Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Are we living in a new Dark Age?

OneTenner

LE
Book Reviewer
The first half of this sentence is not true, although the second half is.

Net assets 2018-2019: $165,641,425

Yes, that's 165 million dollars. The Wikimedia Foundation has been taking in 10-20 million more than it spends every year for years.
I was just looking for the figures! - the fact is that Wikimedia is cash rich, Wikipedia however is drip fed from the foundation, it relies on 'useful idiots' to do the bulk of the work, pays a few gangmasters to keep order and does a bit of hand wringing every December - very socialist, just like their dear leader, Jimmy Wales.
Personally I've always had a sceptical eye for Wikipedia 'facts', maybe I warned myself off in the wild early days of its existence where factual content and references (hate the word citation, reminds me of 70's american cop tv shows!) were optional and variable. I do agree that it can be a valuable resource - again though, it requires someone to have enough impetus asnd interest to create the content in the first place and be honest and factual enough about the subject to not present it with any undue bias - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...
 
I was watching something interesting the other day - Joe Rogan podcast I think, can't remember who the other guy was - but I remember nodding my head in agreement as they were discussing that people have the world's knowledge in the palm of their hand yet are more ignorant and uninformed than ever.

The general flow was that previously, knowledge and expertise had to be earnt through hard work and application. That's not the case anymore - there's no respect for how the information has been gathered, collated and extrapolated - the internet says so, so...

As you mention, as soon as the internet goes down, everyone becomes dumb as **** and/or they can't demonstrate their references for any constructive or analytical argument. A lifetime of experience nowasdays just makes you an old duffer in a world where CEO's are in their 20's.

Newton understood he was 'standing on the shoulders of giants' - today's lot are arrogant with little understanding. They are the intellectual equivalent of new money with all the tastelessness and gobshiteness that goes with it.

They do not understand that actions have consequences and will push too far, and it will all come crashing down around their ears.
Joe Rogan did a stand up bit once that touched on this issue.

The vast majority of people are pretty dumb, we just buy things designed by a small number of smart people. All this technological finery around us is a mystery to most if us.

To demonstrate this he taps his microphone and asks "Why is this loud? I do not know why, do you? If I leave you on a desert island with the rudiments to live, how long before you're sending me an e-mail?"

It's a conceit that we're smarter overall, theres a small subset of humanity that have created the tech, we are merely users of it.
Take it all away and see how well we cope.
 
Joe Rogan did a stand up bit once that touched on this issue.

The vast majority of people are pretty dumb, we just buy things designed by a small number of smart people. All this technological finery around us is a mystery to most if us.

To demonstrate this he taps his microphone and asks "Why is this loud? I do not know why, do you? If I leave you on a desert island with the rudiments to live, how long before you're sending me an e-mail?"

It's a conceit that we're smarter overall, theres a small subset of humanity that have created the tech, we are merely users of it.
Take it all away and see how well we cope.
Absolutely, and that just goes for the actual tech - the worrying thing, and the thrust of my other self indulgent post, is that's what's happening with actual intellectual thought now. It's why we have the likes of Diane Abbott thinking Mao did more good than bad - she doesn't actually know, she hasn't done any research, she hasn't thought about it* - she's just regurgitated what someone who she wants to impress said once - they were probably none the wiser either - and in that instance, has become part of the ideology of someone that could have been sitting in one of the great offices of state.

Intellectual arguments are being used without having any idea how they work, or how they've been arrived at.

It's ******* scary!

*I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt here - I just think she's stupid. If she has actually researched it and thought about it and still said what she said then she needs locking up, not just pitying.
 
I was just looking for the figures! - the fact is that Wikimedia is cash rich, Wikipedia however is drip fed from the foundation

That would all make sense, apart from the fact that it is the Foundation that received donations, and pays for the running costs and the many (and expensive) staff that is deemed necessary. From a funding perspective they are one and the same.
 
Absolutely, and that just goes for the actual tech - the worrying thing, and the thrust of my other self indulgent post, is that's what's happening with actual intellectual thought now. It's why we have the likes of Diane Abbott thinking Mao did more good than bad - she doesn't actually know, she hasn't done any research, she hasn't thought about it* - she's just regurgitated what someone who she wants to impress said once - they were probably none the wiser either - and in that instance, has become part of the ideology of someone that could have been sitting in one of the great offices of state.

Intellectual arguments are being used without having any idea how they work, or how they've been arrived at.

It's ******* scary!

*I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt here - I just think she's stupid. If she has actually researched it and thought about it and still said what she said then she needs locking up, not just pitying.

Been having a good giggle at flat earthers being handed their arses on yootoob. Scimandan and FTFE are the bunnies. Fits right in with your point about people quoting big words they've heard without having a clue what it's all about. Che Guevara fashion items a case in point.

The Scimandan and FTFE debunking channels are a look under the flat rock of cast iron ignorance masquerading as a flat earth version of science. Prime Dunning Kruger. Had one genius who doesn't believe in penguins. Absolutely barking but funny as hell listening to the wibbling. Be warned, that level of stupidity does give you a headache after a few minutes.
 
Joe Rogan did a stand up bit once that touched on this issue.

The vast majority of people are pretty dumb, we just buy things designed by a small number of smart people. All this technological finery around us is a mystery to most if us.

To demonstrate this he taps his microphone and asks "Why is this loud? I do not know why, do you? If I leave you on a desert island with the rudiments to live, how long before you're sending me an e-mail?"

It's a conceit that we're smarter overall, theres a small subset of humanity that have created the tech, we are merely users of it.
Take it all away and see how well we cope.

Well there's the obvious alternative answer.
Take a Chemist whose is an expert in materials since of plastics. Obviously this is not a stupid person. Now take away all his chemicals, his mixers and his computer, and he's nobody.
What a lot of posts such as these seem to imply is that survival skills are linked to intelegence. I suspect fuelled in large by the good ole' rose tinted spectacles.

In any endeavour to be any good at it you need to specialise. Let's take an example, myself, the aforementioned plastics expert, and a car mechanic. Who do you come to if you want information on a Spigot weapon, who to repair your car and whom for getting a good polymer? I mean I can do some pretty impressive things with plastic after years of modelling, but I couldn't design one for your application. Equally, there's a tiny number of individuals who are survival experts, and these are the ones that seem to being placed on pedestals of high intellect should we remove all our gadgets. Well of course they'd survive! Ok Lets see how long one of these individuals would last if we dropped him on a malfunctioning rocket in deep space.

We each have a specialist skill set refined to the level of our intelligence, and that should be the measure of intellect, not if we arbitrarily remove one or more items.

Equally there are other factors needed for success. Once, long ago, I was a security guard on a building. The Fire alarm went off. I started heading to investigate the location the fire panel was reporting, in this case in a chemical store for the lab block.
One of the companies Scientists approached me. By any measure he was more intelligent, having the contents of a scrabble set after his name. I had a couple of GCSE's. The conversation went like this:

Dr: What's that noise? (Keep in mind we had two fire alarm tests every week)
me: That, Sir, is the fire alarm, please leave the building.
Dr: Ok, I'll just go get my coat, bag and close down my PC.
Me: No sir, please evacuate now.
This argument carried on for the next three minutes, me knowing that the longer it was left the worse any potential danger was. As this scientist kept on trying to return to his desk to get his stuff so he could go home. In the end, I knew my building manager would support me, so I just yelled at him to get out, and if he'd refused I was going to pick him up and throw him out the door, back in my youth I would have literally been able to pick him up as well. Luckily he got the message and left.

So whose now more intelligent? Thus I would add to the above 'specialist skill set refined to the level of our intelligence' comment the need for some common bloody sense. There's a quote about how academia is designed to shelter smart people from the real world.

*I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt here - I just think she's stupid. If she has actually researched it and thought about it and still said what she said then she needs locking up, not just pitying.

And yet she has a Degree (albeit a 2:2)...
 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
Arrived late to this. A good point. A few years back I inherited a biscuit tin of family photos some dating back to turn of last century. Changing media and “soft” storage is difficult to track. Recently I found a portably hard drive with some early digital photos (Iraq 2003, Regt duty In Germany) that could have easily ended in the skip. I guess same theory on mass scale.
A friend remarked the other day that he has loads of family pictures held electronically that are rarely if ever looked at, but if he loses the laptop, then all picture evidence of his life is gone.

