nightmare

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:496be1c0-9e6c-4d8e-a1e6-da930b0b1e2d@googlegroups.com:

I forgot who I was talking to. No need to discuss the facts, you
have already decided what you want to believe.

--

You and your little conversation with someone in the industry is 100%
made up bullshit, BOY.

No need to discuss anything with a story bitch. Spout off another
story, bitch.

"Oh the state owns these and we own those..."

100% crap.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d04939e5-874f-45f5-b8d9-77a8f899cd6e@googlegroups.com:

There is never any guarantee at any kitchen anywhere that soap
gets
used at all by any food service personage.

You are starting to catch on.

You are still posting retarded, stupid remarks. This is one.

And it shows that you will *never* catch on.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:387c2e86-bb51-
4c4d-a6dd-305257bbc45a@googlegroups.com:

> I guess I'll just ignore the rest.

You are an immature, whimpy fucktard. HOAD, boy.

 

[George Herold]

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 6:49:21 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

fredag den 6. september 2019 kl. 00.36.57 UTC+2 skrev bitrex:
On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
bitrex wrote:
On 9/4/19 2:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It's been proved that there's no such thing as an "ultimate secure
computer" there's no way to ensure that your compiler isn't compromised
in some way, too. Or that your compiler's compiler wasn't compromised,
or that the compiler that you use to compile the tool you use to check
to see if your compiler is compromised, wasn't compromised.

Or that the hardware that you use to compile the software that you use
to design the hardware for the ultimate secure computer didn't itself
inject a vulnerability into the design software that then compromises
your new hardware.

And so forth...

I believe that absolute hardware protection is possible. But people
don't even use the protection mechanisms that are provided. The
structure of c sure doesn't help.

No, that's why C++ is a great idea even for small embedded
applications. You can write insecure code as easily as you can in C.
But it's easier to write secure code with it as it makes it easier to
write code that enforces some set of common-sense generally agreed
upon restrictions.

e.g. you may never directly write to a raw storage array of fixed size
without bounds-checking, or allow some quantity measured in positive
integers to ever have something that's not a positive integer assigned
to it. And it can enforce stuff like that with no runtime resource
overhead.

There are other languages that do the same out of the box, but the
runtime overhead tends to be higher making them inappropriate for
embedded work.
  Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one can have
PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.
  ..and still conform to IEEE technical machine representation standards.



Does anyone still use those machines for anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_zero

Huh, weird.
What does
(+0) + (-0) = ?

George H.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-7, George Herold wrote:

On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:

  Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one can have
PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.

Huh, weird.
What does
(+0) + (-0) = ?

It's the opposite sign result that you get
when (-0) + (+0) is calculated, so THAT'S all right.
Other situations, though, it gets... confusing.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 9:03:46 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:387c2e86-bb51-
4c4d-a6dd-305257bbc45a@googlegroups.com:

I guess I'll just ignore the rest.

You are an immature, whimpy fucktard. HOAD, boy.

Yes, you do know how to take the high road. I'm always impressed with your level of maturity. No, I don't think a bot could actually emulate you very well. It would be a difficult task of making a bot sound so immature but still believable... no, I guess a bot doesn't need to sound any more believable than you do.

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-7, George Herold wrote:

On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:

  Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one can have
PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.

Huh, weird.
What does
(+0) + (-0) = ?

It's the opposite sign result that you get
when (-0) + (+0) is calculated, so THAT'S all right.
Other situations, though, it gets... confusing.

I would be more worried about the results from

(+0) - (-0) = ?
and
(-0) - (+0) = ?

I guess the point is mathematically (+0) and (-0) are the same, they only differ in the representation in the machine. So it makes the circuitry a bit harder to construct for these cases.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:57:33 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:496be1c0-9e6c-4d8e-a1e6-da930b0b1e2d@googlegroups.com:

I forgot who I was talking to. No need to discuss the facts, you
have already decided what you want to believe.

--

You and your little conversation with someone in the industry is 100%
made up bullshit, BOY.

No need to discuss anything with a story bitch. Spout off another
story, bitch.

"Oh the state owns these and we own those..."

100% crap.

I wonder what a shrink would label your disorder. You literally know nothing of the situation and yet you insist what I am saying is crap.

