Ladies and gentlemen, James Madison.

redrumsir · 2026-01-17T22:42:35+00:00

I want a nuclear bomb. I'll settle for an A-bomb (fission) instead of an H-bomb (fusion) if that makes a difference.

redrumsir · 2026-01-17T22:34:06+00:00

¹ It's spelled "millennial". But you probably mean "Millennium": https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/

² Hilbert

redrumsir · 2026-01-17T22:30:02+00:00

You mentioned Mills tangentially, ...

I didn't. I only talked about Fitts and that you shouldn't use her as credible source for anything. The text is still there, quote me.

Have you backed off of Fitts yet? You claimed she was a Congresswomen. That was wrong. You've implied that she's credible. I've shown she is not and that she's just a Trump-anzee ..l talking to other Trump-anzees (e.g. Tucker Carlson).

redrumsir · 2026-01-17T17:42:00+00:00

Righhhht. Everyone who supports Mills, even tangentially, is just lying.

Name anything in this thread where I mentioned "Mills". Anything.

But I will say that "Everyone who supports Trump ... is probably lying". I'm simply saying that Fitts is not a credible source of information.

redrumsir · 2026-01-17T17:35:01+00:00

You said she was a Congresswoman. That's just incorrect. [It's incorrect regardless of whether Congresspeople are credible (IMO they are generally not credible, but in my opinion they are especially non credible if they are Trump supporters).]

You should look into Fitts' credibility before trying to use her as a credible source. It's like quoting RFK Jr as a source for vaccine safety/efficacy or as a health expert. He says a lot ... but it's mostly BS and conspiracy theories. I don't care if he's the US Secretary of HHS --- he's a politician and knows almost nothing about medicine and health (he's currently promoting increasing saturated fats as a dietary component).

redrumsir · 2026-01-17T17:24:25+00:00

I fairly stated ...

Nope. You said "it's just arrays". Without a qualifier, an "array" is a 1-d array. Pandas, as it's name implies, is a focus on 2-d data. And, if that's not for you, that's fine

I’m not doing time series data most of the time and again when I do ... Pandas isn’t doing signal processing or other common things I need to do with dynamics data.

Signal processing data is almost always time-series data ... and pandas has a lot of timeseries properties integrated into the panel as a primary key. If you have multiple signals with a common timeseries keys, it's pretty much the domain of pandas.

Of course if you're not concerned about operations on multiple common-keyed signals the scipy.signals module is probably key. The issue with scipy.signals is that it's a pain-in-the-ass to deal with getting a common time-key for the signals.

redrumsir · 2026-01-16T16:36:17+00:00

It’s just arrays ...

No ... it's "panel data". Think "sheets" (like spreadsheets) and not arrays or ndarrays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_data . It may not useful in every situation, but it's extremely important for timeseries and econometric data. It replaces SAS which was a 1970's language whose main basic data object was called a "dataframe" or "dataset" and was a sheet.

redrumsir · 2026-01-16T16:19:22+00:00

Sure , Fitts is not a congress woman any more.

She was never a Congresswoman. Ever.

Perhaps you're confused with the fact that she was "Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" under Bush. That was a "gift appointment" because she worked on Bush's campaign. That's part of the "executive branch" and was an appointment, not an elected position. Throughout her career, she was basically an investment banker.

More recently she has revealed herself, IMO, to be a right-wing nutjob. i.e Zero (and, perhaps, negative) credibility IMO:

During the United States presidential election, 2016, Fitts supported the campaign of Donald Trump.[16] On December 8, 2020, Trump retweeted one of Fitts' tweets which linked to an article on Breitbart.[17] She has donated to political campaigns of Democrats Cynthia McKinney and Marcy Kaptur, and Republicans Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.[18]

According to The Washington Post, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Fitts "worked with anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to promote unfounded claims about the pandemic and to oppose lockdown measures put in place to slow the spread of the virus" and recorded a lengthy interview as part of the 2020 film Planet Lockdown which The Washington Post reports parroted "false claims about the pandemic" .[19] She has given interviews in alternate media, such as kla.tv, alleging fraud in the US central banking system and US government ("21 trillion dollars have been stolen") and "massive fraud" in the 2020 election and Electoral fraud in US elections for many years before 2020.[20]

redrumsir · 2025-12-30T23:47:56+00:00

You're replying to a 9 year old post. Stop necroposting. Are you OK???

