This Story Makes The Trump Administration Look VERY Bad

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 21.04.20 um 05:37 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

I've seen jfets that were spec's 10:1 for Idss. There is something
strange about the jfet process.

I think that's because the channel has the gate from top
and from bottom/substrate. Thus the mechanical thickness of the wafer
must play a role. That is not so easy to control as diffusion time.

Cheers, Gerhard

That sounds like an odd explanation, since I'd think it ought to be
fairly easy to control the wafer's mechanical thickness. And even
if not, surely it doesn't vary anything close to 2:1?

Whatever the explanation, if they could simply separate the parts
into tighter bins it would help us poor slobs a lot.

Earlier this year I grabbed a handful of random J175s (P-ch) from a
bag, for LED current limiters. The Idss spec is all over the map
(7-60mA), but the parts themselves were actually all very close,
about 30 +/-2mA. Okay, that's great. But if it's not guaranteed,
I can't use it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:36:06 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 8:55:04 PM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Just out today -- random-sampling in Los Angeles indicates the
recovered population is between 28-55x the official cases tally.

https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody-testing-results-covid-19-infections-los-angeles-county/

That means the death rate (case fatality rate) is overstated by the
same factor.

Also see <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html

Well, no, it doesn't, unless we get more info.
First, the dample is of 863 people, 36 of whom seemed to have antibodies.
For a random sample, that means 36 +/- 6 if the test is perfect.
If the test were capable of 1% false positives and 1% false negatives, you'd have
to consider the '36' number to be +/- 10

That may be how they got the range they're using, but I don't know, and some very
minor uncertainties in randomness or in test veracity would change it. A single
study, while interesting, isn't completely conclusive.

If the sample is truly random, were there any active infections? Where do antibodies
show up, is this a blood-draw test?

Clearly the number is a bit wobbly. That'll improve with more sampling.
But even if there were only two or three undetected cases for each
official case instead of 28-55, that's still a big adjustment in our
favor.

OTOH, the Stanford sampling of 3,300 volunteers in Santa Clara,
California found about the same or more numbers (50-85) of
unwitting / undetected cases per reported case.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/

So to me, these two independent reports are fairly solid evidence that
the virus is less virulent -- and a lot less lethal -- than previously
thought.

When all's said and done, the Chinese Red Death may well prove to be
not much more deadly than a nasty flu season, just as Fauci first
said.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:11:55 PM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:36:06 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 8:55:04 PM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Just out today -- random-sampling in Los Angeles indicates the
recovered population is between 28-55x the official cases tally.

https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody-testing-results-covid-19-infections-los-angeles-county/

That means the death rate (case fatality rate) is overstated by the
same factor.

Also see <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html

Well, no, it doesn't, unless we get more info.
First, the dample is of 863 people, 36 of whom seemed to have antibodies.
For a random sample, that means 36 +/- 6 if the test is perfect.
If the test were capable of 1% false positives and 1% false negatives, you'd have
to consider the '36' number to be +/- 10

That may be how they got the range they're using, but I don't know, and some very minor uncertainties in randomness or in test veracity would change it. A single study, while interesting, isn't completely conclusive.

If the sample is truly random, were there any active infections? Where do antibodies show up, is this a blood-draw test?

Clearly the number is a bit wobbly.

It's actually totally bizarre.

> That'll improve with more sampling.

It's more likely to move towards the numbers shwn up by other evidence, which puts the asymptomatic cases at less than half the total infected.

But even if there were only two or three undetected cases for each
official case instead of 28-55, that's still a big adjustment in our
favor.

It's a big adjustment away from what the rest of the evidence suggests, which less than one undetected case per official case.

OTOH, the Stanford sampling of 3,300 volunteers in Santa Clara,
California found about the same or more numbers (50-85) of
unwitting / undetected cases per reported case.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/

So to me, these two independent reports are fairly solid evidence that
the virus is less virulent -- and a lot less lethal -- than previously
thought.