The city owns and maintains the traffic lights on it's roads. However, the main drag through the city is a state road. The state reimburses the city for maintaining the traffic control devices on the state road.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:54:25 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:82d2030b-cee2-450d-b1fb-f2151cbffb22@googlegroups.com:

Lol. Don't you understand why antibiotics aren't to be used with
animals? It's because the more widely they are used, the quicker
the bacteria build up immunities.

You need to stop with the lol crap. It makes you look even more
immature than the other things you post.

Lol! You are the one calling people "child" or "boy" or your other childish terms. I was thinking last night if a bot could be created that would exactly impersonate the style of a person's writing and then let that person interact with it, what would they think? Would they think the bot was the most brilliant person in the world, or an amazingly idiotic, unintelligent and humorless person in the world.

And you are wrong. Pfizer or Zoetis makes animal antibiotics used
by the agri industry, and they are one of the biggest pharma
companies in the world. There plants take up several footbal fields
of space so dem cows must be getting their cocktails. 'cause that is
exactly what they make there.

Yep, they make them and they sell them, but it's a very bad idea. It is no small part of the reason why there is so much antibiotic resistance in the world.

See dem cows... See dem wings... dem r not ducks. dem r
antibiotic raised cows.

Yes, you do have quite a unique debating style. lol

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:09:11 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

bitrex wrote:
On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
bitrex wrote:
On 9/4/19 2:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It's been proved that there's no such thing as an "ultimate secure
computer" there's no way to ensure that your compiler isn't
compromised
in some way, too. Or that your compiler's compiler wasn't compromised,
or that the compiler that you use to compile the tool you use to check
to see if your compiler is compromised, wasn't compromised.

Or that the hardware that you use to compile the software that you use
to design the hardware for the ultimate secure computer didn't itself
inject a vulnerability into the design software that then compromises
your new hardware.

And so forth...

I believe that absolute hardware protection is possible. But people
don't even use the protection mechanisms that are provided. The
structure of c sure doesn't help.

No, that's why C++ is a great idea even for small embedded
applications. You can write insecure code as easily as you can in C.
But it's easier to write secure code with it as it makes it easier to
write code that enforces some set of common-sense generally agreed
upon restrictions.

e.g. you may never directly write to a raw storage array of fixed
size without bounds-checking, or allow some quantity measured in
positive integers to ever have something that's not a positive
integer assigned to it. And it can enforce stuff like that with no
runtime resource overhead.

There are other languages that do the same out of the box, but the
runtime overhead tends to be higher making them inappropriate for
embedded work.
   Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one can have
PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.
   ..and still conform to IEEE technical machine representation
standards.



Does anyone still use those machines for anything?
Why yes; the Pentium X86..

The ceramic package 486 chips make excellent X-acto knife sharpeners.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:55:29 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d04939e5-874f-45f5-b8d9-77a8f899cd6e@googlegroups.com:


There is never any guarantee at any kitchen anywhere that soap
gets
used at all by any food service personage.

You are starting to catch on.


You are still posting retarded, stupid remarks. This is one.

And it shows that you will *never* catch on.

I agree with you on this. It was a stupid remark to say you were catching on to anything.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 5:28:57 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:46:18 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

I'm not familiar with regulations of any country that require quality food rather than simply food that is safe enough it doesn't make you sick. Back when I ate meat, there were many times I had crappy meals with meat with no real taste or even a good texture in some cases. I also am not aware of any country with laws requiring anything other than a minimum level of not being cruel to animals. Have you ever even been near a chicken house? They are literally some of the most disgusting places I've ever seen..

Yeah, they are "controlled" but that has very little to do with the quality of the meat or the life it had before it became "meat".

The cheapest meat meals are the worst in terms of what they've done to produce that meal.

Yes, I have been to a Chicken farm. Some of my relatives raised 10,000 at a time. The buildings were clean, the chickens weren't crammed into tiny cages, and they hosed out the buildings daily to was away their crap. The buildings were temperature controlled, and they were rated as the best run operation in Kentucky at the time. They had an outbreak of some disease, once. All of the chicks were destroyed. The buildings were sterilized and every piece of equipment was inspected before that building was used again.. This was over 50 years ago, when I was a teenager.