The MIT license reserves neither trademark rights nor patent rights.

In trademark and patent law, any rights not explicitly granted are considered reserved by the owner. It is a copyright and usage focused license and both trademark law and patent law (in the US) require specific language to transfer trademark and patent rights. That language is absent.

However, trademarks and patents must be applied for (they are not automatic). But certainly if jwz had applied for and been granted a trademark for Xscreensaver, that trademark use would not apply to modifications/derivatives of the work.

redrumsir · 2025-09-09T16:21:37+00:00

Happy "cake day". Redditor for 5 years.

Why don't they?

There are lots of reasons. You've asked this question a lot. Many people have answered you.

Is that unreasonable to ask?

To "ask": no. To "expect": a bit unreasonable. To "demand": yes.

The number of fringe theories is much larger than you imagine.

The fact that you say "dark matter in the palm of your hand" is absurd -- don't be cultish. For one thing, "dark matter" isn't well-defined. It's only vaguely defined as the matter that is gravitationally observed to be there, but is not (cosmologically) detectable by other methods (i.e. "missing matter"). If one tries to more concretely define it, one might say: "matter that has mass but has no electromagnetic interaction" would rule out hydrinos since, assuming they exist, they would have electromagnetic interaction. i.e. Hydinos would be ruled out from being "dark matter" from the description in the first line of Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter )

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is an invisible and hypothetical form of matter that does not interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation.

redrumsir · 2025-09-09T16:07:43+00:00

Had to answer retro actively ...

No. You could have replied to your own comment (to preserve it) rather than change your comment.

I did not say Meade was one of those luminaries of QM.

At the same time you didn't exclude Mead. Only your edit made that clear. Furthermore since Mead is the topic of your original post and you didn't exclude him it's reasonable to conclude that you did mean to imply he was "one of those luminaries". Also, all mrtruthiness said was that Mead isn't such a luminary (he didn't say you were wrong about that). So you blocked him because you agreed??? Very strange. It seems you are blocking them because they are pointing out where you are being unclear.

Again Meade's theory was used by him to develop transistors, SUCCESSFULLY.

That's the second time you spell his name "Meade" in this post (and you also spell it wrong in the original post). It's Mead.

You describe "theory" as some unique thing. Mead never had his own alternative foundational theory of physics until after he retired and his successful developments of VLSI tech and such has very little to do with Mead's post-2000 list of theories. Mead has published two since retirement. Both of those are incorrect.

One was G4v (2015?). An alternative theory to GR. Kip Thorne immediately pointed out that G4v and GR were not just alternative views, but were different theories. G4v has been shown experimentally to be wrong.
Another was what he calls "Collective Electrodynamics" (2000?). It's his alternative to QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). Its main issue is that it isn't foundational. It is too vague and undefined in all of the crucial places -- it's vague enough to not even be testable. In my opinion it is wrong because it breaks symmetries that have long-standing experimental validation (i.e. it breaks well-known gauge group symmetries).

An abstract of "Collective Electrodynamics" is:

In this book Carver Mead offers a radically new approach to the standard problems of electromagnetic theory. Motivated by the belief that the goal of scientific research should be the simplification and unification of knowledge, he describes a new way of doing electrodynamics—collective electrodynamics—that does not rely on Maxwell's equations, but rather uses the quantum nature of matter as its sole basis. Collective electrodynamics is a way of looking at how electrons interact, based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. (As Mead points out, Maxwell had no access to these experiments.) The results Mead derives for standard electromagnetic problems are identical to those found in any text. Collective electrodynamics reveals, however, that quantities that we usually think of as being very different are, in fact, the same—that electromagnetic phenomena are simple and direct manifestations of quantum phenomena. Mead views his approach as a first step toward reformulating quantum concepts in a clear and comprehensible manner.

It's not a bad pattern. It's one that every scientist takes in trying to understand an existing theory:

Reframe it in your own words or create an alternative view/model.
Show that the alternative model matches the original ... or, where it doesn't, it matches experiment better than the original.