But his time in the Army is in a few picture albums, so his kids are more likely to have access to that, than of pictures of the family when they were toddlers.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And yet she has a Degree (albeit a 2:2)...

I once had to ask a colleague if her feet were sore. She asked how I knew. I merely replied that her shoes were on the wrong feet. A minute later, no sore feet!

And knew an oral surgeon who often appeared in mismatched shoes. 1 black, 1 brown. Or 1 brogue, 1 Oxford or even a slip on type.
Always seem surprised when it was pointed out to him.
 

theinventor

Old-Salt
It's knowledge and experience combined that let us do things. I've spent many happy hours watching this guy's YouTube vids and reading his blog, he's personally worked his way from stone age to early iron age because he has the benefit of the human race's collective knowledge, and even then it wasn't easy: Primitive Technology

The next stage (from then to now) is a whole load harder......
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Backwards compatibility seems to be a key issue: you buy a book and it remains a book and readable. But data stored electronically over 20 years ago - or even more recently - cannot be accessed. It exists in the format in which is was saved but if it cannot be read [or cannot be read with commonly accesible tech] it may as well not exist.
In more general terms, I like the comparison of the existence of humans being like a clockface. If human life began at midnight, when there was no technology, etc, we are now at 11:59 - very advanced yet - because we don't understand how any of this works - close in the event of a disaster to being in the basic existence of our distant ancestors.
I was in Officer Manning Records group in the RAPC Computer Centre. We regularly ran Scutinies against the Officers Record of Service master records to derive information for any number of reasons, like "The MOD want to know how many officers have a Post Office Savings Account." (that would be a Pay record query, but you get the drift.) One of our guys spent his days finding errors in record formats for any other number of reasons. These were known as Corrective Scrutinies. Did the same thing, but fixed the format error without really lifting information.

I got a task. I needed to run a Scrutiny against a log file (back level copy of the ROS Master from however long ago). This tape was stored in a secure vault in the guardroom, next to the Arms Store. I walked from Computer Centre over football pitch to guardroom and found the tape I needed.

I ran my job against the tape and it fell over in a Varfield (a structured variable field tacked on one-to-many to the end of an officer's (or soldier's) record.

Terry was the guru. He was also the Corrective Scrutiny guru. "What do you make of this, Terry?"

"I ran a corrective scrutiny against that Varfield last week."

"Tell me, Terry. All these corrective scrutinies you run day after day. Do you ever correct back-level log files?"

"No. Never even thought about it."

"Do you know how many log tapes there are in the Guardroom?"

At this point I moved to Operations. AFAIK Terry is still running all his corrective scrutinies in sequence against all the log master files over 30 years later.
 
Being a sad bastard I am trained in the scientific method and research methodology

An assertion is not a theory. An assertion without evidence is a belief. An assertion could be better dismissed with evidence but for some form of deity there is no evidence. Science has increasingly demonstrated religious beliefs to be ridiculous forcing the believers to resort to the God Of The Gaps.

You are using theory in lay terms to mean a hunch, a guess, a speculation or a belief. In science these are hypotheses, conjectures or postulates.

A theory is a very simple thing. 1) It must be falsifiable. 2) It must be based on evidence 3) It must be able to make accurate predictions. I suppose you could add 4) Must be amenable to change or rejection in the light of new evidence.

None of these apply to religious belief, which is rarely, if ever, a reasoned and asserted belief but is banged into kids at an early age.
True but, apparently, I can refute your assertion by kicking a nearby rock!
 
I was in Officer Manning Records group in the RAPC Computer Centre. We regularly ran Scutinies against the Officers Record of Service master records to derive information for any number of reasons, like "The MOD want to know how many officers have a Post Office Savings Account." (that would be a Pay record query, but you get the drift.) One of our guys spent his days finding errors in record formats for any other number of reasons. These were known as Corrective Scrutinies. Did the same thing, but fixed the format error without really lifting information.