You appear to be bragging but you are helping to make my point. Especially the part about the conditions leading to an infectious outbreak that resulted in all the animals being "destroyed". Farms brag that the chickens are "free range" because they can go outside the building... into a pen that is a tiny fraction of the size of the building. The chickens don't seem to have any preference for that tiny screened in porch because it's all crowded, inside and out.

Yep, no small part of why I don't eat chicken anymore. I used to support Perdue with my chicken consumption, but I'm actually a lot happier and healthier eating little meat, only seafood really. If their were more options that didn't require cooking every meal and especially in restaurants, I think I wouldn't even eat seafood. Yeah, you can eat vegetarian in restaurant, but you end up having the same meal everywhere you go other than in places that are a bit more aware. One of the best places was an Afghan restaurant which had a number of veggie dished which weren't some contrived recipe. They were authentic dishes. One was pumpkin and was excellent.

They were shipped from the hatchery where they bough their baby chicks, that should have destroyed them. It is illegal to give them antibiotics, so once it is found in any of their stock, they have to be destroyed. Quit bragging about your ignorance.

Lol. Don't you understand why antibiotics aren't to be used with animals? It's because the more widely they are used, the quicker the bacteria build up immunities. Antibiotics were a god send when first discovered. Now we have to ration the good ones to the sickest patients to keep from loosing those last few.

Nothing you said has any significance to what I said, so it would seem to be you who are ignorant. Maybe you should quit at this point.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass. Chickens in small groups get sick, as well.

I know why they don't use the antibiotics, but many large producers advertise that they don't use them, when they can't, by law. That reminds me of all your so called 'facts'.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Although there is some excellent software about and best practice is
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap software.

Win10 updates that bricked certain brands of portable for example.

running some spice sims, breadboarding something to try an idea, swapping parts to see what happens.

I find it very odd that he trusts Spice simulation predictions when at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulations.

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't. One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

However much group-think rightly points out that all simulations are
equal, we mustn't forget that some simulations are more equal than
others.

Some sims are parts-per-million accurate. Some are absolute nonsense.
One trick lies in knowing which is which.

 

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


Although there is some excellent software about and best practice is
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap software.

Win10 updates that bricked certain brands of portable for example.

running some spice sims, breadboarding something to try an idea, swapping parts to see what happens.

I find it very odd that he trusts Spice simulation predictions when at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulations.

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't. One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

However much group-think rightly points out that all simulations are
equal, we mustn't forget that some simulations are more equal than
others.

I mostly - certainly not always - am guided by simulations of stable
linear systems where I can trust the component models and the sim
software. I don't trust future-state simulations of unstable or
chaotic systems, especially if I don't understand the component
behavior, the forcings, or the initial states.

Apart from the initial bias most of the interesting behaviour in Spice
comes from its solution of non-linear component models.

Simulation mostly helps me to think.

And of course, being in business to sell stuff, my simulations are
rapidly, often concurrently, verified by experiment, which also guides
future expectations of simulations.

Is that unreasonable?

No, but it is unreasonable to decry one sort of simulation because what
it predicts is inconvenient when you also rely on another simulation.

It might be possibly unreasonable if both simulations were equally
founded on accurate models of known physical processes, and had
equal histories of closely predicting empirical observations.

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

How is this different?

The individual components in electronics hardware are generally much
better characterised and do more or less what they say on the tin.

Yes. But clouds don't.

Software developers have a bad habit of re-inventing the wheel and not
always putting the axle at the centre or making the damn thing round!

A PC operating system has some 100 billion bits. Which one do you want changed?

Problem with binary logic is that a fence post error is the opposite of
what you intended to do. It is pretty clear that modern software could
be made a lot more robust by static analysis to find all the places
where malevolent data packets can target OS privilege escalation.

The ultimate secure computer system will have absolute hardware
protections. Programmers can't be trusted here.

Even with an entirely separate code and data address space strict
Harvard architecture so that data can never get executed there are still
ways to subvert an operating system. It is just a bit harder to do.

That isn't to say that stuff could not be done better. OS/2 was very
much technically superior to Windows when it was launched but IBM made
such an awful hash of marketing it with PS/2 MCA hardware lock-in that
apart from in a handful of niche applications it sank without trace.

Bill Gates sank OS/2 with dirty tricks. A giant OS/2 selling point
was that you could multi-task (Windows couldn't), yet run your
Windows apps.