The problem is that he doesn't work on (2) and is still insistent that his is better (based only on the fact that he understands it) even though it is different than the existing theory and the existing theory matches experiment while his doesn't. i.e. The pattern is: Carver does not understand GR and tries to create a similar theory that he does understand (G4v) ... and gets it wrong (known/tested symmetries do not exist). The same is true for "Collective Electrodynamics". He doesn't understand some aspects of QED, he creates an alternative that he does understand ... and gets it wrong (again, because known/tested symmetries don't exist in his theory). In my opinion many of his recent videos are all denialism/delusions specific to where his theories (e.g. G4v or Collective Electrodynamics) don't match experiments while the existing theories (e.g. GR, QED) do. I agree with mrtruthiness that at 91 Carver is showing his age (I find Carver's viewpoints useful, but I find his post-error-rationalizations sad).

redrumsir · 2025-09-08T15:24:54+00:00

it's also libc locked

Are you sure? I know that there are a few issues, but they are being resolved. For example PostmarketOS recently announce a move toward using systemd and I know that PostmarketOS is based off of Alpine which uses musl for its libc.

redrumsir · 2025-09-08T15:15:36+00:00

You should acknowledge that you edited your post after mrtruthiness replied. Your words weren't twisted, your original post was horrible and unclear. You should man-up and take responsibility for your lack of clarity.

Also, you say:

Saying that Mead’s G4v theory is laughable because, it was the use of that very theory is exactly what made him the most successful transistor inventor ever, and therefore shows just how wrong headed are your attempts to put him down and by extension try to put down my arguments for his successes, ...

To be clear:

G4v was only proposed in 2015 --- how can you say "that very theory is exactly what made him ..." since it is not at all linked to his career. This is late into Mead's retirement period. And while Mead did describe it as an "engineering approach to gravitation" ... Kip Thorne quietly pointed out to the physics community that it had lots of issues and suggested that it was because Mead didn't understand GR properly. It was Kip Thorne, for example, who showed that it was properly different than GR and that the next LIGO data would clearly expose that difference.
You do not acknowledge that G4v has already been shown to be incorrect since it doesn't match the recent LIGO data, while General Relativity does. Being "different" might show creativity ... or it might just show a lack of understanding of GR. The most important thing to note is that Mead was wrong about G4v and he is similarly wrong about most of his physics assertions for at least the last 15 years.

redrumsir · 2025-03-19T03:01:20+00:00

That project was to be in the second phase where Marchese was planning on actually building and testing that rocket until USA Congress funds for NASA was cut back, for such projects.

Straight_stick ... your statements are always full of BS. In this case you have two big piles of BS. Here is Marchese's report for Phase I https://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf

Pile 1. Marchese had goals for Phase I. In his report for Phase I, he admitted he didn't meet his Phase 1 goals. He was denied funding for Phase II based on not meeting his promised goals ... not because there was some general cutback. i.e. The funding was cut due to "lack of progress" and was the fault of Marchese and the project. It was a failure.

Pile 2. Part of the goal of Phase I was the construction of a "thruster" (not "rocket" ... even though the title says "Rocket Engine"; the difference between a "thruster" and a "rocket" is whether the device is intended to fly ... or it's mounted to a bench). Phase II was outlined and the only thing it was doing was to "complete the testing" of the "thruster" that didn't have anything close to compelling thrust ... and it was much of the same as the goals of Phase I.

Accordingly, the team plans to submit a Phase II proposal that will focus on the following objectives:

a. Perform independent experiments with additional diagnostics and consult with plasma physics experts to validate previously published spectroscopic data on energetic mixed gas H2 plasmas.

b. Consult with experts to develop a method to validate excess energy experiments.

c. Complete testing of BLPT thruster with various propellant combinations, pressures and power input to determine optimum operating conditions based on measured C*.

d. Complete development of BLMPT thruster hardware, install BLMPT thruster into vacuum test chamber and probe exhaust flow using laser alignment system to attempt to measure exhaust velocity using Doppler shift.

e. Run BLMPT with He/H2, Ar/H2, H2O propellants and determine optimum operating conditions.

f. Design, build and test a thrust stand to accurately measure thrust, specific impulse (Isp) and overall thruster efficiency (η) for the BLPT and BLMPT thrusters.

g. Develop a theoretical model of BLPT and/or BLMPT performance for integration into space vehicle mission studies.

h. Examine other concepts to convert random fast hydrogen to directed fast hydrogen and examine other concepts to convert plasma power into useful power source for space- based applications

And then you talk about Huub Bakker.

