ALL of that audiophile stuff sounds good (pun intended).
I've seen nonsense about inductance and capacitance. And then it'll be stranded. Oy.
Most people are using it to make a permanent connection in their homes with stranded wire... so endurance, fatigue, corrosion are all non-issues. I would wager a very high sum of money that double-blind testing would result in no perceptible difference.
They aren't scare quotes - they are there to differentiate people who think they can hear things that they really can't from people who truly chase better sound. If I hear anything about oxygen in your speaker wire, you'll get the quotes.
Even blind testing would be an improvement.
Ah, yes, well I should have said "possibly"
Climate change... [ducks].
This gives you a way to affect RAM outside of a sandbox.
I'm not sure whether I more bothered by "benchmark queens" or people who flame over their subjective opinions. The latter are a lot like "audiophiles", unwilling to believe in blind testing.
Oh, do tell... please name one of these "many models".
I don't want to oversimplify, but it is quite reasonable - and to me not overly "complex" - to postulate that the models do not properly account for ocean dynamics. It is entirely possible that every single model has it all completely wrong - we've been here before with "global cooling". But back then the models weren't very robust, and you actually had competing models with wildly different predictions.
Perhaps I'm more comfortable rolling with the science because the science doesn't threaten my ideology. I fully accept that we are probably warming the planet, but I also don't think that humanity will stop burning easy energy resources. As a result, I'd like to see the models applied to planning for the inevitable instead of a Quotidian quest to stop using fossil fuels. We're going to need to do a cost-benefit on things like seawalls for major coastal cities, flood control, and irrigation systems, and I think the models can provide valuable insight.
As you SHOULD know, you cannot test future accuracy.
I'm sure the points in there are good, but I need to point out that while it is a "peer reviewed journal", you linked to something from the "Opinion & Comment" section. There is quite a bit of work being done to understand where all of the heat is going, but that has been discussed on here before.
If you link to that same editorial one more time, then I'll believe it.
As persuasive a source as an article by a British politician is, I'd like to hear from someone who actually does this for a living.
Well, looking up the thread, you are an expert in talking completely past a person, I'll give you that.
I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW, and you retort that the "experts" are producing biased models. I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them. Obviously you only meant SOME of them. How silly of me. Please accept my most sincere apologies and may the Festivus spirit fill you.
The "we shouldn't even attempt science" argument.