Or that US testing is lot less thorough than it claims to be.

When all's said and done, the Chinese Red Death may well prove to be
not much more deadly than a nasty flu season, just as Fauci first
said.

42,518 dead Americans won't be around to express an opinion.

The carnage in New York didn't look anything like a nasty flu season, but if your main aim in life is to make Donald Trump look less like an incompetent buffoon you do have to compromise whatever credibility you might have left.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:11:55 PM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:36:06 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 8:55:04 PM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Just out today -- random-sampling in Los Angeles indicates the
recovered population is between 28-55x the official cases tally.

https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody-testing-results-covid-19-infections-los-angeles-county/

That means the death rate (case fatality rate) is overstated by the
same factor.

Also see <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/coronavirus-antibody-testing-shows-la-county-outbreak-is-up-to-55-times-bigger-than-reported-cases.html

Well, no, it doesn't, unless we get more info.
First, the dample is of 863 people, 36 of whom seemed to have antibodies.
For a random sample, that means 36 +/- 6 if the test is perfect.
If the test were capable of 1% false positives and 1% false negatives, you'd have
to consider the '36' number to be +/- 10

That may be how they got the range they're using, but I don't know, and some very minor uncertainties in randomness or in test veracity would change it. A single study, while interesting, isn't completely conclusive.

If the sample is truly random, were there any active infections? Where do antibodies show up, is this a blood-draw test?

Clearly the number is a bit wobbly.

It's actually totally bizarre.

> That'll improve with more sampling.

It's more likely to move towards the numbers shwn up by other evidence, which puts the asymptomatic cases at less than half the total infected.

But even if there were only two or three undetected cases for each
official case instead of 28-55, that's still a big adjustment in our
favor.

It's a big adjustment away from what the rest of the evidence suggests, which less than one undetected case per official case.

OTOH, the Stanford sampling of 3,300 volunteers in Santa Clara,
California found about the same or more numbers (50-85) of
unwitting / undetected cases per reported case.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-much-more-widespread-previously-though/

So to me, these two independent reports are fairly solid evidence that
the virus is less virulent -- and a lot less lethal -- than previously
thought.

Or that US testing is lot less thorough than it claims to be.

When all's said and done, the Chinese Red Death may well prove to be
not much more deadly than a nasty flu season, just as Fauci first
said.

42,518 dead Americans won't be around to express an opinion.

The carnage in New York didn't look anything like a nasty flu season, but if your main aim in life is to make Donald Trump look less like an incompetent buffoon you do have to compromise whatever credibility you might have left.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 21.04.20 um 07:56 schrieb dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 21.04.20 um 05:37 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

I've seen jfets that were spec's 10:1 for Idss. There is something
strange about the jfet process.

I think that's because the channel has the gate from top
and from bottom/substrate. Thus the mechanical thickness of the wafer
must play a role. That is not so easy to control as diffusion time.

Cheers, Gerhard

That sounds like an odd explanation, since I'd think it ought to be
fairly easy to control the wafer's mechanical thickness. And even
if not, surely it doesn't vary anything close to 2:1?

It's the difference between the upper and lower channel wall.
Just remember how unpredictable Ge BJTs used to be with diffusion
from both sides of the crystal, before they had the planar process
where everything was determined by diffusion time only from one side.
Everything mechanical is huge against pn zone thickness, even w and l
used to be less precisely defined by the masks.

And once you have made up for the starting offset with gate bias,
gm for example does not seem to vary at all.

Bad example: Interfet IF3602 You cannot parallel them, some will be
completely open while others are completely closed:

<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/37321004540/in/album-72157662535945536/
>

while I had a tape of BF862 that all were at 12.5 mA +-0.3, probably
all from the same wafer. A year later when I needed similar ones for
a push pull frequency doubler with fundamental suppression I was not
that lucky, so I went BJT.


Even with MOSFETs, some are sorted ( Infineon BSS159; You cannot buy
a certain selection, but on a reel, all will be from the same group)

<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/41639547720/in/album-72157662535945536/lightbox/
>

while others are not (DSN3525):
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/28560491527/in/album-72157662535945536/lightbox/
>

or DSN3525 vs. BSP149

<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/42542542745/in/album-72157662535945536/lightbox/
>

Yes, my number of samples was limited, but there is a pattern. I was
looking for a cascode FET without the gate bias effort.

Whatever the explanation, if they could simply separate the parts
into tighter bins it would help us poor slobs a lot.

Earlier this year I grabbed a handful of random J175s (P-ch) from a
bag, for LED current limiters. The Idss spec is all over the map
(7-60mA), but the parts themselves were actually all very close,
about 30 +/-2mA. Okay, that's great. But if it's not guaranteed,
I can't use it.

Cheers,

Gerhard
>

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Why is everyone falling over one another lately to blame Russia for
all things evil, and praise China?

TrumpRussia bad, BidenChina good? Something like that.

Because politics stops at the water's edge, as Democrats like to say
when they are in power.

 

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7:38:48 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 21.04.20 um 07:56 schrieb dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 21.04.20 um 05:37 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

I've seen jfets that were spec's 10:1 for Idss. There is something
strange about the jfet process.

I think that's because the channel has the gate from top
and from bottom/substrate. Thus the mechanical thickness of the wafer
must play a role. That is not so easy to control as diffusion time.

Cheers, Gerhard

That sounds like an odd explanation, since I'd think it ought to be
fairly easy to control the wafer's mechanical thickness. And even
if not, surely it doesn't vary anything close to 2:1?

It's the difference between the upper and lower channel wall.
Just remember how unpredictable Ge BJTs used to be with diffusion
from both sides of the crystal, before they had the planar process
where everything was determined by diffusion time only from one side.
Everything mechanical is huge against pn zone thickness, even w and l
used to be less precisely defined by the masks.

And once you have made up for the starting offset with gate bias,
gm for example does not seem to vary at all.

I've noticed that just from trolling through the data sheets.

Bad example: Interfet IF3602 You cannot parallel them, some will be
completely open while others are completely closed:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/37321004540/in/album-72157662535945536/


while I had a tape of BF862 that all were at 12.5 mA +-0.3, probably
all from the same wafer. A year later when I needed similar ones for
a push pull frequency doubler with fundamental suppression I was not
that lucky, so I went BJT.


Even with MOSFETs, some are sorted ( Infineon BSS159; You cannot buy
a certain selection, but on a reel, all will be from the same group)


https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/41639547720/in/album-72157662535945536/lightbox/


while others are not (DSN3525):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/28560491527/in/album-72157662535945536/lightbox/


or DSN3525 vs. BSP149


https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/42542542745/in/album-72157662535945536/lightbox/


Yes, my number of samples was limited, but there is a pattern. I was
looking for a cascode FET without the gate bias effort.

Whatever the explanation, if they could simply separate the parts
into tighter bins it would help us poor slobs a lot.

Earlier this year I grabbed a handful of random J175s (P-ch) from a
bag, for LED current limiters. The Idss spec is all over the map
(7-60mA), but the parts themselves were actually all very close,
about 30 +/-2mA. Okay, that's great. But if it's not guaranteed,
I can't use it.

Cheers,

Gerhard

Thanks for that clarification Gerhard.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-21 01:56, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 21.04.20 um 05:37 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

I've seen jfets that were spec's 10:1 for Idss. There is something
strange about the jfet process.

I think that's because the channel has the gate from top
and from bottom/substrate. Thus the mechanical thickness of the wafer
must play a role. That is not so easy to control as diffusion time.

Cheers, Gerhard

That sounds like an odd explanation, since I'd think it ought to be
fairly easy to control the wafer's mechanical thickness. And even
if not, surely it doesn't vary anything close to 2:1?

