On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 8:13:51 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 7:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
> >> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
> >
> > Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
> > what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
> > a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
> > Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
> > designs in a vacuum.
> >
> > (Jan 1, 2024)
> > <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
> > "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
> > engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
> > on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
> > standards, international standards, trade association standards,
> > safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
> > have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
> > applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
> From my very first engineering job out of college I spend a huge amount
> of time dealing with standards and regulations, IEEE, UL, CSA, ETL, TUV,
> DOD, and FCC. It's a huge part of the job. Fortunately, nothing with the
> FDA.
>
> When talking with potential customers one of the first questions they
> ask is whether or not the product is UL approved or certified, and if it
> has passed FCC Class B compliance.
>
> Even when I was working for semiconductor companies we had to deal with
> UL certification because we were including protection circuitry inside
> chips in order to eliminate the requirement for board designers to add
> external protection circuitry. UL wanted to see the chip design details
> to verify what we explained to them. We were selling chips in such high
> volumes that if a customer could save 10¢ per PCB it was a big deal to
> them when they were selling millions of boards.
>
> Obviously you can't develop medical devices if you don't comply with all
> the various applicable standards.
Tell me Scharf does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to have someone that couldn't get an engineering job agree with you? As I said, all those standards are are good engineering practices. But obviously you have NEVER worked in the field and can make up your blasphemies on the run.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:26:57 PM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 7:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
> >> On 1/2/2024 3:26 PM, sms wrote:
> >>> On 1/2/2024 5:52 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> You can lead a magatard to facts but you can't make them think.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps, but the reality is that few "magtards" actually believe the
> >>> absurdities that they spout.
> >>>
> >> I think you're being irrationally charitable
> >
> > Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
> This is true, except that no one 'told' you I wrote that. You read it here.
> > Since you cannot design or program how would you know anything about it?
> I have designed circuits as well as systems, and have programmed them.
> No matter how many times you tell the lie that I can't, it will never
> become true.
> > The design STANDARDS are nothing more than good design practices.
> lol...sure sparky, I'll be sure to tell the regulatory agency reviewing
> engineer that the energy limitation requirements for hazardous location
> designs are just suggestions during my next design review.
> > But since you're nothing more than a paperwork Flunky you know anything about it.
> Considering you've never done the paperwork (let alone proving
> compliance to requirements), I'd suggest you know nothing about it.
> >
> > Really, I suggest you stop showing the world how little you know.
> Tell us again how PWM is used to test cables?

Will you stop the outright lying? Perhaps you might have been required to design a simple circuit in college before they handed you a diploma out of pity. The very fact that you could not even begin to understand a simple program told us the entire story. You are nothing more than a paperwork wonk required by management. There is no way that you could get a job as a real engineer and you know it because engineering positions at three times your salary are all over the place and you're not taking them because they aren't being offered to you,.

On 1/3/2024 11:20 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:26:57 PM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
>> On 1/2/2024 7:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-8, zen cycle wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2024 3:26 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2024 5:52 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can lead a magatard to facts but you can't make them think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but the reality is that few "magtards" actually believe the
>>>>> absurdities that they spout.
>>>>>
>>>> I think you're being irrationally charitable
>>>
>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
>> This is true, except that no one 'told' you I wrote that. You read it here.
>>> Since you cannot design or program how would you know anything about it?
>> I have designed circuits as well as systems, and have programmed them.
>> No matter how many times you tell the lie that I can't, it will never
>> become true.
>>> The design STANDARDS are nothing more than good design practices.
>> lol...sure sparky, I'll be sure to tell the regulatory agency reviewing
>> engineer that the energy limitation requirements for hazardous location
>> designs are just suggestions during my next design review.
>>> But since you're nothing more than a paperwork Flunky you know anything about it.
>> Considering you've never done the paperwork (let alone proving
>> compliance to requirements), I'd suggest you know nothing about it.
>>>
>>> Really, I suggest you stop showing the world how little you know.
>> Tell us again how PWM is used to test cables?
>
> Will you stop the outright lying?

I'm not the one using insults rather than technical justification. (You
still _can't_ explain how PWM is used to test cables). If I'm lying,
post proof of it, not insipid insults.

> Perhaps you might have been required to design a simple circuit in college before they handed you a diploma out of pity.

Which is more than you have.

> The very fact that you could not even begin to understand a simple program told us the entire story.

No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.

> You are nothing more than a paperwork wonk required by management.

Funny, I just spent the morning discussing IS isolation barrier design.
This afternoon I'm meeting with our ME group to discuss characteristics
of different plastics in the context of regulatory requirements for
enclosures in explosive atmospheres.

> There is no way that you could get a job as a real engineer

My job title tells a different story

> and you know it because engineering positions at three times your salary are all over the place

Um, no...I'm solidly in the upper range for a Principal Compliance
Engineer according to Indeed.com, which is significantly higher than the
the vast majority of openings in this area.

> and you're not taking them because they aren't being offered to you,.

And they aren't being offered to me because I'm not looking to change.

--
Add xx to reply

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
> >> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
> >
> > Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
> > what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
> > a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
> > Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
> > designs in a vacuum.
> >
> > (Jan 1, 2024)
> > <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
> > "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
> > engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
> > on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
> > standards, international standards, trade association standards,
> > safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
> > have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
> > applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
> >
> One guy does, James Dyson:
> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf, Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where someone else has already written the book on standards as proper engineering method.

Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design standards when he never worked in the fielld?

It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to someone else writing these difficult standards.

And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you weren't breaking the rules? I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes made by
TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those calculations I would never have learned that the response was exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to work.

On 1/3/2024 11:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
>>>> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
>>>
>>> Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
>>> what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
>>> a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
>>> Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
>>> designs in a vacuum.
>>>
>>> (Jan 1, 2024)
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
>>> "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
>>> engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
>>> on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
>>> standards, international standards, trade association standards,
>>> safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
>>> have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
>>> applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
>>>
>> One guy does, James Dyson:
>> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf, Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where someone else has already written the book on standards as proper engineering method.

What's clear is that you not only never designed to any standards, you
really don't know what a standard is. (hint: it isn't 'best practices').

> Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design standards when he never worked in the fielld?

He designed radios, to FCC standards, nitwit.

>
> It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to someone else writing these difficult standards.

Funny, I don't recall myself, Scharf, Jeff, or Frank claiming we had
difficulty designing to the associated standards.

> And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you weren't breaking the rules?

The IEC doesn't give a rats ass about advancements in science in the
context of issuing certifications.

> I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes made by
> TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those calculations I would never have learned that the response was exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to work.

And tommy thinks you need to have learned calculus in order to
understand non-linear equations (hint: asymptotes and polynomials are
covered before pre-calculus).......

--
Add xx to reply

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:04:33 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 5:04:56?PM UTC-8, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 07:45:47 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:16:55 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> ><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:26:53?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> >>> On 1/2/2024 5:52 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> <snip>
>> >>> > You can lead a magatard to facts but you can't make them think.
>> >>> Perhaps, but the reality is that few "magtards" actually believe the
>> >>> absurdities that they spout.
>> >>> --
>> >>> ?f you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
>> >>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>> >>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
>> >>> they do about the subject.?Tin Foil Awards
>> >>Scharf, are you working? You know nothing about most of the comments you make and then have that Tin Foik trailor?The4 very idesa that
>> >>Biden has inceased jobs is hilarious: "https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-havent-workers-returned-to-the-labor-force-after-covid-19/".
>> >>
>> >>When they decide that a worker has not returned to the workforce is a simple method. IT you do noy go into the unemployment office with proof that you lookerd for work, they mark you as no longer in the workforce. But if unemployment insurance has run out why should anyone go into the unemployment office and stand in a line that goes around the block whe they coulf actually be looking for sork. Rea[[y, I am astonished by what you don't know! You wan't to have good job numbers? Just mark everyone else as out of the workforce.
>> >
>> >Err TOMMY! In 2020 the U,S. unemployment was 6.7%, in 2022 it was 3.5%
>> >Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
>> >
>> >https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494
>> The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually the number of
>> people who are not seeking unemployment benefits. There's a massive
>> number of people who are unemployed and not seeking unemployment
>> benefits.
>When you're so stupid that all you can do is follow the pull on your leash, you get people like Scharf.

Now here we have an individual, who, based in his own posts, was not
intelligent enough to graduate from high school, lives in a crap house
in a slum, drives a cheap second hand car, whines about the cost of
groceries and although having been paid as much a quarter of a million
dollars a year now finds it necessary to augment his Social Security
by trying to repair old, junk, second hand bicycles, which in spite of
a bicycle being a rather simple mechanical device has problems
accomplishing even the simplest repair, installing a seat tube - "poke
it in the hole, stupid!

And he feels qualified to refer to others as "Stupid"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/3/2024 4:17 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

>>>> https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494
>>> The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually the number of
>>> people who are not seeking unemployment benefits. There's a massive
>>> number of people who are unemployed and not seeking unemployment
>>> benefits.
>> When you're so stupid that all you can do is follow the pull on your leash, you get people like Scharf.
>
> Now here we have an individual, who, based in his own posts, was not
> intelligent enough to graduate from high school, lives in a crap house
> in a slum, drives a cheap second hand car, whines about the cost of
> groceries and although having been paid as much a quarter of a million
> dollars a year now finds it necessary to augment his Social Security
> by trying to repair old, junk, second hand bicycles, which in spite of
> a bicycle being a rather simple mechanical device has problems
> accomplishing even the simplest repair, installing a seat tube - "poke
> it in the hole, stupid!
>
> And he feels qualified to refer to others as "Stupid"?

Not sure who stated: "The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually
the number of people who are not seeking unemployment benefits." But
it's actually the opposite of that.

Those whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted, and have not
found work, are not counted as part of the unemployment rate. They are
the so-called "missing workers."

When the The Economic Policy Institute did a study, back in 2017, the
reported unemployment rate was 4.4% but when they factored in their
estimate of "missing workers" it was 5.2%
<https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/>.

The "jobs created" number is probably a better gauge of the job situation.

Carter: +10.117 million in 48 months.
Reagan: +16.332 million in 96 months.
H.W. Bush: +2.617 million in 48 months.
Clinton: +22.745 million in 96 months.
W. Bush: +0.523 million in 96 months.
Obama: +11.570 million in 96 months.
Trump: -2.670 million in 48 months.
Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.

This data is available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

Biden's performance in terms of job creation has been amazingly good. Of
course he was helped by all the jobs lost during Trump's presidency
because many of those lost jobs came back after Trump lost the election,
but even factoring in Trump's terrible performance, the job gains under
Biden have been spectacularly good. Companies hire more workers when
they have a positive outlook about the future of the economy.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:14:05 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/3/2024 4:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>> https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494
>>>> The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually the number of
>>>> people who are not seeking unemployment benefits. There's a massive
>>>> number of people who are unemployed and not seeking unemployment
>>>> benefits.
>>> When you're so stupid that all you can do is follow the pull on your leash, you get people like Scharf.
>>
>> Now here we have an individual, who, based in his own posts, was not
>> intelligent enough to graduate from high school, lives in a crap house
>> in a slum, drives a cheap second hand car, whines about the cost of
>> groceries and although having been paid as much a quarter of a million
>> dollars a year now finds it necessary to augment his Social Security
>> by trying to repair old, junk, second hand bicycles, which in spite of
>> a bicycle being a rather simple mechanical device has problems
>> accomplishing even the simplest repair, installing a seat tube - "poke
>> it in the hole, stupid!
>>
>> And he feels qualified to refer to others as "Stupid"?
>
>Not sure who stated: "The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually
>the number of people who are not seeking unemployment benefits." But
>it's actually the opposite of that.
>
>Those whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted, and have not
>found work, are not counted as part of the unemployment rate. They are
>the so-called "missing workers."
>
>When the The Economic Policy Institute did a study, back in 2017, the
>reported unemployment rate was 4.4% but when they factored in their
>estimate of "missing workers" it was 5.2%
><https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/>.
>
>The "jobs created" number is probably a better gauge of the job situation.
>
>Carter: +10.117 million in 48 months.
>Reagan: +16.332 million in 96 months.
>H.W. Bush: +2.617 million in 48 months.
>Clinton: +22.745 million in 96 months.
>W. Bush: +0.523 million in 96 months.
>Obama: +11.570 million in 96 months.
>Trump: -2.670 million in 48 months.
>Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.
>
>This data is available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
>
>Biden's performance in terms of job creation has been amazingly good. Of
>course he was helped by all the jobs lost during Trump's presidency
>because many of those lost jobs came back after Trump lost the election,
>but even factoring in Trump's terrible performance, the job gains under
>Biden have been spectacularly good. Companies hire more workers when
>they have a positive outlook about the future of the economy.

The Economic Policy Institute is a left wing propganda group.

On 1/4/2024 3:41 AM,floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:14:05 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not sure who stated: "The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually
>> the number of people who are not seeking unemployment benefits." But
>> it's actually the opposite of that.
>>
>> Those whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted, and have not
>> found work, are not counted as part of the unemployment rate. They are
>> the so-called "missing workers."
>>
>> When the The Economic Policy Institute did a study, back in 2017, the
>> reported unemployment rate was 4.4% but when they factored in their
>> estimate of "missing workers" it was 5.2%
>> <https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/>.
>>
>> The "jobs created" number is probably a better gauge of the job situation.
>>
>> Carter: +10.117 million in 48 months.
>> Reagan: +16.332 million in 96 months.
>> H.W. Bush: +2.617 million in 48 months.
>> Clinton: +22.745 million in 96 months.
>> W. Bush: +0.523 million in 96 months.
>> Obama: +11.570 million in 96 months.
>> Trump: -2.670 million in 48 months.
>> Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.
>>
>> This data is available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
>>
>> Biden's performance in terms of job creation has been amazingly good. Of
>> course he was helped by all the jobs lost during Trump's presidency
>> because many of those lost jobs came back after Trump lost the election,
>> but even factoring in Trump's terrible performance, the job gains under
>> Biden have been spectacularly good. Companies hire more workers when
>> they have a positive outlook about the future of the economy.
>
> The Economic Policy Institute is a left wing propganda group.

First off, the job creation data presented is from the fed, as listed in
Scharfs citation.

Second, The EPI reference was from a report they wrote in 2017, and it
_supports_ the idea that the reported unemployment rate is generally
lower than the actual unemployment rate.

So, rather than actually address the data, you instead chose to dismiss
it because of your ignorant right-wing bias against data you don't like.
FWIW, EPI may be "left-center", but they're substantially less biased
than any of the ridiculously questionable sources you extrapolate your
perverted viewpoints from.

Try these on, dumbass:

American Enterprise Institute, just another left wing schill?-
https://www.aei.org/economics/a-soft-landing-for-the-economy-and-biden/
"Overall the labor market continues to look healthy, albeit with some
recent softening in the trends for net hiring and wage growth. "

Kiplinger, more left-wing propaganda?
https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/jobs
"The unemployment rate ticked down to 3.7% in November, reversing the
October rise."

The American Action Forum, more commie pabulum? -
https://www.americanactionforum.org/u6-fix/not-a-turkey/
"November fell to 3.7 percent; paired with a 532,000 gain in the labor
force, this decline is all the more suggestive of a stronger labor market."

And no, these articles weren't written by 'token liberals' on the
editorial staff. You're entitled to your own opinion, you aren't
entitles to your own facts, dumbass.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 11:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
> >>>> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
> >>>
> >>> Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
> >>> what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
> >>> a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
> >>> Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
> >>> designs in a vacuum.
> >>>
> >>> (Jan 1, 2024)
> >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
> >>> "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
> >>> engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
> >>> on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
> >>> standards, international standards, trade association standards,
> >>> safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
> >>> have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
> >>> applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
> >>>
> >> One guy does, James Dyson:
> >> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
> >> --
> >> Andrew Muzi
> >> a...@yellowjersey.org
> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >
> > When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf, Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where someone else has already written the book on standards as proper engineering method.
> What's clear is that you not only never designed to any standards, you
> really don't know what a standard is. (hint: it isn't 'best practices').
> > Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design standards when he never worked in the fielld?
> He designed radios, to FCC standards, nitwit.
> >
> > It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to someone else writing these difficult standards.
> Funny, I don't recall myself, Scharf, Jeff, or Frank claiming we had
> difficulty designing to the associated standards.
> > And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you weren't breaking the rules?
> The IEC doesn't give a rats ass about advancements in science in the
> context of issuing certifications.
> > I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes made by
> > TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those calculations I would never have learned that the response was exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to work.
> And tommy thinks you need to have learned calculus in order to
> understand non-linear equations (hint: asymptotes and polynomials are
> covered before pre-calculus).......
> --
> Add xx to reply
Expanding your clown act I see. Liebermann never designed anything. He was hired originally as nothing more than your job - a gopher. He couldn't even do that without pissing off the people who actually did the work so he was ejected. With people like you working at your company they don't have a chance of living long.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:14:10 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 4:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>>> https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate-by-year-7495494
> >>> The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually the number of
> >>> people who are not seeking unemployment benefits. There's a massive
> >>> number of people who are unemployed and not seeking unemployment
> >>> benefits.
> >> When you're so stupid that all you can do is follow the pull on your leash, you get people like Scharf.
> >
> > Now here we have an individual, who, based in his own posts, was not
> > intelligent enough to graduate from high school, lives in a crap house
> > in a slum, drives a cheap second hand car, whines about the cost of
> > groceries and although having been paid as much a quarter of a million
> > dollars a year now finds it necessary to augment his Social Security
> > by trying to repair old, junk, second hand bicycles, which in spite of
> > a bicycle being a rather simple mechanical device has problems
> > accomplishing even the simplest repair, installing a seat tube - "poke
> > it in the hole, stupid!
> >
> > And he feels qualified to refer to others as "Stupid"?
> Not sure who stated: "The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually
> the number of people who are not seeking unemployment benefits." But
> it's actually the opposite of that.
>
> Those whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted, and have not
> found work, are not counted as part of the unemployment rate. They are
> the so-called "missing workers."
>
> When the The Economic Policy Institute did a study, back in 2017, the
> reported unemployment rate was 4.4% but when they factored in their
> estimate of "missing workers" it was 5.2%
> <https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/>.
>
> The "jobs created" number is probably a better gauge of the job situation..
>
> Carter: +10.117 million in 48 months.
> Reagan: +16.332 million in 96 months.
> H.W. Bush: +2.617 million in 48 months.
> Clinton: +22.745 million in 96 months.
> W. Bush: +0.523 million in 96 months.
> Obama: +11.570 million in 96 months.
> Trump: -2.670 million in 48 months.
> Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.
> This data is available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
> Biden's performance in terms of job creation has been amazingly good. Of
> course he was helped by all the jobs lost during Trump's presidency
> because many of those lost jobs came back after Trump lost the election,
> but even factoring in Trump's terrible performance, the job gains under
> Biden have been spectacularly good. Companies hire more workers when
> they have a positive outlook about the future of the economy.
>
>
>
>
> --
> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
I suggest you take your own tin foil award. Someone that doesn't have even an inkling of what they're talking about should remain silent. Even Google has laid off thousands of employees and you call that job growth!

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 5:21:26 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 3:41 AM,floriduh dumbass wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:14:05 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Not sure who stated: "The "unemployment rate" is misnamed. It's actually
> >> the number of people who are not seeking unemployment benefits." But
> >> it's actually the opposite of that.
> >>
> >> Those whose unemployment benefits have been exhausted, and have not
> >> found work, are not counted as part of the unemployment rate. They are
> >> the so-called "missing workers."
> >>
> >> When the The Economic Policy Institute did a study, back in 2017, the
> >> reported unemployment rate was 4.4% but when they factored in their
> >> estimate of "missing workers" it was 5.2%
> >> <https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/>.
> >>
> >> The "jobs created" number is probably a better gauge of the job situation.
> >>
> >> Carter: +10.117 million in 48 months.
> >> Reagan: +16.332 million in 96 months.
> >> H.W. Bush: +2.617 million in 48 months.
> >> Clinton: +22.745 million in 96 months.
> >> W. Bush: +0.523 million in 96 months.
> >> Obama: +11.570 million in 96 months.
> >> Trump: -2.670 million in 48 months.
> >> Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.
> >>
> >> This data is available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
> >>
> >> Biden's performance in terms of job creation has been amazingly good. Of
> >> course he was helped by all the jobs lost during Trump's presidency
> >> because many of those lost jobs came back after Trump lost the election,
> >> but even factoring in Trump's terrible performance, the job gains under
> >> Biden have been spectacularly good. Companies hire more workers when
> >> they have a positive outlook about the future of the economy.
> >
> > The Economic Policy Institute is a left wing propganda group.
> First off, the job creation data presented is from the fed, as listed in
> Scharfs citation.
>
> Second, The EPI reference was from a report they wrote in 2017, and it
> _supports_ the idea that the reported unemployment rate is generally
> lower than the actual unemployment rate.
>
> So, rather than actually address the data, you instead chose to dismiss
> it because of your ignorant right-wing bias against data you don't like.
> FWIW, EPI may be "left-center", but they're substantially less biased
> than any of the ridiculously questionable sources you extrapolate your
> perverted viewpoints from.
>
> Try these on, dumbass:
>
> American Enterprise Institute, just another left wing schill?-
> https://www.aei.org/economics/a-soft-landing-for-the-economy-and-biden/
> "Overall the labor market continues to look healthy, albeit with some
> recent softening in the trends for net hiring and wage growth. "
>
> Kiplinger, more left-wing propaganda?
> https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/jobs
> "The unemployment rate ticked down to 3.7% in November, reversing the
> October rise."
>
> The American Action Forum, more commie pabulum? -
> https://www.americanactionforum.org/u6-fix/not-a-turkey/
> "November fell to 3.7 percent; paired with a 532,000 gain in the labor
> force, this decline is all the more suggestive of a stronger labor market.."
>
> And no, these articles weren't written by 'token liberals' on the
> editorial staff. You're entitled to your own opinion, you aren't
> entitles to your own facts, dumbass.
And as the whole world knows, since Obama the Fed has told the truth, the whole truthy and nothing but the truth. This is why they are refusing to answer questions posed by Congressional investugations. God, but you have to prove yourself either stupid or a liar with every posting,

On 1/4/2024 5:21 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

<snip>

> First off, the job creation data presented is from the fed, as listed in
> Scharfs citation.
>
> Second, The EPI reference was from a report they wrote in 2017, and it
> _supports_ the idea that the reported unemployment rate is generally
> lower than the actual unemployment rate.

Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
unemployment. Those workers may or may not still be looking for work.
And that's why I always use citations, it infuriates "those who must not
be named!"

> So, rather than actually address the data, you instead chose to dismiss
> it because of your ignorant right-wing bias against data you don't like.
> FWIW, EPI may be "left-center", but they're substantially less biased
> than any of the ridiculously questionable sources you extrapolate your
> perverted viewpoints from.

Yes, but there's no way to get someone who's beliefs are not based on
facts to accept facts. Give up and filter him out.

> Try these on, dumbass:
>
> American Enterprise Institute, just another left wing schill?-
> https://www.aei.org/economics/a-soft-landing-for-the-economy-and-biden/
> "Overall the labor market continues to look healthy, albeit with some
> recent softening in the trends for net hiring and wage growth. "
>
> Kiplinger, more left-wing propaganda?
> https://www.kiplinger.com/economic-forecasts/jobs
> "The unemployment rate ticked down to 3.7% in November, reversing the
> October rise."
>
> The American Action Forum, more commie pabulum? -
> https://www.americanactionforum.org/u6-fix/not-a-turkey/
> "November fell to 3.7 percent; paired with a 532,000 gain in the labor
> force, this decline is all the more suggestive of a stronger labor market."

Even right-wing policy groups admit that job growth has been
spectacularly high and that unemployment has been low. Wage growth
outpaced inflation in 2023. Inflation is now coming down, due to the
Fed's interest rate increases. 2023 annual inflation was 3.1% (this
doesn't factor in December yet) while wage growth was 3.48%. Wage growth
was 4.93% for 2022, but inflation was much higher in 2022 because the
Fed's actions had not yet yielded results.
<https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/01/03/u-s-small-businesses-saw-job-growth-for-all-of-2023/99655/>.
Small businesses are glad to see wage growth coming down due to
decreased deflation, though workers might not be too happy about that.

Alas, the interest rate increases have caused new construction to
decrease because many projects don't pencil out due to higher
construction costs combined with falling lease rates.

A lot of the reduction in new housing construction in my area (Bay Area
of California) is also due to falling population caused by the ability
to remote-work. The high-cost luxury rental housing market has crashed
as those tenants are buying houses in outlying areas of the region where
home prices are much lower. So developers are abandoning or downsizing
new housing projects and also abandoning new commercial office projects.
Ironically, one law, intended to increase housing production, is being
used by developers to reduce the size of their approved projects
<https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/builders-remedy-san-jose-flea-market-3500-homes-may-be-slashed-to-900/>.
It's ironic that we have a large homeless population while at the same
time we have a glut of empty, market-rate housing. The gap between what
the unhoused population can afford, and the rent of the empty housing,
is enormous.

> And no, these articles weren't written by 'token liberals' on the
> editorial staff. You're entitled to your own opinion, you aren't
> entitles to your own facts, dumbass.

Good luck with that!

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:24:57 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
>rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
>unemployment.

But they made up the number of "missing workers."

On 1/4/2024 11:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:24:57 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
>> rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
>> unemployment.
>
> But they made up the number of "missing workers."

No, they estimated, and here's their methodology:

https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/#methodology

Estimated ≠ "made up", dumbass.

If you weren't so proudly willfully ignorant you might have looked up
how they estimated the number, rather than assuming they "made it up".

--
Add xx to reply

On 1/4/2024 9:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 1/3/2024 11:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
>>>>>> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
>>>>> what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
>>>>> a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
>>>>> Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
>>>>> designs in a vacuum.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Jan 1, 2024)
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
>>>>> "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
>>>>> engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
>>>>> on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
>>>>> standards, international standards, trade association standards,
>>>>> safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
>>>>> have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
>>>>> applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
>>>>>
>>>> One guy does, James Dyson:
>>>> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>
>>> When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf, Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where someone else has already written the book on standards as proper engineering method.
>> What's clear is that you not only never designed to any standards, you
>> really don't know what a standard is. (hint: it isn't 'best practices').
>>> Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design standards when he never worked in the fielld?
>> He designed radios, to FCC standards, nitwit.
>>>
>>> It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to someone else writing these difficult standards.
>> Funny, I don't recall myself, Scharf, Jeff, or Frank claiming we had
>> difficulty designing to the associated standards.
>>> And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you weren't breaking the rules?
>> The IEC doesn't give a rats ass about advancements in science in the
>> context of issuing certifications.
>>> I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes made by
>>> TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those calculations I would never have learned that the response was exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to work.
>> And tommy thinks you need to have learned calculus in order to
>> understand non-linear equations (hint: asymptotes and polynomials are
>> covered before pre-calculus).......
>> --
>> Add xx to reply

> Expanding your clown act I see. Liebermann never designed anything.

I believe him way before I believe you.

> He was hired originally as nothing more than your job - a gopher.

Yes, successful companies have a habit of giving their gophers
"Principal Engineer" titles

> He couldn't even do that without pissing off the people who actually did the work so he was ejected.

That may be true. If it was, he was at least smart enough to realize it
and manage being a reasonably successful consulting engineer. (yes
tommy, we know, you're going to claim he's on welfare - that's another
lie of you own making). You on the other had didn't get it after being
kicked to the curb 15 times in 20 years

> With people like you working at your company they don't have a chance of living long.

I'll just chalk that up with the accuracy of all your predictions...Red
Wave, anyone?

--
Add xx to reply

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:50:39 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/4/2024 11:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:24:57 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
>>> rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
>>> unemployment.
>>
>> But they made up the number of "missing workers."
>
>No, they estimated, and here's their methodology:
>
>https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/#methodology
>
>Estimated ? "made up", dumbass.

Estimated = made it up

>If you weren't so proudly willfully ignorant you might have looked up
>how they estimated the number, rather than assuming they "made it up".

They described how they "made it up."

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 06:54:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:38:31?AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 1/3/2024 11:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
>> >>>> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
>> >>> what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
>> >>> a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
>> >>> Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
>> >>> designs in a vacuum.
>> >>>
>> >>> (Jan 1, 2024)
>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
>> >>> "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
>> >>> engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
>> >>> on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
>> >>> standards, international standards, trade association standards,
>> >>> safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
>> >>> have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
>> >>> applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
>> >>>
>> >> One guy does, James Dyson:
>> >> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Muzi
>> >> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> >
>> > When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf, Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where someone else has already written the book on standards as proper engineering method.
>> What's clear is that you not only never designed to any standards, you
>> really don't know what a standard is. (hint: it isn't 'best practices').
>> > Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design standards when he never worked in the fielld?
>> He designed radios, to FCC standards, nitwit.
>> >
>> > It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to someone else writing these difficult standards.
>> Funny, I don't recall myself, Scharf, Jeff, or Frank claiming we had
>> difficulty designing to the associated standards.
>> > And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you weren't breaking the rules?
>> The IEC doesn't give a rats ass about advancements in science in the
>> context of issuing certifications.
>> > I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes made by
>> > TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those calculations I would never have learned that the response was exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to work.
>> And tommy thinks you need to have learned calculus in order to
>> understand non-linear equations (hint: asymptotes and polynomials are
>> covered before pre-calculus).......
>> --
>> Add xx to reply
>Expanding your clown act I see. Liebermann never designed anything. He was hired originally as nothing more than your job - a gopher. He couldn't even do that without pissing off the people who actually did the work so he was ejected. With people like you working at your company they don't have a chance of living long.

But what have you designed? You talk a lot about, "I did this or I did
that, but didn't Jeff do a study that showed that your name appears
nowhere as sort of designer, patent holder, or any other evidence that
you did anything at all.

In fact you aren't even smart enough to spell the name of the
companies you claim to have worked for correctly.

So, how about some proof that you did anything more then sweep the
floor and empty the trash for the companies you claim to have worked
for.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/4/2024 12:09 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:50:39 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/4/2024 11:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:24:57 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
>>>> rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
>>>> unemployment.
>>>
>>> But they made up the number of "missing workers."
>>
>> No, they estimated, and here's their methodology:
>>
>> https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/#methodology
>>
>> Estimated ? "made up", dumbass.
>
> Estimated = made it up

Only to a willfully ignorant dumbass

>
>> If you weren't so proudly willfully ignorant you might have looked up
>> how they estimated the number, rather than assuming they "made it up".
>
>
> They described how they "made it up."

Floriduh dumbass, making the dumbshine state proud.

--
Add xx to reply

On 1/4/2024 11:20 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 06:54:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:38:31?AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2024 11:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
>>>>>>> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's similar to
>>>>>> what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering involves
>>>>>> a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
>>>>>> Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
>>>>>> designs in a vacuum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Jan 1, 2024)
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
>>>>>> "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
>>>>>> engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
>>>>>> on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
>>>>>> standards, international standards, trade association standards,
>>>>>> safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you should
>>>>>> have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
>>>>>> applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
>>>>>>
>>>>> One guy does, James Dyson:
>>>>> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>
>>>> When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf, Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where someone else has already written the book on standards as proper engineering method.
>>> What's clear is that you not only never designed to any standards, you
>>> really don't know what a standard is. (hint: it isn't 'best practices').
>>>> Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design standards when he never worked in the fielld?
>>> He designed radios, to FCC standards, nitwit.
>>>>
>>>> It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to someone else writing these difficult standards.
>>> Funny, I don't recall myself, Scharf, Jeff, or Frank claiming we had
>>> difficulty designing to the associated standards.
>>>> And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you weren't breaking the rules?
>>> The IEC doesn't give a rats ass about advancements in science in the
>>> context of issuing certifications.
>>>> I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes made by
>>>> TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those calculations I would never have learned that the response was exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to work.
>>> And tommy thinks you need to have learned calculus in order to
>>> understand non-linear equations (hint: asymptotes and polynomials are
>>> covered before pre-calculus).......
>>> --
>>> Add xx to reply
>> Expanding your clown act I see. Liebermann never designed anything. He was hired originally as nothing more than your job - a gopher. He couldn't even do that without pissing off the people who actually did the work so he was ejected. With people like you working at your company they don't have a chance of living long.
>
>
> But what have you designed? You talk a lot about, "I did this or I did
> that, but didn't Jeff do a study that showed that your name appears
> nowhere as sort of designer, patent holder, or any other evidence that
> you did anything at all.
>
> In fact you aren't even smart enough to spell the name of the
> companies you claim to have worked for correctly.
>
> So, how about some proof that you did anything more then sweep the
> floor and empty the trash for the companies you claim to have worked
> for.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0684/1595/files/IMG_9600_edited_1024x1024.jpg?v=1648072312
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/4/2024 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:20 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 06:54:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:38:31?AM UTC-8, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/2024 11:43 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 6:00:42?AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2024 9:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:31:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone told me that you said that I couldn't have develooped
>>>>>>>> medical instruments because I don't pay much attention to
>>>>>>>> standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom... I don't know who your "someone" might be, but that's
>>>>>>> similar to
>>>>>>> what I wrote while trying to explain to you that engineering
>>>>>>> involves
>>>>>>> a little design and a very large amount of standards compliance.
>>>>>>> Please try to give credit to people other than yourself. Nobody
>>>>>>> designs in a vacuum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Jan 1, 2024)
>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/av7YqTteGv0/m/OlZouvsfBAAJ>
>>>>>>> "Regulatory compliance and certifications are major parts of
>>>>>>> engineering. At some point, you should have designed something based
>>>>>>> on a long list of very specific specifications with industry
>>>>>>> standards, international standards, trade association standards,
>>>>>>> safety standards, etc. After you're done with your design, you
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> have had to test your device to insure that it complies with ALL
>>>>>>> applicable standards". (Two typo errors corrected)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> One guy does, James Dyson:
>>>>>> https://www.dyson.com/james-dyson
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>
>>>>> When you're stupid you hand out bullshit answers like Scharf,
>>>>> Liebermann and Flunky. The ONLY way that they can design
>>>>> "stqandards is by using the present best standards, So any good
>>>>> engineer would use them normally without looking in a standards
>>>>> manal every other minute as Flunky pretends. Flunky is not an
>>>>> engineer and all he does and probably all he has ever done is sign
>>>>> off paperwork not knowing if it is proper or not. Frank showed that
>>>>> he wsan't up to a real ejngineering job and fled to academia where
>>>>> someone else has already written the book on standards as proper
>>>>> engineering method.
>>>> What's clear is that you not only never designed to any standards, you
>>>> really don't know what a standard is. (hint: it isn't 'best
>>>> practices').
>>>>> Can you even imagine Liebermann telling us all about design
>>>>> standards when he never worked in the fielld?
>>>> He designed radios, to FCC standards, nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really is tiersome that the people who have done the least are
>>>>> right here trying their hardest to excuse their inability as due to
>>>>> someone else writing these difficult standards.
>>>> Funny, I don't recall myself, Scharf, Jeff, or Frank claiming we had
>>>> difficulty designing to the associated standards.
>>>>> And how could you ever have any advancement in science if you
>>>>> weren't breaking the rules?
>>>> The IEC doesn't give a rats ass about advancements in science in the
>>>> context of issuing certifications.
>>>>> I certainly wasn't happy learning calculus to discover the mistakes
>>>>> made by
>>>>> TWO PhD's on that poison gas detector. But without those
>>>>> calculations I would never have learned that the response was
>>>>> exponential rather than linear and been able to get the firmware to
>>>>> work.
>>>> And tommy thinks you need to have learned calculus in order to
>>>> understand non-linear equations (hint: asymptotes and polynomials are
>>>> covered before pre-calculus).......
>>>> --
>>>> Add xx to reply
>>> Expanding your clown act I see. Liebermann never designed anything.
>>> He was hired originally as nothing more than your job - a gopher. He
>>> couldn't even do that without pissing off the people who actually did
>>> the work so he was ejected. With people like you working at your
>>> company they don't have a chance of living long.
>>
>>
>> But what have you designed? You talk a lot about, "I did this or I did
>> that, but didn't Jeff do a study that showed that your name appears
>> nowhere as sort of designer, patent holder, or any other evidence that
>> you did anything at all.
>>
>> In fact you aren't even smart enough to spell the name of the
>> companies you claim to have worked for correctly.
>>
>> So, how about some proof that you did anything more then sweep the
>> floor and empty the trash for the companies you claim to have worked
>> for.
>
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0684/1595/files/IMG_9600_edited_1024x1024.jpg?v=1648072312

https://tommysdesigns.com/
--
Add xx to reply

On 1/4/2024 8:50 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:24:57 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
>>> rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
>>> unemployment.
>>
>> But they made up the number of "missing workers."
>
> No, they estimated, and here's their methodology:
>
> https://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/#methodology
>
> Estimated ≠ "made up", dumbass.
>
> If you weren't so proudly willfully ignorant you might have looked up
> how they estimated the number, rather than assuming they "made it up".

It's not just a guess, there are statistical methods to determine
whether a worker is "missing" or is no longer interested in working again.

Yesterday I was at the home of a former long-time Bank of the West
employee who was laid off after BMO acquired them in 2023. He got over a
year of pay, 42 weeks of severance, plus vacation payout, and bonus that
he was going to get. He only signed up for unemployment this week since
he wanted to minimize 2023 income. But in reality he is going to be a
"missing worker" even though he's currently being counted as unemployed.
He’s about his experience is in enough demand that he could get a job.
But he’s likely to just retire and not re-enter the workforce. His house
is paid off, his children are out on their own, and he has sufficient
investments to provide retirement income. I have an old girlfriend who
retired from the Federal Government at 50 after working for them for 25
years. She was okay with just her pension and investment income.

I went back to work after starting to collect Social Security because I
was recruited by a friend who needed someone with my experience. I was
likely not counted at "missing" because I was retired. I would have also
been happy to stay retired, I have sufficient income and investments to
be comfortable, as well as my spouse's income since she is not retiring
until later in 2024.

It's because Tom has done poorly financially, and made bad investment
choices, and has lacked the education and experience necessary to get a
job, that he is so upset. He could solve his problem pretty quickly by
selling his house and relocating to a less expensive area. He should
have sold at the peak in 2022, since the value of his house has fallen
over $100K and is trending down, but even with the reduced value he'd
end up with a lot of money after taxes.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 8:19:35 AM UTC-8, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:24:57 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
> >Exactly. The EPI _supported_ the fact that the reported unemployment
> >rate excludes "missing workers" who are no longer collecting
> >unemployment.
> But they made up the number of "missing workers."
They don't care that they've been lied to in one continuous stream. They LOVE the fact that the American electioin system was ytamopered with. This is a mental illness common with the Woke and they simply don't care. People in a cheap local restaurant are discussing wht they should buy for their daughter on her graduation from HIGH SCHOOL - a new Mustang or a new Electric vehicle. Not ONE word about how they are going to pay for her college tuition. And these are NOT people with money.

On 1/3/2024 7:14 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.

The jobs report for December 2023 came out.

Biden: +14.828 million in 36 months. Unemployment rate unchanged at 3.7%.

"Hiring in the US was unexpectedly strong last month, as the American
economy continued to defy forecasts of a slowdown.

Employers added 216,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was unchanged at
3.7%, the Labor Department said.

All told, the US added 2.7 million jobs last year, slowing after the
boom of 4.8 million in 2022 and 6.4 million in 2021, but a faster pace
than pre-pandemic years.

Pay showed signs of rising, with average hourly earnings in December up
4.1% from a year earlier."

This is great news, when the economy is doing well, with low
unemployment, strong job gains, wage gains, and strong stock market
performance, it benefits everyone. Now we have to find a way to get fuel
prices down since they've gone up 70¢ since January 2021, about 30%.
Total inflation was 17.0% over the last three years while wage growth
was 19.1%.

What's not great is bicycle sales and bike shop income. The boom in
sales during the pandemic led to a post-pandemic bust. Manufacturers are
squeezing the margins on shops. Direct to consumer eBike sales are
bypassing bike shops.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 1/5/2024 11:43 AM, sms wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 7:14 PM, sms wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Biden: +14.612 million in 35 months.
>
> The jobs report for December 2023 came out.
>
> Biden: +14.828 million in 36 months. Unemployment rate
> unchanged at 3.7%.
>
> "Hiring in the US was unexpectedly strong last month, as the
> American economy continued to defy forecasts of a slowdown.
>
> Employers added 216,000 jobs and the unemployment rate was
> unchanged at 3.7%, the Labor Department said.
>
> All told, the US added 2.7 million jobs last year, slowing
> after the boom of 4.8 million in 2022 and 6.4 million in
> 2021, but a faster pace than pre-pandemic years.
>
> Pay showed signs of rising, with average hourly earnings in
> December up 4.1% from a year earlier."
>
> This is great news, when the economy is doing well, with low
> unemployment, strong job gains, wage gains, and strong stock
> market performance, it benefits everyone. Now we have to
> find a way to get fuel prices down since they've gone up 70¢
> since January 2021, about 30%. Total inflation was 17.0%
> over the last three years while wage growth was 19.1%.
>
> What's not great is bicycle sales and bike shop income. The
> boom in sales during the pandemic led to a post-pandemic
> bust. Manufacturers are squeezing the margins on shops.
> Direct to consumer eBike sales are bypassing bike shops.
>

Yes, it's as bad a situation as ever I've seen in our
industry. Still not the bloodbath of electric autos, but bad
enough.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971