irections. Ten minutes is too brown and crispy. Two minutes is gooey and icky. Try eight minutes. Still too crispy. Try five. A little gooey. Six? Just right.
Truth-finders like juries and price negotiations and diplomacy use MOA. Each side starts by GOING BEYOND its desired destination. Each subsequent zero-crossing then starts from a point closer to the destination, until the last move is too small to be worth further argument. Both sides are reasonably satisfied because they were able to pull their internal baselines centerward during the haggling. The last departure from each side's readjusted baseline is relatively comfortable, not too much of a stretch.
= = = = =
Well then. This is a scientific method of reaching truth. Of course Scientific Method uses this scientific method to reach truth. Right?
SM does NOT use the method of adjustment.
The null hypothesis is at one end of a scale. You run the variables and constants
to see if Y moves when you vary X, or Y stays constant when you vary X. If Y stays constant,
null hypothesis stands, theory not proven. If Y varies, you have some degree of proof, which you SUPPOSEDLY try to increase.
There is no GOING BEYOND in this system, no crossing the centerline, no way to define 'less than null'. There is no devil's advocate pushing for the OPPOSITE theory, or ideally for several alternate theories. It's just my theory versus no theory.
In healthy scientific PRACTICE we sometimes get a proper MOA taffy-pull, with two competing explanations battling for the consensus. But even in those uncommon healthy situations, the rules of the game require each side to write and analyze its results as my way or the noway. There is no destination at the end of the trip, no sale at the end of the haggling, no pressure to reach a verdict so we can go home and resume our lives.
These facing-sideways battles are NOT quick or reliable. They can go on for decades after the correct mix of explanations is blatantly obvious to external observers. Tectonic plates are the most famous example. In speech and hearing, the theory that the larynx vibrates like a speaker was still being taught as a valid option 70 years after the resonant-reed theory was obviously correct.
Retain and restrain
I'm trying to follow the Morris model.Retain and restrain my biases. Hold onto valid stereotypes but track the exceptions.
A podcast debunking Elon mostly hits good points. Elon is a classic stock faker. He spends most of his time on Twitter trolling his critics and emitting new Disruptive Innovations that end up Disrupting his own business more than anything else. All of his ideas are old ideas.
True. Validates my biases.
The latest podcast mocks Tesla's video showing a battery exchange. It's full of trickery. The Tesla is on stage over a trapdoor, which opens revealing four columns or posts. You can't see what's happening under the car, and the camera doesn't stay on the car continuously so you can't tell if the process really takes 1.5 minutes or 1.5 hours. The debunker doesn't believe the process can be that fast.
Well... Battery exchange, like all of Elon's ideas, is 100 years old. It was commercially practical in 1910 and became popular among fleet operators of electric trucks.
Here's part of an account from Automobile Topics, Oct 1915. Page 901 of the PDF.
EV makers had agreed on a standard form of battery cradle to enable exchanges. The process involved four hydraulic columns under the car, raising and lowering a dolly.
The 'Cowen truck' (dolly) was lifted up to hold the cradle; the cradle was unhooked and disconnected; then the hydraulics lowered the dolly. A fresh battery cradle was ready on the other side, and was pushed into place. The hydraulics raised the new cradle, and the workers hooked and reconnected it. Elapsed time 3 minutes or less.
So: Elon is using the old idea verbatim, complete with the four hydraulic columns, and a 1.5 minute exchange is plausible if not proved.
= = = = =
Another article in the 1915 magazine shows a genuine difference between modern Insatiables and the 1915 rich.
Before 1970, 