Whatever the explanation, if they could simply separate the parts
into tighter bins it would help us poor slobs a lot.

Earlier this year I grabbed a handful of random J175s (P-ch) from a
bag, for LED current limiters. The Idss spec is all over the map
(7-60mA), but the parts themselves were actually all very close,
about 30 +/-2mA. Okay, that's great. But if it's not guaranteed,
I can't use it.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Diffusion is sort of like that because it's exponential with
temperature, and it isn't helped by the undepleted part of the channel
being located down at the toe of the diffusion curve (i.e. deeper).

You'd expect devices with epitaxially-grown channels to be dramatically
better--it's probably just because nobody building AM radios really
cares very much.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-21 07:38, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 21.04.20 um 07:56 schrieb dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 21.04.20 um 05:37 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

I've seen jfets that were spec's 10:1 for Idss. There is something
strange about the jfet process.

I think that's because the channel has the gate from top
and from bottom/substrate. Thus the mechanical thickness of the wafer
must play a role. That is not so easy to control as diffusion time.

Cheers, Gerhard

That sounds like an odd explanation, since I'd think it ought to be
fairly easy to control the wafer's mechanical thickness. And even
if not, surely it doesn't vary anything close to 2:1?

It's the difference between the upper and lower channel wall.
Just remember how unpredictable Ge BJTs used to be with diffusion
from both sides of the crystal, before they had the planar process
where everything was determined by diffusion time only from one side.
Everything mechanical is huge against pn zone thickness, even w and l
used to be less precisely defined by the masks.

And once you have made up for the starting offset with gate bias,
gm for example does not seem to vary at all.

Bad example: Interfet IF3602  You cannot parallel them, some will be
completely open while others are completely closed:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/37321004540/in/album-72157662535945536/
  

while I had a tape of BF862 that all were at 12.5 mA +-0.3, probably
all from the same wafer. A year later when I needed similar ones for
a push pull frequency doubler with fundamental suppression I was not
that lucky, so I went BJT.

They parallel fine for amplifiers, because they have guaranteed I_DSS
specs, and I_DSS is reasonably close to where you want to work.

The admirable CPH3910 is also like that, but I_DSS is twice as high, so
it's not quite as convenient.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:53:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-21 01:56, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 12:31:58 AM UTC-4, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 21.04.20 um 05:37 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

I've seen jfets that were spec's 10:1 for Idss. There is something
strange about the jfet process.

I think that's because the channel has the gate from top
and from bottom/substrate. Thus the mechanical thickness of the wafer
must play a role. That is not so easy to control as diffusion time.

Cheers, Gerhard

That sounds like an odd explanation, since I'd think it ought to be
fairly easy to control the wafer's mechanical thickness. And even
if not, surely it doesn't vary anything close to 2:1?

Whatever the explanation, if they could simply separate the parts
into tighter bins it would help us poor slobs a lot.

Earlier this year I grabbed a handful of random J175s (P-ch) from a
bag, for LED current limiters. The Idss spec is all over the map
(7-60mA), but the parts themselves were actually all very close,
about 30 +/-2mA. Okay, that's great. But if it's not guaranteed,
I can't use it.

Cheers,
James Arthur


Diffusion is sort of like that because it's exponential with
temperature, and it isn't helped by the undepleted part of the channel
being located down at the toe of the diffusion curve (i.e. deeper).

You'd expect devices with epitaxially-grown channels to be dramatically
better--it's probably just because nobody building AM radios really
cares very much.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

The Supertex depletion fets are remarkably repeatable. Idss on the
little ones like LND250 is usually right around 1.5 mA.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:16:13 -0700, dagmargoodboat wrote:

In the middle of a world-wide pandemic originating in China, on Sunday,
April 19, 2020 at 11:32:27 AM UTC-4, with no apparent sense of irony,
Bill Sloman wrote:

It's actually pretty odd that the US has done such a bad job of
containing the epidemic. China seems to have contained it pretty
effectively from a standing start...

