue? Too much governmental spending. Hypothesis? Fraud. Fix? Fire a bunch of people and cancel a bunch of obligations. Evidence? None. Time spent really analyzing the situation? Zero.

From what I’ve heard from my coworker do actually flew:

Step 1: Attempt radio contact on local frequencies and guard.

Step 2: Try to lead you out of restricted air space

Step 3: Try to REALLY get your attention like doing precision fly so that you are unmistakably aware of them (like a really really close fly by). If this works, try step 2 again

Step 4: Really depends on where you are and/or who you are. If you are willfully violating air space and a civilian, you’ll probably get your certificate revoked and/or face. If you get near something really sensitive and probably are doing so purposefully despite attempts to get your attention, and you’re not over a densely populated area, you could get shot down.

I give exactly zero fucks that she’s a woman. I don’t think a woman in charge would be in our best interest. I don’t think a man in charge would be in our best interest.

We need a leader who has the actual ability to evaluate the system, figure out what’s broken with EVIDENCE, and can articulate it.

Clinton was old guard. Harris was more or less trying to be a continuance of the same damn thing. I’d like AOC to at least be on the primary ballot.

No. Run AOC

Thank you

….. fine I’ll go look up the 70s show to see if I can identify who this is.

Who dis