I got a task. I needed to run a Scrutiny against a log file (back level copy of the ROS Master from however long ago). This tape was stored in a secure vault in the guardroom, next to the Arms Store. I walked from Computer Centre over football pitch to guardroom and found the tape I needed.

I ran my job against the tape and it fell over in a Varfield (a structured variable field tacked on one-to-many to the end of an officer's (or soldier's) record.

Terry was the guru. He was also the Corrective Scrutiny guru. "What do you make of this, Terry?"

"I ran a corrective scrutiny against that Varfield last week."

"Tell me, Terry. All these corrective scrutinies you run day after day. Do you ever correct back-level log files?"

"No. Never even thought about it."

"Do you know how many log tapes there are in the Guardroom?"

At this point I moved to Operations. AFAIK Terry is still running all his corrective scrutinies in sequence against all the log master files over 30 years later.
I'm going to sound a bit thick here, but what you just posted seemed interesting but I have no idea what it meant.

Could you surmise in layman's terms please?

Edited to add: Not a wah!.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I'm going to sound a bit thick here, but what you just posted seemed interesting but I have no idea what it meant.

Could you surmise in layman's terms please?

Edited to add: Not a wah!.

To me sounds like when corrections were made, they were only made on most recent version.

All the back up copies therefore had errors.
 
A friend remarked the other day that he has loads of family pictures held electronically that are rarely if ever looked at, but if he loses the laptop, then all picture evidence of his life is gone.

But his time in the Army is in a few picture albums, so his kids are more likely to have access to that, than of pictures of the family when they were toddlers.
A pal of mine had a house fire: electrical through the floorboards.
Had a few minutes to get the kids out, after that his priority was the photo albums, happily he got lot.
His quote afterwards was well the insurance covers everything but our lives are in those books.
 
Anyway, taking the OP's original question, it seems that we could be about to!

'According to NASA, this year could end with a bang.

'Scientists recently spotted an asteroid on a direct collision course to Earth — projected to hit a day before the presidential elections in November.

'The flying space object, known as 2018VP1, is expected on Nov. 2, according to the Center for Near Objects Studies at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

'The asteroid is 6.5 feet in diameter, according to NASA data, and first identified at the Palomar Observatory in California two years ago.'


 
Anyway, taking the OP's original question, it seems that we could be about to!

'According to NASA, this year could end with a bang.

'Scientists recently spotted an asteroid on a direct collision course to Earth — projected to hit a day before the presidential elections in November.

'The flying space object, known as 2018VP1, is expected on Nov. 2, according to the Center for Near Objects Studies at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

'The asteroid is 6.5 feet in diameter, according to NASA data, and first identified at the Palomar Observatory in California two years ago.'




Question directed to all the enlightened ones out there:- A rock weighing several tons, lets say 10, travelling, at lets say, 50,000MPH, hits hard earth, what is its explosive yeald, how big would the crater be, and how far from ground zero would the destruction spread... Same question in open water?

(If it hits Birmingham (UK) then that's a bonus.)
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
To me sounds like when corrections were made, they were only made on most recent version.

All the back up copies therefore had errors.
And every subsequent change made older copies ever less readable, compounding the errors.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Question directed to all the enlightened ones out there:- A rock weighing several tons, lets say 10, travelling, at lets say, 50,000MPH, hits hard earth, what is its explosive yeald, how big would the crater be, and how far from ground zero would the destruction spread... Same question in open water?

(If it hits Birmingham (UK) then that's a bonus.)

Slightly bigger than your theoretical meteor but a more substantial hit
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Question directed to all the enlightened ones out there:- A rock weighing several tons, lets say 10, travelling, at lets say, 50,000MPH, hits hard earth, what is its explosive yeald, how big would the crater be, and how far from ground zero would the destruction spread... Same question in open water?

(If it hits Birmingham (UK) then that's a bonus.)
Kinetic Energy = ½ mass times Velocity².

Work out the asteroid's velocity relative to earth (head-on collision, graze, catch-up). Easy sum. But velocity relative to earth is key.
 
Last edited:
Top