You have my vote for post of the day, sir.

Yes, we all owe China a huge debt of gratitude as we drop like flies.
Typical Sloman!

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:06:52 AM UTC-4, jlarkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:01:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:

On 4/19/2020 10:26 PM, jlarkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:47:16 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/19/2020 8:12 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:58:10 PM UTC-7, jlarkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:


Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in every situation

They're sure popular right now, about this cold virus.

Virus, yes. Cold, no; it was always anomalous, not the same symptoms
as any cold or flu.

But in general, most people let unreasonable fear overpower thinking.

There's the Larkin Syndrome again. It only took two sentences to go back there.


Larkin has likely never had much opportunity to experience real fear in
his life I expect.

Correct.

so the concept of what it is never took form in his
mind.

I have to observe its curious effects second-hand.



I doubt he's ever been in a real street-fight or taken a punch in anger
from someone capable of doing real harm. That's not uncommon among young
men today either - all Internet tough-talk but they've never once been
in a real fight or drilled straight in the mouth and down to the ground
for running their mouth at the wrong time, at the wrong dude.

A small amount of life experience like that does tend to engender a
certain humility.

Oh, I've had some violence, almost killed a few times. But why would I
run my mouth at any dude? Why would anyone sane seek a street fight?
Friendly takes less energy and spills less beer.

Some guys go looking for fights, and sometimes fights come to you. The
former type of guy tends not to last too long he ends up dead or in
prison sooner or later.

In electronics design, the consequences of taking risks is small and
easily planned for. The payoffs can be huge. But even there, people
miss out because they are afraid.



Only psychopaths, fools, and liars don't experience anxiety or fear from
time to time, true facts.

Not always, not for everyone.


It's a normal biological response. Yes, like
pooping.

Your favorite theme again. Do you have troubles with your internal
processing?

Maybe he was never potty trained?

 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
<terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:06:52 AM UTC-4, jlarkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:01:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:

On 4/19/2020 10:26 PM, jlarkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:47:16 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/19/2020 8:12 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:58:10 PM UTC-7, jlarkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:


Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in every situation

They're sure popular right now, about this cold virus.

Virus, yes. Cold, no; it was always anomalous, not the same symptoms
as any cold or flu.

But in general, most people let unreasonable fear overpower thinking.

There's the Larkin Syndrome again. It only took two sentences to go back there.


Larkin has likely never had much opportunity to experience real fear in
his life I expect.

Correct.

so the concept of what it is never took form in his
mind.

I have to observe its curious effects second-hand.



I doubt he's ever been in a real street-fight or taken a punch in anger
from someone capable of doing real harm. That's not uncommon among young
men today either - all Internet tough-talk but they've never once been
in a real fight or drilled straight in the mouth and down to the ground
for running their mouth at the wrong time, at the wrong dude.

A small amount of life experience like that does tend to engender a
certain humility.

Oh, I've had some violence, almost killed a few times. But why would I
run my mouth at any dude? Why would anyone sane seek a street fight?
Friendly takes less energy and spills less beer.

Some guys go looking for fights, and sometimes fights come to you. The
former type of guy tends not to last too long he ends up dead or in
prison sooner or later.

In electronics design, the consequences of taking risks is small and
easily planned for. The payoffs can be huge. But even there, people
miss out because they are afraid.



Only psychopaths, fools, and liars don't experience anxiety or fear from
time to time, true facts.

Not always, not for everyone.


It's a normal biological response. Yes, like
pooping.

Your favorite theme again. Do you have troubles with your internal
processing?


Maybe he was never potty trained?

