buckle down

For some time now I've been wearing my watch strap with the buckle down as you hold the watch, some people would call this at the 6 o'clock position.

A bit of searching found this well written and succinct article, which I will quote here (but here is the URL to go to the authors page):

So I write this, both as a stylist and a professional photographer. One of my sponsors asked me why I'm constantly switching my straps around in my photos, repositioning the buckled strap on the bottom of the watch, rather than at the top. 

For as long as I can remember, my super stylish grandfather did this and one time I asked him why, this is a paraphrasing of what he said to me. Let me know if you agree and if not, why not! 

The correct orientation for the buckle of a strapped watch is hanging from the '6-Oclock' or 'lower' lugs . 99% of makers incorrectly position the buckle at the '12-Oclock' lugs so when worn, the 'tag' end protrudes towards the "audience" . This is as rude as showing someone the sole of your shoe, and is incorrect form for strap watches in addition to actually contributing to tag- end snagging on all manner of impediments. 

Furthermore, when positioned with the buckle trailing the '6-Oclock' (as shown) the buckle is properly 'presented' to the admiring audience as the wearer twists his wrist to read the time, and if present, a signed buckle is displayed for all to see, as a measure of prideful branding. 

I wear ALL my strapped watches, other than deployment buckled ones this way. How or why on earth so many makers mount the buckles on the wrong end is beyond me.

I guess you can see what he means ... 

using my SRPE62K1 on its original NATO to demonstrate the point, (which I never wear because I now far prefer the pointless short strap cut off and leather straps made from NATO) shows he was correct on every point.

I wear it this way on all my watches NATO or not.

making a bet

 I like to see if my predictions are correct, so based on this article I'll predict that the outcomes of the projections are all appearing to reach an asymptote. So I'll just say "we'll not reach above it in my life time".

for clarity  ... this means we won't have a self sustaining fusion reaction that produces grid scale power in my lifetime.

The AOL effect

 

Many years ago the internet was a place where only government agencies or education facilities existed. These players were denoted by one of the following domain suffixes:

*.edu
*.gov
*.mil

Then along came the .com revolution and those of us on the net found a new group of people "the general public". At first this was people who were not typical members of the public because in 1989 the people who had a computer were fewer and usually had some legitimate business reason to own something of such specific use. 

AoL however tried to capture the mums and dads of America and the experience became more and more the opinionated and uneducated and quickly if you saw a argument occuring you'd find that the protagonist had a domain suffix like .aol

Quickly it became known as Arseholes On Line and opinions were more like:

Then came internet on phones and it all got much worse as the base of internet use expanded. To me its not insignificant that the guy is using an Apple computer. Despite Apple not being the first to produce smartphones, they were the first to lowball it ot the General Public even adding cunning things to their default system seeings like "Sent from my iPhone" on emails. Making idiots think that only iPhones could do that , while making the rest of us facepalm.

Now its about "main stream TV" level.

are we the masters?

 Its often good to have a background in biology to be able to ask questions like: who is in charge

"However, we should never forget the hard-won cautionary lessons of history. Alchemy was not only a proto-science, but also a “hyper-science” that overpromised and underdelivered. Astrological predictions were taken so seriously that life had to adapt to theory, instead of the other way around. Unfortunately, modern society is not free from such magical thinking, putting too much confidence in omnipotent algorithms, without critically questioning their logical or ethical basis." (citation)

and are we then to become like wheat to the AI? Because wheat could be see as having enslaved humans as propagators and carers for it.

Worthy thought right there about the basis of symbiosis.

If we defer to the new religion to run our lives we need to ask basic questions like "is the machine a good parent".

Good Morning