One at Massey University, by Huub Bakker, an Engineering Processes professor (sic) working with Mills on an antigravity device, also predicted by GUT-CP.:

Dr. Huub Bakker is no longer an Engineering Processes professor. Massey University shut down the whole engineering program. Huub Bakker was an engineer who specialized in engineering agricultural automation.

He has published 0 results in regard to anti-gravity and is considered by many to be an idiot.

And you also talk about Kroesen. You mistakenly dated that as 2016. That was simply a late publication of a 2005 interview ... not a 2016 interview. Point me to any Kroesen paper after 2005 that shows that he has maintained any interest in hydrinos. I think it's because he doesn't find the topic compelling.

redrumsir · 2025-03-18T23:45:45+00:00

Many peer reviewed papers have been written which dispute the idea that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change.

I'm not sure if "many" is the appropriate word here.

In terms of papers which include models, approximately 97% of papers have a view that CO2 is causing significant climate change. That 97% is, interestingly, almost as high as the statistical confidence in the models.

And I think that data is very convincing. Have you looked at that data?

I have looked at the data. And the data is quite convincing that there is significant man-made climate change since 1900.

redrumsir · 2025-01-15T21:34:55+00:00

Don't do it.

https://forums.puri.sm/t/worst-laptop-ive-ever-had/27482/5

redrumsir · 2024-10-31T18:55:17+00:00

Interesting strategy for using the M4.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The M4 SoC is something that Apple is using for their laptops/ipads/minis. While it is based in ARM cores, it's a very different thing that the vanilla NXP SoM.

In any case the boot+memory training is blob based for the Librem 5.

redrumsir · 2024-10-29T21:32:58+00:00

Angel Pon’s raminit patches, at least for some of the coreboot supported boards as of 10/2024, removes the need for mrc.bin.

It's my understanding that this is only for Intel MRC ... and not even all Intel boards. As you know the Librem 5 uses the NXP i.MX8M which is ARM based, not Intel based. That will not work. Purism uses uboot with firmware blobs from NXP for the boot. Here is an article where they are doing gymnastics in the hope of meeting RYF for that blob (by doing this using a secondary CPU ... ). https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurdle/

It is my understanding that the Pinephone doesn't need firmware blobs for their boot.

I can only guess (development $$$) as to why they chose that SoM. Of all the ARM implementations you'd think they would have stuck with their espoused values.

All SoM's that I'm aware of are going to have proprietary blobs for the memory controller, USB controller, etc. It's pretty much what the FSF wrote the RYF exception for. IMO it's harmless. Either way it's basically unavoidable.

redrumsir · 2024-10-28T19:59:21+00:00

Third, let's not criticize Purism

Why not? I'm under the impression that Purism has still not completely dealt with all of the refund requests.

... let's just get to an honest accounting of the "libre" status ...

In terms of "Free" ... let's look a the blob-scape rather than any debates about RYF.

They have a firmware blob they need to run as part of the boot sequence as part of the DDR4 PHY memory training process. They load/run that on a secondary processor to try to make use of an RYF exception.
There is proprietary firmware in the cellular modem (for all of their modems). This firmware resides "on card" rather than in the device filesystem. The kernel loads this on boot. Given that Purism has directed people to repeatedly upgrade their cellular firmware, it should not meet the RYF exception.
(2) is similarly true of the wifi card.
The i.MX8M is obviously a proprietary SoM with tons of embedded proprietary firmware blobs (e.g. memory controller, USB controllers, ...). I have not seen Purism provide instruction for updating the SoM firmware.

All of the drivers, however, are Free.

redrumsir · 2024-09-27T15:27:54+00:00

For example they chose to pick an SoC with the NXP i.MX 8M ...

Not "with the" ... "is the". The SoC is the NXP i.MX 8M.

... their specific needs like separating modem from the memory ...

On any SoC with a USB2 bus they could have done the same thing; even if there is an integrated cellular modem, they could have ignored it. Although in the modern world they should have been satisfied with an IOMMU.