So, Microsoft added a "I smell OS/2" trap to Windows that generated
a vague "compatibility" warning when starting a Windows session
under OS/2. That scared everyone away; OS/2 tanked.

Microsoft denied it. Then Dr. Dobb's Journal published a logic analyzer
capture of the self-modifying encrypted landmine in action.

Confronted, Microsoft 'fessed it was there, but 'accidentally.' By then
OS/2's reputation had been damaged beyond repair.

I fell for it. I bought a copy of OS/2 direct from IBM, but, concerned
about the 'compatibility' warning rage, never installed it. Gate's fake
issue got me.

'Microsoft, founded on evil'

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:23:53 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:09:11 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

bitrex wrote:
On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
bitrex wrote:
On 9/4/19 2:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It's been proved that there's no such thing as an "ultimate secure
computer" there's no way to ensure that your compiler isn't
compromised
in some way, too. Or that your compiler's compiler wasn't compromised,
or that the compiler that you use to compile the tool you use to check
to see if your compiler is compromised, wasn't compromised.

Or that the hardware that you use to compile the software that you use
to design the hardware for the ultimate secure computer didn't itself
inject a vulnerability into the design software that then compromises
your new hardware.

And so forth...

I believe that absolute hardware protection is possible. But people
don't even use the protection mechanisms that are provided. The
structure of c sure doesn't help.

No, that's why C++ is a great idea even for small embedded
applications. You can write insecure code as easily as you can in C.
But it's easier to write secure code with it as it makes it easier to
write code that enforces some set of common-sense generally agreed
upon restrictions.

e.g. you may never directly write to a raw storage array of fixed
size without bounds-checking, or allow some quantity measured in
positive integers to ever have something that's not a positive
integer assigned to it. And it can enforce stuff like that with no
runtime resource overhead.

There are other languages that do the same out of the box, but the
runtime overhead tends to be higher making them inappropriate for
embedded work.
   Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one can have
PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.
   ..and still conform to IEEE technical machine representation
standards.



Does anyone still use those machines for anything?
Why yes; the Pentium X86..

The ceramic package 486 chips make excellent X-acto knife sharpeners.

I've been using the same X-acto blade my friend Ray gave me, for forty
years. It's still virgin, still surgically sharp.

Thanks Intel!

Cheers,
James

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:01:53 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:23:53 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 21:09:11 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

bitrex wrote:
On 9/5/19 6:49 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
bitrex wrote:
On 9/4/19 2:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It's been proved that there's no such thing as an "ultimate secure
computer" there's no way to ensure that your compiler isn't
compromised
in some way, too. Or that your compiler's compiler wasn't compromised,
or that the compiler that you use to compile the tool you use to check
to see if your compiler is compromised, wasn't compromised.

Or that the hardware that you use to compile the software that you use
to design the hardware for the ultimate secure computer didn't itself
inject a vulnerability into the design software that then compromises
your new hardware.

And so forth...

I believe that absolute hardware protection is possible. But people
don't even use the protection mechanisms that are provided. The
structure of c sure doesn't help.

No, that's why C++ is a great idea even for small embedded
applications. You can write insecure code as easily as you can in C.
But it's easier to write secure code with it as it makes it easier to
write code that enforces some set of common-sense generally agreed
upon restrictions.

e.g. you may never directly write to a raw storage array of fixed
size without bounds-checking, or allow some quantity measured in
positive integers to ever have something that's not a positive
integer assigned to it. And it can enforce stuff like that with no
runtime resource overhead.

There are other languages that do the same out of the box, but the
runtime overhead tends to be higher making them inappropriate for
embedded work.
   Do not forget, with some languages and some machines, one can have
PLUS zero, MINUS zero, and an UNSIGNED zero.
   ..and still conform to IEEE technical machine representation
standards.



Does anyone still use those machines for anything?
Why yes; the Pentium X86..

The ceramic package 486 chips make excellent X-acto knife sharpeners.

I've been using the same X-acto blade my friend Ray gave me, for forty
years. It's still virgin, still surgically sharp.

Thanks Intel!

Cheers,
James

Yes, I should have credited you with the trick.

 

On Friday, 6 September 2019 13:54:25 UTC+1, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:82d2030b-cee2-450d-b1fb-f2151cbffb22@googlegroups.com:

Lol. Don't you understand why antibiotics aren't to be used with
animals? It's because the more widely they are used, the quicker
the bacteria build up immunities.

You need to stop with the lol crap. It makes you look even more
immature than the other things you post.

And you are wrong. Pfizer or Zoetis makes animal antibiotics used
by the agri industry, and they are one of the biggest pharma
companies in the world. There plants take up several footbal fields
of space so dem cows must be getting their cocktails. 'cause that is
exactly what they make there.

See dem cows... See dem wings... dem r not ducks. dem r
antibiotic raised cows.

I don't know what America does, but food animals are fed tons of antibiotics in the uk. And yes, the result is very predictable & very stupid.


NT

 

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
news:c2ab6b9c-79ea-4a42-9a05-bb0b906bb5ab@googlegroups.com:

I've been using the same X-acto blade my friend Ray gave me, for
forty years. It's still virgin, still surgically sharp.

Thanks Intel!

Cheers,
James

Then you are lying and your version of "using it" is the fact that
it resides in your tool box, unused.

A fucking 2 foot tall model of the great pyramid would keep it
sharper.

Kershaw makes knives that are shave sharp from the factory and use
a steel which is the best blade steel there is. Made in the good old
USA.

Sandvik 14C28N steel.

Exacto ain't got nothin' on real knives.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4d180dcd-697c-47d8-ba66-a341af81f02a@googlegroups.com:

Lol! You are the one calling people "child" or "boy" or your
other childish terms.

If the foo shits...

Calling a childish twerp childish is not childish, boy.

Don't act childishly and you will not warrant the moniker. Real
simple, putz.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:50:00 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:28:57 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2019 17:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:14:45 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Although there is some excellent software about and best practice is
improving gradually (though IMHO too slowly) there is far too much of a
ship it and be damned macho business culture in shrink wrap software..

Win10 updates that bricked certain brands of portable for example.

running some spice sims, breadboarding something to try an idea, swapping parts to see what happens.

I find it very odd that he trusts Spice simulation predictions when at
the same time he rails incessantly against climate change simulations.

That's conflating simulation and dissimulation.

One generally accurately agrees with empirical observation, the
other doesn't.

Spice simulates circuits that one can build and test, so empirical observation is easy.

Climate modelling tries to match the existing climate in general - the butterfly effect means that it can't match a specific situation for longer than ten days - so it's a different ball game. Despite the whinging of the denialist propaganda machine, it is still worth doing.

One's based on accurate models of known physical
processes, the other isn't.

Wrong. Climate simulation is based on accurate models of known physical processes. The difficulty is that the systems being modelled are chaotic so you can't have accurate predictions for periods longer than about ten days.

The climate system is thermodynamically constrained so if you run enough long term models you can get a pretty accurate idea of what the climate is going to look like in the long term, which is worth doing. The denialist lobby has a large financial interest in ignoring these results, and James Arthur and John Larkin seem happy to forget this.

However much group-think rightly points out that all simulations are
equal, we mustn't forget that some simulations are more equal than
others.

I mostly - certainly not always - am guided by simulations of stable
linear systems where I can trust the component models and the sim
software. I don't trust future-state simulations of unstable or
chaotic systems, especially if I don't understand the component
behavior, the forcings, or the initial states.

Apart from the initial bias most of the interesting behaviour in Spice
comes from its solution of non-linear component models.

Simulation mostly helps me to think.

And of course, being in business to sell stuff, my simulations are
rapidly, often concurrently, verified by experiment, which also guides
future expectations of simulations.

Is that unreasonable?

No, but it is unreasonable to decry one sort of simulation because what
it predicts is inconvenient when you also rely on another simulation.

It might be possibly unreasonable if both simulations were equally
founded on accurate models of known physical processes, and had
equal histories of closely predicting empirical observations.

But Spice is based on models carefully tested and characterized
against real devices, with millions of hours of experience. The
climate stuff hinges on a pile of twiddle-factors and rules-of-thumb.

That misrepresents climate modelling. James Arthur has got money from the Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel industry being able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

At least that's what I saw when I downloaded the FORTRAN for one of
them some years ago. (Spaghetti code. The tortured manifesto of a
confused mind crying for help. And no comments.)

Actually code from a graduate students' programming sandbox - part of the Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research grade climate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he keeps on lying about it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney