I always have HT on , but my 48 cpu/thread system seems to run smoother when run at "use 99% of cpu`s"
even when there are not two gpu`s also needing cpu time .

You say you give up, then proceed to write a paragraph of text, could it be you're a silly little child who has to get the last word in?

There are no pseudostats, I shall reveal them.
Population of the world: 8 billion from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Total deaths from covid: 6.8 million from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
So that's less than a 1 in 1000 chance of any one person in the world dying of covid. Not enough to worry about.

Interesting you call me a Trumpophant. Firstly I'm not in the USA, so unfortunately I couldn't vote for him. Secondly, the right wing is far more sensible than the thieving left wing who think it's ok to steal money from your taxes without your permission and give it to the "needy". Needy folk can get your money from a charity IF you choose to donate. If people really wanted to help, and the government stopped doing so, all you lefties would immediately donate their cash through charities instead. Or perhaps..... you wouldn't? Maybe you just want everyone else to help?

There is no point in making a vaccine against something which is going to change. If the vaccine doesn't include what will be caught later on, there's no point in it whatsoever. By the time they make one which works, we'll all be immune anyway, and the weak will be out of the gene pool.

I guess you're not familiar with the common cold killing Eskimos when we first met them. It only has a low mortality rate because our immune systems have learned to fight it off.

And you continue living in your world where the governments ruin the whole world economy by closing places down, raising prices so everyone is too poor to eat, and nobody can afford electricity. Covid did very little harm, the governments killed off the world.

Your method of deterining the chances of contracting COVID considers deaths among the global population, at random.

But the spread of COVID was not rabdom. It was concentrated among those who did not receive the vaccines,

I saw hundreds of these, people bravely refusing vaccination, saying the giovernment was taking away their freedom. A few days later, they would post that the contracted COVID, but would be healed by some magic potion that Trump and others promoted.-- bleach, detergent, Chloroquine, horse worm medication.

As for your claim that COVID "Did Little Harm," you must be joking. Hundreds of restaurants, stores, small buisinesses, manufacturing companies were forced out of business because of it. The entire supply chain for almost everything was disrupted. The global economy was in a slump. The effects are still being felt, but the world is slowly coming out of it.

You also had it wrong when you spoke of natural selection and the "survival of the fittest."

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

I am anthropologist (Iactually an archqaeologist, but archaeology is a branch of Anthropology.) , so I an certasinly not going to say it is not an established scientific fact.

I am going to explain what Darwin meant and how you misinterpreted it.

But not now. I'm goin to bed

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

Wrong.

What next, 2+2 is really 5?

What next, 2+2 is really 5?

I Try that one when working out my productivity/bonus payments ,
The accounts department just won`t have it , hmff
But with government mish maths its `just another day at the office`

There's nothing complicated about evolution. The weak die off, the strong make the next generation. Until we messed it up and protected the weak.

Wrong.

It's the whole basis of the concept. If 50% of people die in contact with a certain virus, the next generation is made up of the offspring of the other 50%. I can't believe you're denying something this well known. What next, 2+2 is really 5?

You are wrong on several counts.
1. I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle. You either misquoted me or misunderstood me.

2. Your rigid, simplistic description is insufficient to explain what evolution is, how it works and what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest." Kindly allow me to enlighten you.

Evolution is not a battle between the strong and the weak. You misunderstand "Survival of the fittest."

Survival means living long enough to pass your genes onto the next generation (although in 1859, Darwin didn't know about genes). The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means those indiividuals who are best adapted to the environmental condiitions at the time and place where they live. Those adaptions give them a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on their genes than those who lack those traits.

When the environment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong.

New mutations occur more or less randomly over many generations.The changes need not be physically or statistically large. But iver a long time, and multiple generations, small survival advantages have large repurcussions. Some mutations will be beneficial and make indiividuals more fit for a new environment.

Some species develop mutations that are too specialized and those will be evolutionary dead ends.

And that, in a nutshell, is how evolution works. In evolutionary terms, there is no reason for 80 year-old men like me to exist. We do not partiicipate in the gene pool. (Although some studies indicate that grandparents enhance the survival of the species by looking after the young long enough for them to enter the gene pool.)

If it were simply the strongest vs. the weakest, the dinosaurs would still be alive and small proto-rodents would not have proliiferated. But environmental conditions changed and the dinosaurs were not fit for the new conditions. The small rodents were ideally fit.

Generalists are species that can eat many foods or survive in a variety of conditions,. They have beter chances of survival than specialists, who depend on a certain plant, animal or environmental niche to survive. That is why rats, roaches and flies are found almost everywhere in the world (assisted by the presence of humans, who are also found almost everywhere in the world.)

[quote]Humans are generalists. We can eat almost anything organic and can live almostt anywhere, assisted by technology. The main survival adaptation that allows us to live anywhere in the world is CULTURE. which is learned behavior passed along to successive generations but not by genetics. Culture is the primary human adaption which allows us to develop the technology to survive in the arctic, tropics and desert regions of the world, occupying them very quickly in historical terms.

The massive envirnmental changes that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were probably the result of the Chixilub meteor impact. That caused very quick change, relelasing huge amounts of debris and ash in the atmospherre, restructing sunlight, causuing unending global winter and the extnction of many plants and animals, ioncluding the dinosaurs.

Human activities have changed the atmosphere in only 200 years and those changes are accelerating rapidly.

Glaciers are melting and deserts are expanding worldwide. Sea levels are rising, killing the wetlands and mangroves that are the breeding grounds for thousands of species of fish

Plants and animals cannot adapt to these climate changes quickly enough.

We are witnessing -- causing-- the greatest extinction event in millions of years.

I predict that you will dismiss all this and claim it is a girly outlook. But you may live long enough for it to affect you personally.

You are wrong on several counts.
1. I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle. You either misquoted me or misunderstood me.

Only religious nuts dismiss evolution.

2. Your rigid, simplistic description is insufficient to explain what evolution is, how it works and what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest." Kindly allow me to enlighten you.

Evolution is not a battle between the strong and the weak. You misunderstand "Survival of the fittest."

Survival means living long enough to pass your genes onto the next generation (although in 1859, Darwin didn't know about genes). The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means those indiividuals who are best adapted to the environmental condiitions at the time and place where they live. Those adaptions give them a better chance of surviving long enough to pass on their genes than those who lack those traits.

Which is precisely what I said, but more longwinded.

When the environment or the food sources change, those traits may no longer offer a survival advantage and those species will be less fit, not less strong.

But they will maintain their improvement should the environment change back.

New mutations occur more or less randomly over many generations.The changes need not be physically or statistically large. But iver a long time, and multiple generations, small survival advantages have large repurcussions. Some mutations will be beneficial and make indiividuals more fit for a new environment.

You're still agreeing with me. Those of us with an unusual immunity to a nasty virus are the ones who survive. Thereby the virus dies out.

Some species develop mutations that are too specialized and those will be evolutionary dead ends.

Gotta try everything.

And that, in a nutshell, is how evolution works. In evolutionary terms, there is no reason for 80 year-old men like me to exist. We do not partiicipate in the gene pool. (Although some studies indicate that grandparents enhance the survival of the species by looking after the young long enough for them to enter the gene pool.)

There you go then, the longer you live, the better off your kids and grandkids will be, financially for example.

If it were simply the strongest vs. the weakest, the dinosaurs would still be alive and small proto-rodents would not have proliiferated. But environmental conditions changed and the dinosaurs were not fit for the new conditions. The small rodents were ideally fit.

I never said strongest, I said fittest.

Generalists are species that can eat many foods or survive in a variety of conditions,. They have beter chances of survival than specialists, who depend on a certain plant, animal or environmental niche to survive. That is why rats, roaches and flies are found almost everywhere in the world (assisted by the presence of humans, who are also found almost everywhere in the world.)

[quote]Humans are generalists. We can eat almost anything organic and can live almostt anywhere, assisted by technology. The main survival adaptation that allows us to live anywhere in the world is CULTURE. which is learned behavior passed along to successive generations but not by genetics. Culture is the primary human adaption which allows us to develop the technology to survive in the arctic, tropics and desert regions of the world, occupying them very quickly in historical terms.

We would be doing just fine without any technology, probably better. We would have lost all the weak we currently protect.

The massive envirnmental changes that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago were probably the result of the Chixilub meteor impact. That caused very quick change, relelasing huge amounts of debris and ash in the atmospherre, restructing sunlight, causuing unending global winter and the extnction of many plants and animals, ioncluding the dinosaurs.

And many species did survive.

Human activities have changed the atmosphere in only 200 years and those changes are accelerating rapidly.

An ice age is pretty rapid. Our so called global warming may well abate the next one. Whatever happens, we'll adapt, and it'll be fun.

Glaciers are melting and deserts are expanding worldwide. Sea levels are rising, killing the wetlands and mangroves that are the breeding grounds for thousands of species of fish

The sea level rose long before we did anything, the English Channel, you could walk across it!

Plants and animals cannot adapt to these climate changes quickly enough.

They don't have to, some will survive, some won't. Or they'll migrate. Humans and bird do this easily. Plants can also do it from seeds moving in birds's guts or by the wind.

We are witnessing -- causing-- the greatest extinction event in millions of years.

I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.

I predict that you will dismiss all this and claim it is a girly outlook. But you may live long enough for it to affect you personally.

I look forward to the fun. The UK is an average climate, we'll be fine here, any change will be within acceptable limits for humans. Places which are already hot, just move north. The Russians will love all the extra crop growth.

I would say that evolution is not an acccepted scientific principle.

I recommend that you read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." It is one of the most influential books of all time.

I look out of the window and I see what I saw 45 years ago. Climate change is an excuse for politicians to exert control, it's a religion, and everyone's falling for it.

I made a terrible typo. What I meant was I would NEVER deny that evolution was accepted science. I'm an anthropologist ferchrissake. I used to teach this stuff.

It's obvious that no amount of reason, logic or data will convince you that your limited, nihilistic and self-absorbed perspective does not reflect the real world. Your view is more narrow and limited than nature, evolution, science and humanity. Your are already convinced that you know more than anybody else, that no other possibilities exist and that other points of view are worthless.