I doubt they already had the King Wen order in the Shang dynasty. Manuscripts dated to as late as the Han dynasty have a totally different hexagram order. In any case traditionally the divination book for Shang is considered to be the Guicang, not the I Ching (=Zhouyi = Changes of Zhou), which according to tradition put kun before qian.
The Shang dynasty people knew the pairing structure of hexagrams (inverted/complementary pairs), but cycle decomposition is a modern
group theory tool that did not exist until the 19th century. These are two different levels of analysis.
They knew about the cycle. That's why it's called the King Wen sequence right? Not sure what part of this you think people didn't know about so we may be talking at cross purposes.
Additionally, the geology of oilfields is complex. They are like huge sponges made of rock with oil in the gaps. Because the oil production techniques involve injecting fluid into the field to extract the oil, if the oilfield isn’t managed correctly, it’s possible for it to shut down and be difficult to restart production even if you could rebuild the infrastructure.
I also recall in passing that Venezuela has massive oil reserves, but they are in tar sands and are therefore only economic when the oil price is high[1]. And who tried to take effective control of Venezuela’s oil production? Oh…
An alternative alternative view is that the pyramids are >4000 years old and 20 years is nothing in that context, so waiting a few years for technology to improve to the extent that they can be confident that the archeologists can do an investigation in a less invasive way that doesn't cause damage is time well spent.
Fibre-optic endoscopes have been around since the mid 1970s. So technology that is much older than the muon scanning techniques that the ScanPyramids project used to discover the North Face Corridor. The real problem, I think, was that Hawass went on record to reject the ScanPyramids results for reasons known only to Zahi Hawass, despite widespread scientific acceptance of the ScanPyramids papers.
And pretty much rule number 1 is if someone says "you can trust me" you cant' trust them. Trustworthy people generally don't need to say things like that.
Not only did they invest, but if I'm not mistaken, at the time that was the biggest single check that Andreessen Horowitz had ever written. It's completely baffling to me.
Exhibit A: Adam Neuman, who somehow convinced people that office rental + shitty app that didn't work was "The first physical social network" and therefore deserved a tech company valuation.
And to be clear he's not been convicted of fraud, he walked away from the cash bonfire with over a billion dollars.
That seems pretty normal to me. Try this thought experiment. Suppose I make an accessory that adds an ironing board to the back of F150 trucks[1] and I call my company “Fordboard”? Do you think that portmanteau is a trademark violation or not? I think Ford probably would fight and win against me if I did such a thing, in particular because I am using the registered mark (Ford) to refer to the actual thing so I can’t pretend that’s just a coincidence. That is also the case here with gitclassic. If I called my guitar shop that I might have more of a leg to stand on.
Well you aren't referring to a truck or even a vehicle. However I agree that your example product is intimately related to the trademarked item just as it is in this case. That's exactly why I'm wondering about precedent. It seems overly broad to me, a layman, but could well be the established status quo.
I would naively expect it to depend on whether the mark could reasonably be confused by a customer with the name in question. To that end fordboard and gitclassic seem problematic since they read like two separate words, one of which is the protected mark. In contrast, something like gitea seems like it ought to be in the clear - no one is ever going to think "git [space] ea huh wonder what ea by git is". (Ford should totally release a vehicle under the name Board that would be hilarious.)
> it is better when there is an overlap in the distinctive sound of the two words.
From the article you linked - this matches my intuition and is largely why I feel like gitea ought to be in the clear. Unfortunately it seems to be about trademarking portmanteaus as opposed to the creation of portmanteaus using one or more trademarks. (More is better - my next terrible idea is gitzurite.)
Hear me out: Whenever people try the "math argument" on a gambler they are basically wrong and are misunderstanding how recreational gamblers actually think, which is not irrational (for the most part) or at least not irrational in the way people think on the surface.
Take the lottery: The classic "math objection" is to explain to the person that the expectation[1] of buying tickets in a lottery is negative so over time they will (on average) lose money.
Most people who gamble know this. The thing is they are not trying to maximise expectation. They are trying to maximise "expected marginal utility"[2]. They know that the dollar they spend on the ticket affects their life far less than the payoff would in the unlikely event they get it. Because the marginal utility of -$1 is basically nothing (it wouldn't change their life much at all to lose a dollar) versus winning say $10mil would completely change the life of most people and therefore the marginal utility of +10mil is much more than 10mil times greater than the marginal utility lost by spending a dollar on the ticket.
It is fundamentally this difference that the gambling companies are arbitraging. And for people who become addicted to gambling it is like any other addiction. The companies are just exploiting people who have a disease and are ruining their lives for profit. There are studies which show that addicted gamblers don't actually get the dopamine hit from winning, they get it from anticipating the win (ie the spin). So actually winning or losing just keeps them wanting to come back for another hit.
[1] Ie the average payoff weighted by probability
[2] Ie the average difference in utility weighted by probability. This could be seen as how much of a difference the payoff would make to their life.
If you find this interesting, I suggest you study group theory - this seems pretty much a direct consequence of the group structure.
reply