From a Youtube interview with Gordon Murray I saw, the T.50 has fan-enhanced diffusers, the fan ingesting the boundary layer to prevent flow separation.
It's not able to produce extra downforce at zero speed.
The McMurtry Spéirling is more akin to this, with a 1.4s 0-60mph run.
If you're interested in this, you should definitely check out Songhai [1]
They try to recycle everything, from biogas and then aquaculture off of the sewage and agricultural run-off, to harvesting the maggots off of the food waste to feed the fish and poultry. Farm to Table to Farm.
> Note: Minnesota's statute applies to both partners if they are both married. If one partner is unmarried the law only applies to the married woman. The law does not apply to a married man and unmarried woman.
I think most people believe that you can choose, on any given night, to study or play video games. And I think most people believe that if you choose to study then sooner or later you will succeed. And I think most people are wrong on both counts.
Creating/building etc improves your chances of success because you are actually making more connections (intentional or otherwise) which increase the chance of luck. That is not wrong, just the luck actually happening is well, still luck (does not happen to all).
>That's a fine excuse for being a loser. When you get tired of that, however, you can always choose better.
Insults are unnecessary. This kind of individualist, man-as-an-island concept is appealing but it isn't true. What are "you" made of that doesn't originate as something outside of your control? Of course it all was at the start, the way we get to feeling individualistic is by laundering our experiences, pretending that we made each decision a bit on our own and building that up into an end-person who makes decisions totally on their own. But of course that narrative isn't true.
I think he is not interested in epistemology. But I always find discussions on the origins or human knowledge just as fascinating as you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It sounds like you may have already been exposed to it given the content of your arguments, but there is a very enjoyable debate/discussion between Foucault and Chomsky on the acquisitions of human knowledge and human nature [1] and your position sounds quite similar to the one Chomsky elaborates on.
But of course, according to your narrative, his posting is the inevitable consequence of his genetics/environment/experiences to this point, so there is no point in trying to scold him for it.
Same reason you did. Right place, right time. If you were omniscient and knew everything that happened in the universe up to bow, you'd be able to perfectly predict the next instant, and the instant after that.
It was only after I understood that I had no control that I felt free to do whatever I wanted, ironically enough.
You are trying to instigate a bickering match with someone who is trying to educate you on epistemology. Dial down the toxicity and stop letting intellectual discourse fly over your head so swiftly.
I learned the communication skills to be a good remote employee from mmorpgs. I learned about systems design from playing video games and discussing how mechanics interact to encourage/discourage different behaviors. I hate this trope that playing video games is a negative.
So put yourself into the right place. There's a reason people move to Silicon Valley, for example. Put the video game console down, turn the TV off, get up and go to where the opportunity is.
That is easier said than done. The right place is usually only evident in retrospect. A lot of people move to Silicon Valley, work their freakin' asses off for decades, and still don't succeed.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it's hopeless and that you should just give up and play video games. But I believe that dumb luck is a bigger factor than effort. Luck is necessary, and can be sufficient for success. Effort and skill are neither. (And, BTW, this is a consequence of deep problems in the system we have set up, and we ought to try to change those. But you can't solve a problem without first acknowledging that the problem exists.)
> But I believe that dumb luck is a bigger factor than effort.
Make no effort, and your odds of failure are 100%. Your odds get better and better as you make smarter choices, put out the effort, and position yourself for success.
> A lot
Yeah, some fail. But most succeed in SV, the proof is in the housing prices.
I feel like this statement gives more backing to the arguments on luck. Those lucky enough to by an apartment in the peninsula in the 80s, who are gaining the most off of soaring housing costs, are now reaping remarkable 'success' with no proof they predicted, with skill, foresight, or intellect, the housing market of 2018.
> Make no effort, and your odds of failure are 100%.
That's not true. There are plenty of trust fund kids shopping at Prada.
> Your odds get better and better as you make smarter choices
That is true, of course, but better relative to what? There is enormous variance in the baselines, starting with, for example, whether you live in the U.S. or, say, Bangladesh.
If you roll once or twice, then say "It's just luck", you're completely right.
But if you keep rolling the dice again and again and again, you're eventually going to get a good roll - especially if you can tweak the roll just a bit. Then you say, "Luck is important, but hard work helps, too."
> But if you keep rolling the dice again and again and again, you're eventually going to get a good roll
No, this is a pernicious myth. A lot of people roll again and again and never get a good roll. Rolling the economic dice takes a lot of time. You can reasonably expect to get maybe 10 rolls before you age out. Even if the odds of success on each roll were 1 in 10 you'd still have a LOT of people (about a third actually) never getting a good roll. And the actual odds are considerably worse than 1 in 10.
> get out and try, and your odds increase enormously.
That is true, of course, but increase relative to what? There is huge variance in the baselines, starting with, for example, whether you live in the U.S. or, say, Bangladesh.
Right place at the right time is a stacker, like so many (most?) things.
Being in the right place at the right time, is probably worthless without the necessary skill/s (where studying/learning/education can come in) and attributes to take advantage of the opportunity in question.
Maybe you meet an elite investor in an elevator and have an opportunity to pitch them. You lack the technical skill or experience to bring it home. You perhaps never really had a shot at that right place + right time moment (so was it ever an opportunity at all? Is it a sliding scale? debate loop).
Some of what we can be is defined at birth. If your brain wiring is very heavily tilted toward being an artist, you likely will not be the next John Carmack. Adrian Carmack could not do what John could no matter how hard he tried (I know they're not related, I couldn't resist). I know there are exceptions to these rules, they're exceptions however.
Suppose you have an identical twin (not separated form you at birth: same environment, same opportunities) who does much better than you due to some external events. Like being at the right place at the right time without you.
The difference in success between you and that identical twin could be attributed to what we might call "situational luck".
All else (those things that give you initial equal footing, making you better or less off than other members of society) would be "inherited luck" or "background/baseline luck".
I think this article is more about this "situational luck" whereby someone does much better than someone else, even though neither is from a disadvantaged background relative to the other (both have similar "baseline luck").
Beautiful. I had never heard of baseline and situational luck before. I am going to read more on the topic. :-)
I'm wondering what would be the formal definitions of these two. Is birth separating them? From a mathematical standpoint, could there be continuity between these two?
Because i’ve Been fascinated with “free will” and having quite the difficulty to find an example of it, consider adding these to the list when considering “choice” and “free will” in the context of any given action: all your experiences, memories, traumatic experiences up to date; the circumstances around you at this moment; the language your mind uses to converse with itself; your habits and preferences; your thoughts at the moment; your physical condition, including blood sugar, sleep, sexual drive etc.; your current desires; the values he culture you live in projects into you; your current multilayered emotional state.
Does anyone believe that they are in full control of all of these? Any of these? Any control?
Now, where’s this independent entity taking actions on its own? I’m still seeking this mythical beast.
I agree that free will, in the sense you've defined here, doesn't exist. But it may exist in the sense that there are levels of determinism to our actions. I like how Steven Pinker explains it in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYbpfKgDKR0
I think the point is that we realize that most success (and many failures) are due in large part to things beyond your control. This realization is important and has social implications - it gives us a reason to be more charitable and kind (spread some luck around) when we are successful.
From 12-step programs, “Accept the things you cannot change. Change the things you can”. To my mind this means, accept the external circumstances you find yourself in - especially other people (since most can’t really exert sufficient force to change other people, at least not in a positive way), and work on changing your own reactions to the world. (This is a view that aligns with Stoic philosophy btw)
I guess for me the biggest questions are:
1. What is “success”? As a Stoic, success for me should be “contentment”, which is far more likely to be achievable than perhaps other definitions of success.
2. Does free will actually exist? If it doesn’t, and our brains are deterministic, then even our reactions are not in our control.
Reading Epictetus' "Enchiridion" at the moment. I enjoy Marcus Aurelius. Can't say I've read a lot of the texts. I'm not a voracious reader (any more). However, I kick off every day with a page from Ryan Haliday's "The Daily Stoic" (while his interpretations are sometimes lacking, the original quote that he expands on usually needs no exposition).
It's just one of these discussions. We create abstractions to describe reality and happenings around us. And then something happens and it's not clear whether it should be described with abstraction A or B. And people tend to have super strong opinions on the matter.
Did you read the paragraph at the bottom of the page?
"three different universities...did not observe the same results as in the original study....The effect...may have been due...to unconscious cues...or may simply have been due to chance. They are very careful in their language to not discredit the original study but they advise that future researchers be more cautious...
Then the conclusion is "The original study still stands"!?! and deserves "slight skepticism"?
Sorry, I'm going with "outright disbelief" until shown credible evidence otherwise.
> But I also believe that anyone else with my circumstances would have nearly identical results.
Then there was no need for you to make any effort. After all, success just dropped on your head.
You say you were "lucky" to be "conditioned to work hard"? I find such statements astonishing. Anyone can work hard, or not. It's a choice. Nobody is "victimized" by laziness. Jeez. How far will people go with excuses?
By the way, people who find themselves in a terrible situation, like war came and the food supply is gone, seem to discover in themselves a fine capability for hard work.
> Wouldn't I then be lucky that we were both in this forum at this time?
As I stated earlier, every detail of one's life is luck, but one chooses to position oneself in situations where one is likely to get lucky.
As for our interactions, I'm not saying anything unique that you cannot find in plenty of other places if you choose to look. If you are out looking, it's highly unlikely you won't run across my views.
In my life, I see people choosing to fail all the time, and they always claim to be victims. I also know many who take responsibility for things that happen to them, the good and the bad. It's empowering for them, as when bad things happen they pick themselves up, figure out what they did wrong, and try to choose better next time.
Do you have a plan for success? Are you executing that plan? If you don't have a plan, or don't execute your plan, how do you expect to succeed?
