I’m afraid I truly don’t understand your ideas. I have read about Wallace but the tolerances and speeds look way beyond what I can build.
My ideas try to exploit simple empiricism. First, investigate all anomalies and crazy inventions. Discard the 99.9% that are crap. Build and iterate the remaining .01% that actually is something. Save the world single handedly thereby. I have a working hypothesis to support this. The stock market is the most analyzed to death field in our culture – yet, strangely, anomalies pop up in which profits get made because simple facts get lost in the shuffle. Thus, I nearly doubled my money on a stock called Continental Homes years ago. Afterward, one pundit asked, “why didn’t somebody see this?” ( as to how nobody saw they were almost ‘printing money’ in profits) I did. I think Wall Street was misled because housing stocks were not popular, the company was obscure and their P/E ratio of less than 4 made people think they were in distress, rather than rolling in cash. BUT !!! if such may apply to vital money making, could small blind spots exist in science – that might be exploited? I suspect so. It’s all within the context of human reasoning and attention. And what gets said automatically about centrifugal force? “Oh, it’s just a pseudo-force”. Sounds dismissive to me. Worth looking at. CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