It's weird how many people, usually male people, think and talk about
excrement basically all the time.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

Michael Terrell <terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote in
news:49c99eac-5a02-49b3-9076-96b9cd435960@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 10:11:21 PM UTC-4, John Larkin
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:06:52 AM UTC-4, John Larkin
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:01:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:

On 4/19/2020 10:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:47:16 -0400, bitrex
user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/19/2020 8:12 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:58:10 PM UTC-7, John
Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:


Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in
every situation

They're sure popular right now, about this cold virus.

Virus, yes. Cold, no; it was always anomalous, not the
same symptoms as any cold or flu.

But in general, most people let unreasonable fear
overpower thinking.

There's the Larkin Syndrome again. It only took two
sentences to go back there.


Larkin has likely never had much opportunity to experience
real fear in his life I expect.

Correct.

so the concept of what it is never took form in his
mind.

I have to observe its curious effects second-hand.



I doubt he's ever been in a real street-fight or taken a
punch in anger
from someone capable of doing real harm. That's not
uncommon among young
men today either - all Internet tough-talk but they've
never once been in a real fight or drilled straight in the
mouth and down to the ground for running their mouth at
the wrong time, at the wrong dude.

A small amount of life experience like that does tend to
engender a certain humility.

Oh, I've had some violence, almost killed a few times. But
why would I run my mouth at any dude? Why would anyone sane
seek a street fight? Friendly takes less energy and spills
less beer.

Some guys go looking for fights, and sometimes fights come to
you. The former type of guy tends not to last too long he
ends up dead or in prison sooner or later.

In electronics design, the consequences of taking risks is
small and easily planned for. The payoffs can be huge. But
even there, people miss out because they are afraid.



Only psychopaths, fools, and liars don't experience anxiety
or fear from time to time, true facts.

Not always, not for everyone.


It's a normal biological response. Yes, like
pooping.

Your favorite theme again. Do you have troubles with your
internal processing?


Maybe he was never potty trained?

It's weird how many people, usually male people, think and talk
about excrement basically all the time.


Maybe they are so full of it, that it just leaks out? It certainly
adds nothing to any thread on Electronics.

You can't handle the sooth!

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 10:11:21 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 1:06:52 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:01:18 -0400, bitrex wrote:

On 4/19/2020 10:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:47:16 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/19/2020 8:12 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 1:58:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:


Larkin Syndrome: perceiving fear, hysteria, panic in every situation

They're sure popular right now, about this cold virus.

Virus, yes. Cold, no; it was always anomalous, not the same symptoms
as any cold or flu.

But in general, most people let unreasonable fear overpower thinking.

There's the Larkin Syndrome again. It only took two sentences to go back there.


Larkin has likely never had much opportunity to experience real fear in
his life I expect.

Correct.

so the concept of what it is never took form in his
mind.

I have to observe its curious effects second-hand.



I doubt he's ever been in a real street-fight or taken a punch in anger
from someone capable of doing real harm. That's not uncommon among young
men today either - all Internet tough-talk but they've never once been
in a real fight or drilled straight in the mouth and down to the ground
for running their mouth at the wrong time, at the wrong dude.

A small amount of life experience like that does tend to engender a
certain humility.

Oh, I've had some violence, almost killed a few times. But why would I
run my mouth at any dude? Why would anyone sane seek a street fight?
Friendly takes less energy and spills less beer.

Some guys go looking for fights, and sometimes fights come to you. The
former type of guy tends not to last too long he ends up dead or in
prison sooner or later.

In electronics design, the consequences of taking risks is small and
easily planned for. The payoffs can be huge. But even there, people
miss out because they are afraid.



Only psychopaths, fools, and liars don't experience anxiety or fear from
time to time, true facts.

Not always, not for everyone.


It's a normal biological response. Yes, like
pooping.

Your favorite theme again. Do you have troubles with your internal
processing?


Maybe he was never potty trained?

It's weird how many people, usually male people, think and talk about
excrement basically all the time.

Maybe they are so full of it, that it just leaks out? It certainly adds nothing to any thread on Electronics.