lilian07 wrote:Hello,
The problem with this request is its range of possibilities, the field is too large and in addition, given the sensitivity of each of the participants on site, it is almost certain that it will end up as a "troll". What you honorably seek to avoid.
In order for a subject not to drift it has to be dispassionate outside here you have "experts" and "enthusiasts" in my humble opinion unless you feel capable of defining the rules and having the capacities " techniques "to verify that they are respected" as the "moderators" of a site and again it is almost futile without closing the subject of discussion.
However, I find the idea attractive and honorable.
Lilian
What I want to define is more the necessary mentality than the subject itself. And it is moreover the technique much more than its usefulness that interests "experts" and "enthusiasts" of whom you speak in a completely different way with the term "Troll". The troll is a subject on its own, it happens even when nothing is technical .... the use of the French term would already be much more constructive. ... but no matter what term is given, it is anyway a problem even for people who denounce it (too arbitrary).
Does ecology include a capacity for curiosity? !
The subject of ecology is not so broad. Humanity needs to produce energy in the best possible way and to manage its consumption in the best possible way. There is only electricity, oil, gas. And renewable energy like the sun.
What disappoints me. It is that where everyone is happy when it works .... conversely the scientist expects the 100% yield for the Nobel Prize. .... or assimilated. ..
It is true that I am looking for knowledge capable not of laying recitations learned by heart in books .... but capable of remaining human and showing empathy. ... and by extension, the ability to simulate without encrypted data. I think we call it intuition or "common sense".
Unfortunately lilian07 you start by replying, you add words like "troll" and you close the discussion. While playing the arbiter of my request, while an arbiter must be neutral. It's not as if I didn't specify it by writing "the principle of neutrality" .... but no you do it anyway
You're more concerned with guessing what the moderator is going to do with what you call a predicted failure than in the future of ecology.
Before I even signed up I knew very well that finding new knowledge is impossible. That does not prevent me from taking risks, as in ecology we should know how to stop thinking about risk / capital.
Yes i have a disgusting spelling
