(Q - MacDo: there was a group of heads or one or two or three, I don't know, entities, we'll say. Beyond the people, we don't care, that's
That's not the point here, do these profiles ultimately share common characteristics in the way they approach hunting? Have you observed any common characteristics??)
MB: No, I can’t say that. I was asked earlier at the start of the vocal when it was limited, it was not the same question. But I was asked at the beginning of the vocal, when it was limited, how many are close, more or less close, etc. And I responded with another question by saying, with two questions, by saying firstly, do you realize the consequences that a response from me could have? I was told, well yes. And I said, do you measure the consequences based on whether there are 5, 10, 100 or 1000? And would you know how to answer that?
(Q - McDonald's: That's a question for me, sorry?)
MB: Yes, absolutely. Indirectly, you ask me if I have captured a certain owl profile. indirectly, it revolves around knowing who and how many are in the right place. So. We will say that overall, it is always the same problem that is raised.
(Q - MacDo: Yes, I can answer your question, but in fact, I probably asked it wrong. In fact, for me, it was more... It wasn't necessarily..., so in fact, they perhaps share a common area…, no, it was more in a way of reasoning, in a way But so on your first question, it seems impossible to me, I would say that the spirit of the times. is in Dabo, so if they are going to tell me that there are 5000 people who are well advanced, maybe that would lead me to say to myself, well, there you go. But beyond that, I don't think so. too much.)
MB: The spirit of the times, statistically, is not just in Dabo, but well, well. On the profile, then I would be tempted to say, that's funny because I deduce it from the solutions that I have read, I would say that the more, we are dealing with math people and the less, we have probabilities for that they find. [ah shit…] Why are you a math person?
(Q - Nazca: That's not cool.)
MB: Ah, I'm sorry because I'm guessing. I never know who I'm reaching. No, but when I say math people, well, it's interesting, we can push the thinking a bit, it's interesting. When I say math, I really mean math. That doesn't mean logical, it doesn't mean rigorous, it's mathematical, mathematical. He's the mathematician who wants to put everything into equations. This one, in my opinion, is not in the same universe as Max was…
It's far from the way it was all thought of. This is how I talk about math. Afterwards, in rigorous minds, and particularly, and don't think that this is voluntary on my part, it is truly objective, particularly in feminine minds, I find an almost logic, so indeed that one could qualify as mathematical, but a truly rigorous logic which bears fruit in reasoning.
(Q - Palerant: Do you include geometers in maths?)
MB: That's it, here I am cornered, I'm going to have to shoot someone specific this time. No, I am not necessarily including surveyors, but there can be interesting notions in the way a surveyor works, it should not be excluded. What I tend to emphasize is the moment when a training, a state of mind of someone who I generally describe as a math person, it is the moment when this mind will systematically put into place reasoning of this kind, mathematical reasoning, and practically exclude any rigorously personal interpretation, any personal finding, because everything is measured, everything is quantified, everything is calculated, everything is applied on the ground. This is going too far. This is going too far, that's for sure. I wasn't too hurtful to the surveyor, is he still there where he had apnea?
(Q - Palerant: No, I'm still here, very well answered, thank you.)
MB: You’re welcome.
MB: No, I can’t say that. I was asked earlier at the start of the vocal when it was limited, it was not the same question. But I was asked at the beginning of the vocal, when it was limited, how many are close, more or less close, etc. And I responded with another question by saying, with two questions, by saying firstly, do you realize the consequences that a response from me could have? I was told, well yes. And I said, do you measure the consequences based on whether there are 5, 10, 100 or 1000? And would you know how to answer that?
(Q - McDonald's: That's a question for me, sorry?)
MB: Yes, absolutely. Indirectly, you ask me if I have captured a certain owl profile. indirectly, it revolves around knowing who and how many are in the right place. So. We will say that overall, it is always the same problem that is raised.
(Q - MacDo: Yes, I can answer your question, but in fact, I probably asked it wrong. In fact, for me, it was more... It wasn't necessarily..., so in fact, they perhaps share a common area…, no, it was more in a way of reasoning, in a way But so on your first question, it seems impossible to me, I would say that the spirit of the times. is in Dabo, so if they are going to tell me that there are 5000 people who are well advanced, maybe that would lead me to say to myself, well, there you go. But beyond that, I don't think so. too much.)
MB: The spirit of the times, statistically, is not just in Dabo, but well, well. On the profile, then I would be tempted to say, that's funny because I deduce it from the solutions that I have read, I would say that the more, we are dealing with math people and the less, we have probabilities for that they find. [ah shit…] Why are you a math person?
(Q - Nazca: That's not cool.)
MB: Ah, I'm sorry because I'm guessing. I never know who I'm reaching. No, but when I say math people, well, it's interesting, we can push the thinking a bit, it's interesting. When I say math, I really mean math. That doesn't mean logical, it doesn't mean rigorous, it's mathematical, mathematical. He's the mathematician who wants to put everything into equations. This one, in my opinion, is not in the same universe as Max was…
It's far from the way it was all thought of. This is how I talk about math. Afterwards, in rigorous minds, and particularly, and don't think that this is voluntary on my part, it is truly objective, particularly in feminine minds, I find an almost logic, so indeed that one could qualify as mathematical, but a truly rigorous logic which bears fruit in reasoning.
(Q - Palerant: Do you include geometers in maths?)
MB: That's it, here I am cornered, I'm going to have to shoot someone specific this time. No, I am not necessarily including surveyors, but there can be interesting notions in the way a surveyor works, it should not be excluded. What I tend to emphasize is the moment when a training, a state of mind of someone who I generally describe as a math person, it is the moment when this mind will systematically put into place reasoning of this kind, mathematical reasoning, and practically exclude any rigorously personal interpretation, any personal finding, because everything is measured, everything is quantified, everything is calculated, everything is applied on the ground. This is going too far. This is going too far, that's for sure. I wasn't too hurtful to the surveyor, is he still there where he had apnea?
(Q - Palerant: No, I'm still here, very well answered, thank you.)
MB: You’re welcome.