""Rather than being heroic geniuses, Darwin and Wallace were in the same ‘cultural milieu’, both reading the same books and both travelling to biologically diverse island environments. While individual abilities vary, collective brains make each brain within it cleverer. The theory helps explain why there have been dramatic increases in IQ test scores over time.
Individuals copy other successful individuals – eating the foods they ate or hunting with the tools they used, for example – to become successful themselves without necessarily understanding why. Dr Muthukrishna added: “The processes of cumulative cultural evolution allow technologies and techniques to emerge, which no single individual could create on their own – because human brains, in isolation, aren’t actually all that smart."
You could probably say the same about most geniuses. Yes, there have been some people who have made stunning breakthroughs - often in large part thanks to their extreme intelligence and/or dedication. But it almost never happens only because of their own efforts. More usually it's because they were standing not on the shoulders of giants but on people of about average height who spent years working on apparently insignificant details.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/12176959/Charles-Darwin-was-no-heroic-genius-say-scientists.html
Monday 29 February 2016
Everyone matters, but not everyone needs help
The first screenshot is doing the rounds on the internet. The second one was seen in a post by John Poteet. It is by far and away the stupidest thing I've seen asked this year. If you don't understand why it is stupid,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1DcD8e55YY
Sunday 28 February 2016
Intelligence can make us biased - fear makes it worse
"Importantly, this tendency does not reflect intelligence; indeed, smarter people may be particularly susceptible to this kind of confirmation bias. “The smarter we are – as measured by how carefully we solve puzzles and how good we are at numbers – the better we are at twisting the facts around to make us feel the way we want to feel,” says Ropeik."
"At its worst, our chemonoia can encourage us to give up otherwise healthy, potentially life-saving behaviours. Consider the fear of ingesting mercury in seafood. At high levels, mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brain, but the small amounts found in most fish are not enough to cause concern. “But because of the excessive fear, many people have given up eating seafood altogether,” says Ropeik. In doing so, they are missing out on key nutrients that would be important for brain growth and repair, and heart function: they are actually hurting their bodies more than if they’d enjoyed a plate of salmon."
Cough cough cough NUCLEAR POWER cough cough cough...
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160225-chemonoia-the-fear-blinding-our-minds-to-real-dangers
"At its worst, our chemonoia can encourage us to give up otherwise healthy, potentially life-saving behaviours. Consider the fear of ingesting mercury in seafood. At high levels, mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the brain, but the small amounts found in most fish are not enough to cause concern. “But because of the excessive fear, many people have given up eating seafood altogether,” says Ropeik. In doing so, they are missing out on key nutrients that would be important for brain growth and repair, and heart function: they are actually hurting their bodies more than if they’d enjoyed a plate of salmon."
Cough cough cough NUCLEAR POWER cough cough cough...
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160225-chemonoia-the-fear-blinding-our-minds-to-real-dangers
Is bad science journalism a fault of the education system ?
"In schools, instead of encouraging active participation by students in exploration and experimentation, science is often taught as a dry collection of facts and rules to be memorised for exams. Moreover, we force students to chose between sciences and humanities far too early. That perpetuates a divide in which most journalists – who are often trained in the humanities – tend to avoid writing about science and editors are more inclined to push science to the margins."
I'm not so sure (except for the bit about exams and rote learning). Early specialisation is almost unique to the UK, yet there is a wealth of awful science journalism from the "let's make everyone well-rounded generalists" US as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/28/science-arts-society
I'm not so sure (except for the bit about exams and rote learning). Early specialisation is almost unique to the UK, yet there is a wealth of awful science journalism from the "let's make everyone well-rounded generalists" US as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/28/science-arts-society
Friday 26 February 2016
Scientists against the EU
Financially speaking, being in the EU is clearly good for British research - even leaving aside the less-quantifiable value of freedom of movement and collaboration which is so essential.
"In 2007-2013, the UK gave a total of 78bn euros to the EU. Of this, 5.4bn was specified to go to the EU's R&D programme. But in return, 8.8bn euros came back to the UK for R&D."
On the other hand...
"Prof Angus Dalgleish, of the University of London, is a spokesman for "Scientists For Britain". This is a group of researchers arguing the case for an EU exit."
This professor is a member of UKIP, who are led by a man who is objectively racist. I therefore don't take his opinion very seriously. Maybe he's a fine researcher, I don't know, but that doesn't stop me developing an instant and profound dislike for his political opinions.
"He is the organisation's only spokesman, he says, because arguing the case for a British exit is unfashionable in research circles, and individuals who do so, especially if they are junior, find themselves "belittled" by their superiors."
Or, maybe it's unfashionable because all of that lovely EU funding that helps British research. Being from Cardiff (which built some of the instruments for the Herschel space telescope) and having a PhD supervisor who has a £2 million European grant for analysing Herschel data, I have a somewhat biased view that the EU is good for science. Even though I have not the slightest interest in anything Herschel does nor did I receive any funding directly from the EU.
"Prof Dalgleish says that arguments in favour of the UK remaining are motivated by the "narrow self-interest" of large scientific institutions and universities that receive millions of pounds of funding from the European Union."
Might it be that he wasn't able to get a European grant himself, perhaps ? Key words, "large scientific institutions". Hence, exiting the EU will harm the majority of researchers.
A more sensible chap says :
"At a time when science is getting more collaborative, more international in scale and more tightly focussed on the big societal challenges we face - the EU is a brilliant mechanism for doing science at that scale and we would be mad to turn our backs on a mechanism for collaboration that we have painstakingly built up over 25 years or more, to return to a pre-collaborative mode in which we are going it on our own."
The EU, like any political institution, is not perfect. Sometimes it can act for political reasons rather than for what's best for science. But there's no way to avoid that, because that will happen in any arrangement, and I have yet to hear of any good examples of the EU stifling research. On the contrary, there are many scientific problems that are simply too big for us to tackle on our own and many facilities we need access to that would be much harder for us if we left the EU.
Small scale research is vital. But while the EU demonstrably enables large-scale projects like CERN and the SKA, I see no evidence that it somehow prevents smaller research projects. Both are needed, and both are enabled by the EU.
Originally shared by Jenny Winder
EU exit 'risks British science'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35668682
"In 2007-2013, the UK gave a total of 78bn euros to the EU. Of this, 5.4bn was specified to go to the EU's R&D programme. But in return, 8.8bn euros came back to the UK for R&D."
On the other hand...
"Prof Angus Dalgleish, of the University of London, is a spokesman for "Scientists For Britain". This is a group of researchers arguing the case for an EU exit."
This professor is a member of UKIP, who are led by a man who is objectively racist. I therefore don't take his opinion very seriously. Maybe he's a fine researcher, I don't know, but that doesn't stop me developing an instant and profound dislike for his political opinions.
"He is the organisation's only spokesman, he says, because arguing the case for a British exit is unfashionable in research circles, and individuals who do so, especially if they are junior, find themselves "belittled" by their superiors."
Or, maybe it's unfashionable because all of that lovely EU funding that helps British research. Being from Cardiff (which built some of the instruments for the Herschel space telescope) and having a PhD supervisor who has a £2 million European grant for analysing Herschel data, I have a somewhat biased view that the EU is good for science. Even though I have not the slightest interest in anything Herschel does nor did I receive any funding directly from the EU.
"Prof Dalgleish says that arguments in favour of the UK remaining are motivated by the "narrow self-interest" of large scientific institutions and universities that receive millions of pounds of funding from the European Union."
Might it be that he wasn't able to get a European grant himself, perhaps ? Key words, "large scientific institutions". Hence, exiting the EU will harm the majority of researchers.
A more sensible chap says :
"At a time when science is getting more collaborative, more international in scale and more tightly focussed on the big societal challenges we face - the EU is a brilliant mechanism for doing science at that scale and we would be mad to turn our backs on a mechanism for collaboration that we have painstakingly built up over 25 years or more, to return to a pre-collaborative mode in which we are going it on our own."
The EU, like any political institution, is not perfect. Sometimes it can act for political reasons rather than for what's best for science. But there's no way to avoid that, because that will happen in any arrangement, and I have yet to hear of any good examples of the EU stifling research. On the contrary, there are many scientific problems that are simply too big for us to tackle on our own and many facilities we need access to that would be much harder for us if we left the EU.
Small scale research is vital. But while the EU demonstrably enables large-scale projects like CERN and the SKA, I see no evidence that it somehow prevents smaller research projects. Both are needed, and both are enabled by the EU.
Originally shared by Jenny Winder
EU exit 'risks British science'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35668682
Thursday 25 February 2016
Basic income would make everything simpler
At least that's what this graph I found on the internet says.
Here I am on the political compass
I'm waaaay down there in the green.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.0&soc=-6.46
Originally shared by Ralph H.
Hmmm, ok, i should not be surprised, should i?
ps: -6/-6 or something like that
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.0&soc=-6.46
Originally shared by Ralph H.
Hmmm, ok, i should not be surprised, should i?
ps: -6/-6 or something like that
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
Wealthism is immoral
Sharing this again since Parliament has decided to debate it. Hooray !
If you missed it the first time, this is about the madcap idea that we should deport skilled workers earning less than £35k if they've been here for more than 5 years. Yes, specifically skilled workers. The average UK salary is around £25k, so this is a very high threshold. For comparison, as a starting postdoc (minimum 7 years of higher education) I would expect around £24-28k, so this is by no means an easy threshold to meet.
The government already responded to the petition, which you can read in the link, stating that the threshold was based on the median pay level for skilled workers. Well, maybe, but I doubt this is the same in the private and public sector. They also state that there are many provisions for people in certain jobs - and there are. But there are also jobs which fall very close to but are not quite the same as these rigidly-defined boundaries. They also claim that they made the rules clear in 2011, but this does not appear to have been the case.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-people-who-will-have-to-leave-the-uk-under-theresa-mays-new-35k-threshold--bJBWsHvcYnx
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118060
If you missed it the first time, this is about the madcap idea that we should deport skilled workers earning less than £35k if they've been here for more than 5 years. Yes, specifically skilled workers. The average UK salary is around £25k, so this is a very high threshold. For comparison, as a starting postdoc (minimum 7 years of higher education) I would expect around £24-28k, so this is by no means an easy threshold to meet.
The government already responded to the petition, which you can read in the link, stating that the threshold was based on the median pay level for skilled workers. Well, maybe, but I doubt this is the same in the private and public sector. They also state that there are many provisions for people in certain jobs - and there are. But there are also jobs which fall very close to but are not quite the same as these rigidly-defined boundaries. They also claim that they made the rules clear in 2011, but this does not appear to have been the case.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-people-who-will-have-to-leave-the-uk-under-theresa-mays-new-35k-threshold--bJBWsHvcYnx
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118060
Tuesday 23 February 2016
The 13 kt explosion that no-one cared about
Originally shared by Vladimir Pecha
The biggest fireball since the Chelyabinsk explosion has plunged through the atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean.
The event, which has only just come to light, occurred off the coast of Brazil at 13:55 GMT on 6 February.
As it burned up, the space rock released the equivalent of 13,000 tonnes of TNT.
This makes it the most powerful event of its kind since an object exploded over Chelyabinsk in Russia in 2013.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35645854
The biggest fireball since the Chelyabinsk explosion has plunged through the atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean.
The event, which has only just come to light, occurred off the coast of Brazil at 13:55 GMT on 6 February.
As it burned up, the space rock released the equivalent of 13,000 tonnes of TNT.
This makes it the most powerful event of its kind since an object exploded over Chelyabinsk in Russia in 2013.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35645854
What has the EU ever done for us ?
EDIT : Although where they get "70 years" from I don't know. The EU was officially created in 1993, although the EEC was born in 1958. That's still not even 60 years.
One might however say that the idea of European union with a lowercase u has been important for 70 years.
Found on the internet.
Monday 22 February 2016
Fair and just rewards
Interesting.
I think I probably strive for the middle position. No-one deserves to be penniless or homeless, but I don't believe in rewarding people unfairly either. If you're just no good at your job, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I just think our society is too unequal, and while I also think it rewards the wrong people, I think right now it's more important to reduce the magnitude of the overall inequality level.
If you must pay actors more than doctors, at least don't pay them that much more. But total equality isn't any fairer than total inequality, in my view - you shouldn't pay an incompetent surgeon as much as a good one. Equality of opportunity is paramount, but precisely because people have different abilities, it shouldn't mean everyone ends up earning the same. Neither should it mean that anyone gets thrown in the gutter.
An Universal Basic Income would partially resolve this paradox. No-one would ever end up destitute but you would still be rewarded for good work. It would still be possible to win, but very much harder to lose. Unfortunately, so "radical" is the idea that everyone is entitled to live with dignity, it's probably impossible to predict what that consequences would be on a large-scale. More testing is urgently needed.
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
This short essay talks about two different movements within the left, "left meritocrats" and "left egalitarians." It seems to quite clearly capture the heart of the difference between Clinton's and Sanders' viewpoints. (It doesn't advocate for either, it simply helps clarify the difference)
The one thing which surprises me about this is that it implies that "left egalitarians" – those who believe that the very existence of social strata is a moral wrong – are roughly as numerous as "left meritocrats" – those who believe that the existence of wealth is fine, but there should be equality of opportunity. I suspect that within the US, meritocrats outnumber egalitarians by a large ratio. (NB that while Sanders himself is undoubtedly a "left egalitarian," by this definition, I suspect that many of his supporters ultimately aren't, but see his egalitarianism as a way towards a meritocratic end)
Honestly, prior to this election season, it had been so long since I heard anyone advocate honest-to-god old-school Socialism – not the stuff you normally see described as "European Socialism," with having generally available medicine and schools and such, but the real thing, starting from a principled opposition to one person having more than another – that it took a while to click that this was even what I was seeing.
(For those wondering who I'm supporting in this coming election, by the way: I'm still wondering that as well. I have profound concerns with every single candidate. All I know for certain is that there are two candidates I will be voting against, namely Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The former is a theocrat, fundamentally opposed to working with people who disagree with him, and has the single most asinine tax plan I've seen in years. The latter is indistinguishable from a Nazi. This post should by no means be taken as a political endorsement.)
http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/21/meritocrats-and-egalitarians/
I think I probably strive for the middle position. No-one deserves to be penniless or homeless, but I don't believe in rewarding people unfairly either. If you're just no good at your job, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I just think our society is too unequal, and while I also think it rewards the wrong people, I think right now it's more important to reduce the magnitude of the overall inequality level.
If you must pay actors more than doctors, at least don't pay them that much more. But total equality isn't any fairer than total inequality, in my view - you shouldn't pay an incompetent surgeon as much as a good one. Equality of opportunity is paramount, but precisely because people have different abilities, it shouldn't mean everyone ends up earning the same. Neither should it mean that anyone gets thrown in the gutter.
An Universal Basic Income would partially resolve this paradox. No-one would ever end up destitute but you would still be rewarded for good work. It would still be possible to win, but very much harder to lose. Unfortunately, so "radical" is the idea that everyone is entitled to live with dignity, it's probably impossible to predict what that consequences would be on a large-scale. More testing is urgently needed.
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
This short essay talks about two different movements within the left, "left meritocrats" and "left egalitarians." It seems to quite clearly capture the heart of the difference between Clinton's and Sanders' viewpoints. (It doesn't advocate for either, it simply helps clarify the difference)
The one thing which surprises me about this is that it implies that "left egalitarians" – those who believe that the very existence of social strata is a moral wrong – are roughly as numerous as "left meritocrats" – those who believe that the existence of wealth is fine, but there should be equality of opportunity. I suspect that within the US, meritocrats outnumber egalitarians by a large ratio. (NB that while Sanders himself is undoubtedly a "left egalitarian," by this definition, I suspect that many of his supporters ultimately aren't, but see his egalitarianism as a way towards a meritocratic end)
Honestly, prior to this election season, it had been so long since I heard anyone advocate honest-to-god old-school Socialism – not the stuff you normally see described as "European Socialism," with having generally available medicine and schools and such, but the real thing, starting from a principled opposition to one person having more than another – that it took a while to click that this was even what I was seeing.
(For those wondering who I'm supporting in this coming election, by the way: I'm still wondering that as well. I have profound concerns with every single candidate. All I know for certain is that there are two candidates I will be voting against, namely Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The former is a theocrat, fundamentally opposed to working with people who disagree with him, and has the single most asinine tax plan I've seen in years. The latter is indistinguishable from a Nazi. This post should by no means be taken as a political endorsement.)
http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/21/meritocrats-and-egalitarians/
Sunday 21 February 2016
Appearances aren't always deceptive
Unfortunately, Michael Gove is a man who looks as stupid as he is.
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
The 'Out' campaigners of the UK EU-exit referendum have chosen Michael Gove as their intellectual poster child. Gove has promptly released a statement of why he is in the 'Out' camp.
Its so full of lies and exaggeration, one wonders what comes next.
(Found in a private share.)
https://medium.com/idea-of-europe/why-michael-gove-is-wrong-on-europe-479b50c5f23b#.vm6fi67tr
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
The 'Out' campaigners of the UK EU-exit referendum have chosen Michael Gove as their intellectual poster child. Gove has promptly released a statement of why he is in the 'Out' camp.
Its so full of lies and exaggeration, one wonders what comes next.
(Found in a private share.)
https://medium.com/idea-of-europe/why-michael-gove-is-wrong-on-europe-479b50c5f23b#.vm6fi67tr
Four kinds of people
There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics…
Cretins don’t even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble…
Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation…Fools don’t claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of conversation, and when they really offend, they’re magnificent…
Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark…Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason…
A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…
― Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
Cretins don’t even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble…
Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation…Fools don’t claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of conversation, and when they really offend, they’re magnificent…
Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark…Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason…
A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…
― Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
Friday 19 February 2016
A war on science or just people being unscientific ?
Hmmm.
[The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, whereas in fact they are simply wholly irrational. It's become somewhat popular to suggest that such people should be taken at their word for some reason - that because they profess to care about science they actually do. I submit that this is entirely wrong, that people driven by ideology to confirm their own pre-existing beliefs are most certainly not interested in a higher standard of reasoning. They are unable to properly assess their own irrationality because, just as Dunning-Kruger means that stupid people can't know they're stupid, irrational people can't know they're irrational. They only claim to want higher standards as a purely rhetorical device. There's absolutely no deeper search for the truth going on whatsoever.]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_GPlus-Share
[The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, whereas in fact they are simply wholly irrational. It's become somewhat popular to suggest that such people should be taken at their word for some reason - that because they profess to care about science they actually do. I submit that this is entirely wrong, that people driven by ideology to confirm their own pre-existing beliefs are most certainly not interested in a higher standard of reasoning. They are unable to properly assess their own irrationality because, just as Dunning-Kruger means that stupid people can't know they're stupid, irrational people can't know they're irrational. They only claim to want higher standards as a purely rhetorical device. There's absolutely no deeper search for the truth going on whatsoever.]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/?wt.mc=SA_GPlus-Share
Thursday 18 February 2016
Trump versus the Pope
Bwaahahahahah !
Quote the Pope :
"I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt," the Pope said.
Quote the talking racist toupee :
"For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian," Mr Trump said. "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith."
Ummm....
"[The pope] said negative things about me. Because the Mexican government convinced him that Trump is not a good guy," he said.
Is talking about oneself in the third person the American equivalent of the royal we ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35607597
Quote the Pope :
"I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and I will give him the benefit of the doubt," the Pope said.
Quote the talking racist toupee :
"For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian," Mr Trump said. "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith."
Ummm....
"[The pope] said negative things about me. Because the Mexican government convinced him that Trump is not a good guy," he said.
Is talking about oneself in the third person the American equivalent of the royal we ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35607597
An insider's view on airport security
“This job,” he said, “has taught me that our presumptions about people are rarely true. We have so many preconceptions, especially about foreigners, but they are nothing more than fear of the unknown. We quite comfortably make sweeping generalisations about entire nations of people. These people we suspect of being evil, most are just students and deadbeat dreamers and artists and teachers and greedy businessmen – the same characters that populate all societies. And then some of them, a tiny portion of them, are actually individuals with intent to harm others. But we foolishly judge them all by the few who are bad.”
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20160210-the-man-who-could-stop-planes
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20160210-the-man-who-could-stop-planes
American versus European values
Covers pretty much everything. Not really particularly surprising, but quantifies widely-held perceptions. Notably :
- Americans are more gung-ho than Europeans
- Americans are roughly split as to whether their culture is superior to others, while this varies considerably in European countries
- Americans have this odd notion that the role of the state should be to do as little as possible, while Europeans see it as a way to ensure a social safety net
- Americans are waaaay more religious than Europeans
- Americans are less tolerant of homosexuality than Europeans, though they're catching up fast
- Pretty much universally, those with a university education are less inclined toward the use of military force, less inclined to believe in their own cultural superiority, more inclined to believe the state's main role should be welfare, and more tolerant of homosexuality.
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
Those colonists and their strange values.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/
- Americans are more gung-ho than Europeans
- Americans are roughly split as to whether their culture is superior to others, while this varies considerably in European countries
- Americans have this odd notion that the role of the state should be to do as little as possible, while Europeans see it as a way to ensure a social safety net
- Americans are waaaay more religious than Europeans
- Americans are less tolerant of homosexuality than Europeans, though they're catching up fast
- Pretty much universally, those with a university education are less inclined toward the use of military force, less inclined to believe in their own cultural superiority, more inclined to believe the state's main role should be welfare, and more tolerant of homosexuality.
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
Those colonists and their strange values.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/
Wednesday 17 February 2016
This is not the sonic boom you're looking for
I've never seen video of this before.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160216-you-think-this-is-a-sonic-boom-its-not
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160216-you-think-this-is-a-sonic-boom-its-not
Atheism is not just a modern idea
Sounds like a good read. But to comment on the OP's comment, why is it I encounter far more evangelical atheists than religious people ? Is there just some super-weirdy selection effect that means they gravitate toward me while the religious nutters generally keep their distance ?
Originally shared by Ruth Mckay
""Believers talk about atheism as if it's a pathology of a particularly odd phase of modern western culture that will pass..." Yes. Yes, they do. It's the one thing I hate about the Internet - home grown evangelists; they're everywhere, patronising folk left, right and centre.
Rant over.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#sthash.9XXtxsd1.hpvt
Originally shared by Ruth Mckay
""Believers talk about atheism as if it's a pathology of a particularly odd phase of modern western culture that will pass..." Yes. Yes, they do. It's the one thing I hate about the Internet - home grown evangelists; they're everywhere, patronising folk left, right and centre.
Rant over.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#sthash.9XXtxsd1.hpvt
Tuesday 16 February 2016
Bad science in action
"The next step is for our anti-hero to write a “systematic review” at the end of the year (or, really, whenever he gets around to it). In it, He Who Shall Not Be Named predictably rejects all of the studies that do not support his position as being “fatally flawed,” or as having been “refuted by experts”—namely, by himself and his close collaborators, typically citing their own contestable critiques—while at the same time he fails to find any flaws whatsoever in studies that make his pet procedure seem on balance beneficial."
He will, however, carefully point to a few rather weak studies that point out flaws in his arguments in order to make himself seem objective.
http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/
He will, however, carefully point to a few rather weak studies that point out flaws in his arguments in order to make himself seem objective.
http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/
Ferengi rule of Acquisition no. 13
Ferengi rule of Acquisition no. 13 : Anything Worth Doing Is Worth Doing For Money
Fascinating article which should be read in its entirety.
"I had never heard of Maggie McNeill before a week or so ago when, in the aftermath of my ridiculously stupid comment about Fox News reporters dressing like hookers, she fired off one of the most surprising Tweets of my life on the information superhighway."
It's not actually stupid, just badly phrased. Fox News attempts to use sex appeal as a weapon because they haven't got the faintest inkling of how to do "fair and balanced" reporting. In this case it is the lowest common denominator. Which in no way whatseover implies that women, be they attractive, ugly, prostitutes or nuns, cannot give insightful commentary (just look at the BBC for crying out loud) - only that Fox attempt to compensate for the lack of proper reporting in the stupidest way possible. Kindof like how Michael Bay attempts to replace proper storytelling with explosions and lens flares.
". Nurses clean shit off of bedridden patients’ bottoms, doctors probe their genitalia, masseuses put their hands all over people’s bodies, day-care workers tend to the care of their children. Yet nobody thinks any of these extremely intimate activities needs to be banned, and nobody pretends that nurses must be coerced into nursing."
Though if people were coerced into nursing I'd suggest that society needs to take a good long look at itself.
"Prostitution is the secret ingredient that makes monogamy possible, which means it isn’t hyperbole to say we make Western civilization possible.
Getting a little bit carried away there, methinks.
"...instead of cherishing that he was only looking and cuddling when he could’ve had sex, she probably would’ve been angry or hurt that he had called me at all. Which is … spectacularly dumb, but typical."
Is it really spectacularly dumb ? Isn't it just that some people have different values than others ?
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
Maggie McNeill is a sex worker, a deep thinker, and an amazing writer. The article below is a great introduction to her: it's an interview she recently gave to Jeff Pearlman about the day-to-day of her work, and most of all about the kinds of people who she encountered. It's a fascinating set of stories, and the story of the clean-up worker after Katrina is going to stick with me for quite some time.
There are important things to learn from her writing.
First, that sex work is work. It can be pleasant or horrible, honest or dishonest, fulfilling or soul-crushing, just like any other work can.
Second, that many kinds of sex work — especially the work of escorts, call girls, and the like — are psychologically very complex. It's a mixture of companionship, therapy, desire, and sexuality. If you were to view this sector of sex work on a spectrum with other jobs, its closest relatives would probably be psychoanalysis and diplomacy.
And third, that people are really interesting. Her work has provided her with a chance to see people in profoundly honest moments, and her writing gives you a chance to peer behind the curtains of people's lives, and often see just how human they are.
The interview is a great start, but once you've gotten that, I highly recommend her site as a whole (https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/), as well as her Twitter feed,@Maggie_Mcneill.
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/maggie-mcneill
Fascinating article which should be read in its entirety.
"I had never heard of Maggie McNeill before a week or so ago when, in the aftermath of my ridiculously stupid comment about Fox News reporters dressing like hookers, she fired off one of the most surprising Tweets of my life on the information superhighway."
It's not actually stupid, just badly phrased. Fox News attempts to use sex appeal as a weapon because they haven't got the faintest inkling of how to do "fair and balanced" reporting. In this case it is the lowest common denominator. Which in no way whatseover implies that women, be they attractive, ugly, prostitutes or nuns, cannot give insightful commentary (just look at the BBC for crying out loud) - only that Fox attempt to compensate for the lack of proper reporting in the stupidest way possible. Kindof like how Michael Bay attempts to replace proper storytelling with explosions and lens flares.
". Nurses clean shit off of bedridden patients’ bottoms, doctors probe their genitalia, masseuses put their hands all over people’s bodies, day-care workers tend to the care of their children. Yet nobody thinks any of these extremely intimate activities needs to be banned, and nobody pretends that nurses must be coerced into nursing."
Though if people were coerced into nursing I'd suggest that society needs to take a good long look at itself.
"Prostitution is the secret ingredient that makes monogamy possible, which means it isn’t hyperbole to say we make Western civilization possible.
Getting a little bit carried away there, methinks.
"...instead of cherishing that he was only looking and cuddling when he could’ve had sex, she probably would’ve been angry or hurt that he had called me at all. Which is … spectacularly dumb, but typical."
Is it really spectacularly dumb ? Isn't it just that some people have different values than others ?
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
Maggie McNeill is a sex worker, a deep thinker, and an amazing writer. The article below is a great introduction to her: it's an interview she recently gave to Jeff Pearlman about the day-to-day of her work, and most of all about the kinds of people who she encountered. It's a fascinating set of stories, and the story of the clean-up worker after Katrina is going to stick with me for quite some time.
There are important things to learn from her writing.
First, that sex work is work. It can be pleasant or horrible, honest or dishonest, fulfilling or soul-crushing, just like any other work can.
Second, that many kinds of sex work — especially the work of escorts, call girls, and the like — are psychologically very complex. It's a mixture of companionship, therapy, desire, and sexuality. If you were to view this sector of sex work on a spectrum with other jobs, its closest relatives would probably be psychoanalysis and diplomacy.
And third, that people are really interesting. Her work has provided her with a chance to see people in profoundly honest moments, and her writing gives you a chance to peer behind the curtains of people's lives, and often see just how human they are.
The interview is a great start, but once you've gotten that, I highly recommend her site as a whole (https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/), as well as her Twitter feed,@Maggie_Mcneill.
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/maggie-mcneill
Sunday 14 February 2016
Stephen Hawking joins the anti-philosophy brigade for some reason
Oh dear, it seems Stephen Hawking doesn't understand philosophy any more than Neil deGrasse Tyson. How is this possible ? Even at the most basic level science relies on philosophy, not least of which is the necessity to question one's own biases and indeed other people's biases. Or what the role of science should be in society, or how we should organise academia to best pursue knowledge and avoid the pitfalls of prestige-based arguments without discounting expertise, or why people insist on believing things that fly in the face of all evidence, or how we ensure that a scientific consensus is established independently and not just from a "follow the herd" mentality. None of these things are trivial.
But there are much higher level questions too : what does it mean to say that proper time is zero at the speed or light ? What does probability mean in an infinite Universe or multiverse ? How can something be a particle and a wave simultaneously ? Can science answer the question, "why" or is it limited only to "how" ?
Science is an intensely philosophical exercise whether you like it or not.
Great article (too complex to summarise).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
But there are much higher level questions too : what does it mean to say that proper time is zero at the speed or light ? What does probability mean in an infinite Universe or multiverse ? How can something be a particle and a wave simultaneously ? Can science answer the question, "why" or is it limited only to "how" ?
Science is an intensely philosophical exercise whether you like it or not.
Great article (too complex to summarise).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy
Language is flexible but not THAT flexible
My mum teaches sociology (among other things) to adults. She has been told she can no longer let spelling and grammar influence grades. Which is basically saying, "write whatever the hell you like."
Now, missing the odd comma or misusing a semicolon is one thing, and English is a living language. Its style and vocabulary have evolved over more than a thousand years and if you go back to Shakespeare's time it verges on the incomprehensible to modern ears. Unfortunately, the errors that students make are not merely misplaced apostrophes or splitting infinitives. I don't have that many examples saved for posterity, but here are two of the lesser and funnier variety :
"The purpose of this essay is to establish whether or not criminals should in fact be incinerated, whether incineration works, and indeed, whether criminals who have previously been incinerated should be re-incinerated upon their re-offence."
""Nowadays people are eating unspoiled and preserved food, pastoralised milk, sterilised medical instruments and well developed antibiotics and vaccines." [Yum! That stethoscope went well with the blessed milk]."
There are many other far worse examples where it's not even clear what the student was trying to mean.
Yes, English changes, but that's not supposed to mean you can get away with linguistic murder. These people are supposed to be going to university and in many cases (horrifyingly) into nursing and social work. If you can't string a sentence together what hope have you for understanding and communicating with those who are most venerable, I mean, vulnerable ? And what's the point in being a teacher if you can't give people poor marks when they get things wrong ?
Now, missing the odd comma or misusing a semicolon is one thing, and English is a living language. Its style and vocabulary have evolved over more than a thousand years and if you go back to Shakespeare's time it verges on the incomprehensible to modern ears. Unfortunately, the errors that students make are not merely misplaced apostrophes or splitting infinitives. I don't have that many examples saved for posterity, but here are two of the lesser and funnier variety :
"The purpose of this essay is to establish whether or not criminals should in fact be incinerated, whether incineration works, and indeed, whether criminals who have previously been incinerated should be re-incinerated upon their re-offence."
""Nowadays people are eating unspoiled and preserved food, pastoralised milk, sterilised medical instruments and well developed antibiotics and vaccines." [Yum! That stethoscope went well with the blessed milk]."
There are many other far worse examples where it's not even clear what the student was trying to mean.
Yes, English changes, but that's not supposed to mean you can get away with linguistic murder. These people are supposed to be going to university and in many cases (horrifyingly) into nursing and social work. If you can't string a sentence together what hope have you for understanding and communicating with those who are most venerable, I mean, vulnerable ? And what's the point in being a teacher if you can't give people poor marks when they get things wrong ?
The values of scientists
Originally shared by Omar Loisel
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/msu-wva020816.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/msu-wva020816.php
Saturday 13 February 2016
Academia isn't that bad
I don't think it's impossible to get another Einstein in today's scientific environment, but it is difficult.
It's a tricky balance to get right. On the one hand, there is definitely too much pressure to publish. This results in relatively minor results being put on the same peer-reviewed pedestal as breakthrough discoveries, and a huge amount of time can be spend quibbling over minutia. The grant-based system of funding is even more dangerous since it reduces the amount of time doing useful science as much as possible. Postdoctoral fellowships (where you can do more or less whatever you want without worrying about funding) are not extinct, but they are far too rare. They should be the norm, not the exception.
On the other hand, science has become more complicated. We have access to a wealth of observational and theoretical data that we just didn't have access to before. So perhaps this rather more incremental approach is inevitable - there are many cases where the data leads naturally to contradictory conclusions. Resolving the paradoxes is not easy.
It's not a simple situation of either "academia is bad" or "academia is awful". It's more complicated than that.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/12/einstein-gravitational-waves-physics
It's a tricky balance to get right. On the one hand, there is definitely too much pressure to publish. This results in relatively minor results being put on the same peer-reviewed pedestal as breakthrough discoveries, and a huge amount of time can be spend quibbling over minutia. The grant-based system of funding is even more dangerous since it reduces the amount of time doing useful science as much as possible. Postdoctoral fellowships (where you can do more or less whatever you want without worrying about funding) are not extinct, but they are far too rare. They should be the norm, not the exception.
On the other hand, science has become more complicated. We have access to a wealth of observational and theoretical data that we just didn't have access to before. So perhaps this rather more incremental approach is inevitable - there are many cases where the data leads naturally to contradictory conclusions. Resolving the paradoxes is not easy.
It's not a simple situation of either "academia is bad" or "academia is awful". It's more complicated than that.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/12/einstein-gravitational-waves-physics
Friday 12 February 2016
The weirdest helicopter
"The Fairey Rotodyne was an odd sight, appearing to blur the boundaries of aviation. Taking off vertically using helicopter rotors with jets at their tips but powered forward by turboprops on the wing, it was to allow quick travel between cities and towns in the UK and around Europe. But the project died through a combination of lack of funding and concerns over noise."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35521040
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35521040
Spin-offs from theoretical physics
Some people will always question why they should care about scientific advances that have no apparent impact on their daily life – and why we spend millions funding them. Sure, it's amazing that we can study black holes thousands of light years away and that Einstein really was as much of a genius as we thought, but that won't change the way most people live or work.
Yet the reality is that purely theoretical studies in physics can sometimes lead to amazing changes in our society. In fact, several key pillars on which our modern society rests, from satellite communication to computers, were made possible by investigations that had no obvious application at the time.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-theoretical-physics.html
Yet the reality is that purely theoretical studies in physics can sometimes lead to amazing changes in our society. In fact, several key pillars on which our modern society rests, from satellite communication to computers, were made possible by investigations that had no obvious application at the time.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-theoretical-physics.html
Trolley problems are not important
Sorry ClearerThinking, but this one is a fail. Train problems (I refuse to call them "trolleys" because that's something you wheel around a supermarket not send down a railway) are just far too black and white for the real world.
The "fat man" example. Come on. How many people are fat enough to stop a frickin' train with their sheer body mass ? None, that's how many. It's a useless example. An elephant might do it, but no-one's strong enough to push an elephant off a bridge anyway. Ridonculous.
The tunnel problem is more interesting. Why not both slow down and swerve into the wall, possibly injuring the driver but not killing anyone ? If there's time to swerve, there's time to brake. There's probably only an incredibly narrow window of time in which you face this driver/pedestrian kill choice, the rest of the time it will be about injuries.
Or, better yet, just program the car to automatically slow down to a safe speed inside tunnels. And for crying out loud make it difficult for pedestrians to walk right outside the entrance to a vehicular tunnel. There comes a point where it's just their own dang fault.
The infinite train problem is patently absurd. Yes, I would stop the train even if everyone else in the entire world was on board except for one unfortunate individual somehow tied to the tracks. So it's going to inconvenience a lot of people ? Well, boo hoo, sucks to be them. It doesn't take that long to stop the train and get the person off the rails. And probably >>99% of train journeys never encounter a single person on the rails anyway, so it makes perfect sense to always stop in this event because it's so rare.
There isn't any way to make anything 100% safe. I agree with the conclusion that waiting for self-driving cars to be perfect is unnecessary because they just have to be better than humans, but this is not a good way to convince people. Rather, I would say that because self-driving cars are likely to be more cautious than human drivers, they're less likely to have to face the awkward choices in the first place.
http://www.clearerthinking.org/#!This-comic-shows-how-selfdriving-cars-may-face-complicated-moral-issues/c1toj/56b9185e0cf2dc1600ea461e
The "fat man" example. Come on. How many people are fat enough to stop a frickin' train with their sheer body mass ? None, that's how many. It's a useless example. An elephant might do it, but no-one's strong enough to push an elephant off a bridge anyway. Ridonculous.
The tunnel problem is more interesting. Why not both slow down and swerve into the wall, possibly injuring the driver but not killing anyone ? If there's time to swerve, there's time to brake. There's probably only an incredibly narrow window of time in which you face this driver/pedestrian kill choice, the rest of the time it will be about injuries.
Or, better yet, just program the car to automatically slow down to a safe speed inside tunnels. And for crying out loud make it difficult for pedestrians to walk right outside the entrance to a vehicular tunnel. There comes a point where it's just their own dang fault.
The infinite train problem is patently absurd. Yes, I would stop the train even if everyone else in the entire world was on board except for one unfortunate individual somehow tied to the tracks. So it's going to inconvenience a lot of people ? Well, boo hoo, sucks to be them. It doesn't take that long to stop the train and get the person off the rails. And probably >>99% of train journeys never encounter a single person on the rails anyway, so it makes perfect sense to always stop in this event because it's so rare.
There isn't any way to make anything 100% safe. I agree with the conclusion that waiting for self-driving cars to be perfect is unnecessary because they just have to be better than humans, but this is not a good way to convince people. Rather, I would say that because self-driving cars are likely to be more cautious than human drivers, they're less likely to have to face the awkward choices in the first place.
http://www.clearerthinking.org/#!This-comic-shows-how-selfdriving-cars-may-face-complicated-moral-issues/c1toj/56b9185e0cf2dc1600ea461e
Bringing back the Quagga
The article is interesting. However, it makes a fatal mistake by referring to "zonkey" at the end. Zonkeys turn out to be absolutely adorable.
https://www.google.com/search?q=zonkey&safe=off&biw=1443&bih=920&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimnbaq9PHKAhXEzRQKHRd7D0UQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=_
Originally shared by Omar Loisel
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-south-africa-revives-extinct-zebra.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=zonkey&safe=off&biw=1443&bih=920&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimnbaq9PHKAhXEzRQKHRd7D0UQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=_
Originally shared by Omar Loisel
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-south-africa-revives-extinct-zebra.html
Thursday 11 February 2016
Britain is in the EU for economics, for other countries it's different
Extremely interesting and fairly detailed article on why Britain has a completely different expectation from the EU than most other member states.
"This is what the EU has meant to Britain over the decades - trade. It is why the prime minister we associate most strongly with Euro-scepticism, Margaret Thatcher, was in fact the prime minister who took the UK deeper into the European embrace than any other British leader.
In 1986, when she signed the treaty that created the Single European Market, she did so because she saw it as a triumph for trade unhindered by government - as Thatcherism on a European scale. Yet within a few months she was also warning that an emerging European superstate, unaccountable and unelected, now posed a threat to the sovereignty of elected national parliaments.
Portugal, Spain and Greece - Europe's “southern tier” - joined the European Economic Community as part of their transition from right-wing or military dictatorships and highly insular and state-controlled economies. For them, joining the “European family of nations” was not just about trade, it was about emerging from the darkness of oppression and dictatorship. They saw it as a way of entrenching democratic practice, freedom of speech, the rule of law, parliamentary government and a free press.
Economic integration was, for them, not the end in itself. It was the means to an end. And the end was not economic but political."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-95a417ab-0982-4512-b550-20d68fd53f87
"This is what the EU has meant to Britain over the decades - trade. It is why the prime minister we associate most strongly with Euro-scepticism, Margaret Thatcher, was in fact the prime minister who took the UK deeper into the European embrace than any other British leader.
In 1986, when she signed the treaty that created the Single European Market, she did so because she saw it as a triumph for trade unhindered by government - as Thatcherism on a European scale. Yet within a few months she was also warning that an emerging European superstate, unaccountable and unelected, now posed a threat to the sovereignty of elected national parliaments.
Portugal, Spain and Greece - Europe's “southern tier” - joined the European Economic Community as part of their transition from right-wing or military dictatorships and highly insular and state-controlled economies. For them, joining the “European family of nations” was not just about trade, it was about emerging from the darkness of oppression and dictatorship. They saw it as a way of entrenching democratic practice, freedom of speech, the rule of law, parliamentary government and a free press.
Economic integration was, for them, not the end in itself. It was the means to an end. And the end was not economic but political."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-95a417ab-0982-4512-b550-20d68fd53f87
Wednesday 10 February 2016
We should know if our MPs have been arrested FFS
"Mr Walker, the Tory MP for Broxbourne, in Hertfordshire, told the Commons that MPs should have the same rights to privacy as any other citizen, and in future their names should not be put in the public domain if they were arrested, unless this was directly connected to their role as an MP."
These are the people running the country. I think we have a right to know if they've been accused of a criminal offence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35540433
These are the people running the country. I think we have a right to know if they've been accused of a criminal offence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35540433
Tuesday 9 February 2016
An origins story
"“Connected” is one of the most generic, but most loaded, buzzwords still in circulation, and for a reason. The notion that information technology is increasingly connecting our lives, for better and worse, is a rudiment of the web 1.0—and the term remains coded with both utopian and dystopian tones. Connectivity promises closeness and efficiency, yet threatens to render us vulnerable and superficial."
It's not brilliant, not awful, but it could be improved an order of magnitude if it was retitled.
https://youtu.be/iWLcWHYmgpg
[Leaving a long gap to avoid spoilers, not that I think it matters that much]
I suggest Star Trek Borg Origins. It's far more fun when you realise the Borg evolved from bored New Age housewives.
The end is, I guess, supposed to be sinister, except that it's not clear why it's sinister. If telepathic technologies are developed, it will just be a thing that happens.
It's not brilliant, not awful, but it could be improved an order of magnitude if it was retitled.
https://youtu.be/iWLcWHYmgpg
[Leaving a long gap to avoid spoilers, not that I think it matters that much]
I suggest Star Trek Borg Origins. It's far more fun when you realise the Borg evolved from bored New Age housewives.
The end is, I guess, supposed to be sinister, except that it's not clear why it's sinister. If telepathic technologies are developed, it will just be a thing that happens.
David Cameron's own mum is against austerity
Speaks for itself, really.
Originally shared by Bernard Kelly
She knows he's an idiot with no clue about the consequences of his policies.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-09/david-camerons-mum-signs-petition-against-conservative-cuts/
Originally shared by Bernard Kelly
She knows he's an idiot with no clue about the consequences of his policies.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-09/david-camerons-mum-signs-petition-against-conservative-cuts/
Eating whales is just silly
Whale meat is not (for the most part) integral to Japanese culture nor is it profitable. By all accounts the taste is nothing special. The reason Japan keeps hunting whales, according to this article, has little to do with traditional Japanese culture or corporate greed, but government bureaucracy. Or as Sir Humphrey would have put it :
"We don't measure success by results but by activity ! The civil service does not make profits or losses. Ergo we measure success by the size of our staff and budget, the size of our whaling fleet and the number of whales we catch. By definition a big department is more successful than a small one. This simple proposition is the basis of our whole system."
Hypothesis : there is no political situation not explored by Yes Minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35397749
"We don't measure success by results but by activity ! The civil service does not make profits or losses. Ergo we measure success by the size of our staff and budget, the size of our whaling fleet and the number of whales we catch. By definition a big department is more successful than a small one. This simple proposition is the basis of our whole system."
Hypothesis : there is no political situation not explored by Yes Minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35397749
Monday 8 February 2016
The Heavy Water War
I finally watched The Imitation Game last night, which is very good within the confines of its somewhat patchy historical accuracy. Mostly I can forgive it apart from its depiction of Alan Turning as a misanthropic genius. I don't know why people still insist on believing that mathematical brilliance corresponds to social maladjustment. Oh well, Benedict Cumberbatch can act the part, and at least the other characters didn't fit that stereotype.
Anyway today I discovered The Heavy Water War on Netflix, which looks to be a great little series from the first episode. It tells the story of the efforts to sabotage Norweigan heavy water production during WWII, which the Nazis wanted for nuclear weapons. Episode one is so well-made I can't believe it's going to put a foot wrong. Solid cast, very high quality production of a fascinating historical episode.
Time for a short break for some Fallout 4 before resuming with episode 2...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_8p2fROkMc
Anyway today I discovered The Heavy Water War on Netflix, which looks to be a great little series from the first episode. It tells the story of the efforts to sabotage Norweigan heavy water production during WWII, which the Nazis wanted for nuclear weapons. Episode one is so well-made I can't believe it's going to put a foot wrong. Solid cast, very high quality production of a fascinating historical episode.
Time for a short break for some Fallout 4 before resuming with episode 2...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_8p2fROkMc
Eagles versus drones : it's getting real
OK, so apparently the eagles-vs-drone thing is actually being taken seriously.
The future is looking very, very strange.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35519470
The future is looking very, very strange.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35519470
Deporting the poor people, because that totally makes sense
Tory wealthism and xenophobia again. I first heard of the notion of deporting people (non-EU citizens) earning less than £35k a few weeks ago but assumed that such a radical idea was just Theresa's extremist mouth not knowing when to shut up, as usual. But no, it's actually happening - in April !
There is a petition organized here :
http://www.stop35k.org/
It currently has 97,000 signatures. At 100,000 it will be considered for a debate in Parliament. The government already responded to the petition, which you can read here :
https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/9825982/signed/yNwh0dRMIJGfWia9tWR
Let us assume for argument's sake that the UK is suffering a population crisis. If so, the last people you want to be deporting at those earning £35k, which is well above the ~£25k national average. These people are skilled workers, who cannot possibly be the "coming over 'ere, stealin' our jobs" type. I suppose it might sort of make a horribly twisted sense to deport people earning the minimum wage, if that was really a problem, if they'd been here for years. Maybe.
OK, I get that not everyone who comes here to work is automatically entitled to permanent residency. But if you're going to kick people out based on their salary, you have to make that abundantly clear from the offset and that has not been the case.
OK, you want to encourage employers to train British workers. I would even say that is commendable, but the method is absurd. You can't suddenly decide to throw people out because they're not earning above an arbitrary threshold. I dunno, give tax breaks to employers who create training programs for locals or something, maybe ? And maybe this rather small group (35,000) of people are doing jobs for which there just aren't qualified locals at present.
The plan to help the economy by throwing out a very small number of highly skilled people, many of whom have been here for years and established lives for themselves, pay their taxes and contribute to the economy, is estimated to cost the taxpayer £200-500 million. I don't get it.
Originally shared by null
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/theresa-may-teachers-charity-workers-nhs-staff-scientists-kick-out-of-britain-stop35k-a6853891.html
There is a petition organized here :
http://www.stop35k.org/
It currently has 97,000 signatures. At 100,000 it will be considered for a debate in Parliament. The government already responded to the petition, which you can read here :
https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/9825982/signed/yNwh0dRMIJGfWia9tWR
Let us assume for argument's sake that the UK is suffering a population crisis. If so, the last people you want to be deporting at those earning £35k, which is well above the ~£25k national average. These people are skilled workers, who cannot possibly be the "coming over 'ere, stealin' our jobs" type. I suppose it might sort of make a horribly twisted sense to deport people earning the minimum wage, if that was really a problem, if they'd been here for years. Maybe.
OK, I get that not everyone who comes here to work is automatically entitled to permanent residency. But if you're going to kick people out based on their salary, you have to make that abundantly clear from the offset and that has not been the case.
OK, you want to encourage employers to train British workers. I would even say that is commendable, but the method is absurd. You can't suddenly decide to throw people out because they're not earning above an arbitrary threshold. I dunno, give tax breaks to employers who create training programs for locals or something, maybe ? And maybe this rather small group (35,000) of people are doing jobs for which there just aren't qualified locals at present.
The plan to help the economy by throwing out a very small number of highly skilled people, many of whom have been here for years and established lives for themselves, pay their taxes and contribute to the economy, is estimated to cost the taxpayer £200-500 million. I don't get it.
Originally shared by null
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/theresa-may-teachers-charity-workers-nhs-staff-scientists-kick-out-of-britain-stop35k-a6853891.html
Saturday 6 February 2016
Britain should lead the EU, not leave it, says Poland
Interesting perspective on Britain in the EU from Poland's former foreign minister, who apparently thinks extremely highly of us for some reason.
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
On Brexit, and geopolitics
"Preventing the continent of Europe from uniting to the exclusion of Britain was a principle of British foreign policy for half a millennium. Wars were fought over it. The world would gasp in disbelief if the British now voluntarily excluded themselves, and this over social benefits for people who do not want them. Having lost an empire, the British have been at a loss for a new role. There is another nascent empire, just across the water, yearning to be led. If only the British would realise it."
http://app.ft.com/cms/s/91ac6432-cbf5-11e5-a8ef-ea66e967dd44.html
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
On Brexit, and geopolitics
"Preventing the continent of Europe from uniting to the exclusion of Britain was a principle of British foreign policy for half a millennium. Wars were fought over it. The world would gasp in disbelief if the British now voluntarily excluded themselves, and this over social benefits for people who do not want them. Having lost an empire, the British have been at a loss for a new role. There is another nascent empire, just across the water, yearning to be led. If only the British would realise it."
http://app.ft.com/cms/s/91ac6432-cbf5-11e5-a8ef-ea66e967dd44.html
Friday 5 February 2016
Playing by different rules
"The opinion of the UN Working Group ignores the facts and the well-recognised protections of the British legal system. He is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy."
I agree. He doesn't have a letter from mummy saying that he can't be arrested today because he's hurt his foot. He hasn't been "involuntarily detained" or "under house arrest" - he went into the embassy to evade arrest. This is not complicated.
"In September 2014, Mr Assange - who has been living in the embassy for more than three years - complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave without being arrested.
Then be arrested and face trial like everyone else, you berk.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942
I agree. He doesn't have a letter from mummy saying that he can't be arrested today because he's hurt his foot. He hasn't been "involuntarily detained" or "under house arrest" - he went into the embassy to evade arrest. This is not complicated.
"In September 2014, Mr Assange - who has been living in the embassy for more than three years - complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave without being arrested.
Then be arrested and face trial like everyone else, you berk.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35499942
Wednesday 3 February 2016
Irony, thy name is internet conspiracy theorist
Originally shared by NewsThump
An Internet conspiracy theorist has insisted people should think for themselves and agree with him without the slightest trace of irony this morning.
http://newsthump.com/2016/02/03/you-should-think-for-yourself-and-agree-with-me-says-conspiracy-theorist-without-slightest-trace-of-irony/
An Internet conspiracy theorist has insisted people should think for themselves and agree with him without the slightest trace of irony this morning.
http://newsthump.com/2016/02/03/you-should-think-for-yourself-and-agree-with-me-says-conspiracy-theorist-without-slightest-trace-of-irony/
Monday 1 February 2016
Sanders and Corbyn
Why in the world has it taken this long to do a comparison for heaven's sake ?
"But Sanders' call for universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage and subsidised higher education are hardly radical by British standards."
The first one is true, the second one is also true but with complications, but these days subsidising higher education does seem to be an idea going against the grain, if not actually radical.
"Sanders has expressed doubt over the need for America to have thousands of new nuclear warheads but, unlike Corbyn, he is no unilateralist. That really would be political suicide for a would-be American president and commander-in-chief."
I'm not sure it's doing Corbyn any favours either. It wins him support from a minority who agree with him but that's about it.
"The Clinton/Blair era of safe, "centre ground" politics appears to be over on both sides of the Atlantic."
Well across the pond it seems to have been over for decades, but as for Britain I'm not so sure. I think we've seen some very clever shifting of the goalposts on both sides, or, more subtly, some clever shifting of where the goalposts are perceived to be. "This idea isn't radical, that one is !" In the rush for the centre by the two largest parties, the true centrists - the Lib Dems - got squashed. Now it's a war to tell people what the centre ground really is and how - coincidentally - whoever's telling where it is happens to be standing right on it. Hence the Tories can claim, absurdly, to say that they're "the party of Labour" while Labour can claim that throwing away a major defence policy of the last few decades is a perfectly sensible thing to do that will make the world a better place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35293178
"But Sanders' call for universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage and subsidised higher education are hardly radical by British standards."
The first one is true, the second one is also true but with complications, but these days subsidising higher education does seem to be an idea going against the grain, if not actually radical.
"Sanders has expressed doubt over the need for America to have thousands of new nuclear warheads but, unlike Corbyn, he is no unilateralist. That really would be political suicide for a would-be American president and commander-in-chief."
I'm not sure it's doing Corbyn any favours either. It wins him support from a minority who agree with him but that's about it.
"The Clinton/Blair era of safe, "centre ground" politics appears to be over on both sides of the Atlantic."
Well across the pond it seems to have been over for decades, but as for Britain I'm not so sure. I think we've seen some very clever shifting of the goalposts on both sides, or, more subtly, some clever shifting of where the goalposts are perceived to be. "This idea isn't radical, that one is !" In the rush for the centre by the two largest parties, the true centrists - the Lib Dems - got squashed. Now it's a war to tell people what the centre ground really is and how - coincidentally - whoever's telling where it is happens to be standing right on it. Hence the Tories can claim, absurdly, to say that they're "the party of Labour" while Labour can claim that throwing away a major defence policy of the last few decades is a perfectly sensible thing to do that will make the world a better place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35293178
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)