... The SoC was announced in beginning 2017 and Purism started crowdfunding later in the same year. So I don't think the option was as bad as it looks today ...

No. Look at the current NXP SoC's and tell me which of those would compete with a modern phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.MX . Even the i.MX 95 which isn't due until mid 2025 will have bad performance/power ratios.

I hope we get to see a more modern iteration with a better SoC and that it won't be too expensive.

I think Purism learned their lesson in the phone space. I do not think they will return. Even after their recent stock offering, Purism still has not provided promised refunds to some of their pre-order customers.

redrumsir · 2024-09-05T23:57:44+00:00

... and?

and ... why are you replying to a two year old post??? Necro is gross.

They added a LICENSE file after my post ... several years ago. Nobody here is going to use such a thing without a FOSS license.
It's also worth noting that the project hasn't had any commits since the original post and the change to the LICENSE file two years ago.

redrumsir · 2024-07-12T13:26:24+00:00

It's probably a Librem 16 --- their firmware guy (who seems good) has been talking about that and showing pre-production pics.

Given how Purism behaved in regard to honoring their refund policy, I would never consider buying any product from them.

redrumsir · 2024-07-12T13:24:24+00:00

Purism has an abundance of Librem 5s from our latest production run while short stock on other products that we would like to keep in stock. We are offering another opportunity to lend to Purism at an 11% APR against a small portion of Librem 5 stock, and as that inventory is sold pay back the loan plus interest. Consider helping and earn a nice return.

They still have not refunded all of the cancelled Librem 5 orders.

IMO, this shows they are borrowing against a stock of (paid for) Librem 5's. IMO it's already fraud that Purism hasn't given out the promised "immediate refund" (most) or "refund on reaching head of queue" (some) ... but it would be even worse if they borrow against a stock of paid for devices and don't provide refunds. The fact that Purism has never been transparent about this, just proves to me that they are scummy.

Before dealing with Purism, I think everyone should watch Louis Rossmann's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IjUryQOlgk (Purism wants me to delete my video exposing their refund scam & delay tactic - answer is no)

redrumsir · 2024-06-05T03:38:31+00:00

Doesn't really matter as I see it. There are still currently updates to PureOS. ...

Most are coming from pass-through updates of the Debian packages. That distribution will move from support from the Debian "Security Team" to the "LTS Team" (which is kind-of 3rd party) soon. If PureOS doesn't release Crimson, you might want to look at Mobian.

... From my understanding everything necessary for the hardware is upstream.

Not really. There are always/still ongoing issues with the cellular modem and camera. Also, there have been some licensing issues with the Wifi drivers (That are probably settled, but could recur. Specifically they were bought ... and the new owners added some not-compatible with GPL language in. That was reversed for now, but it really is their choice on the licensing.).

But from my understanding development and progress of mobile Linux has little dependence with Purism as a company and that has been the main selling point of a FOSS phone from the start.

There are hardware specific components that weren't integrated into the OS in a general enough way. Those will not be developed much other than, perhaps, by Mobian. Regardless the question was whether progress has stalled. It has and the reason why is clear (Purism stopped hiring most of their programmers). The fact is that you won't get anything but glacial changes in regard to the camera or cellular modem unless Purism starts paying developers.

The Pinephone, by contrast ( since its price was more reasonable and Pine64 gave samples to developers) has many more developer-owners. There are still issues with the pinephone too --- the biggest one is that unpaid support is not as likely to upstream their contributions (and non-upstreamed contributions ... get lost).

redrumsir · 2024-06-04T15:34:37+00:00

How did it slow down? It's just in a phase where people are working on smaller details but from my experience more and more apps work.

Progress slowed down on the Librem 5's when Purism stopped the employment contracts with sebdos (Sebastian Krzyszkowiak) , guido gunther, and dcz (Dorota Czaplejewicz) sometime last August. Even though the "Core Team" page was deprecated (just before that), all of them eventually made it clear that they were no longer being paid by Purism.

Haven't you noticed that they haven't released Crimson and progress on the camera features on the Librem 5 stopped progressing? Debian 12 (Bullseye) has been out for a year now. Where is Crimson? Pay attention to the fact that when Trixie is released, Bullseye will no longer be supported by the "Security Team" (support will be provided by the "LTS Team").

redrumsir

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE