Fully autonomous vehicles are not legal under current regulations, and California is considering barring self-drive cars that do not have:
- steering wheels
-pedals
-a licensed driver who can take over in an emergency
As with all cases of discrimination, simply set the same test for everyone and there's no problem. All you should have to do is demonstrate that the car is not riskier than a human driver and then you're done.
[Yes, that's definitely easy to do. For sure.]
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36139986
Tuesday, 26 April 2016
Advanced Obfuscation
Every time I read this particular paper I find something else wrong with it. Doesn't matter which paper (maybe in a future post) except that it's a simulation of a famous hydrogen tail from a spiral galaxy. I'm keeping a detailed file on this one. The main points thus far :
- Their figures comparing the simulations and observations are set to the same horizontal but different vertical scales, making it look as though the simulations are in far better agreement with the observations than they actually are.
- The spiral galaxy is already known to be unusually gas rich, but their model would make it even richer - exceptionally so. They simply avoid any remarks on this.
- The gas in the spiral would have been significantly more extended than in reality and with a profile that doesn't match the observations. That might not be so bad except that the real galaxy's gas distribution is quite normal. Again they simply avoid noting this.
- The mass of their simulated spiral is about a factor 2 lower than the real one. They cunningly conceal this by stating only the mass (which is derived from the observations) rather than the circular velocity (which is what's actually observed) and seemingly ignore the fact that circular velocity must be corrected for inclination.
- A major structure in the spiral galaxy is not reproduced at all.
- They identify one real object which could be the cause of the interaction, state that there are others but don't state which ones.
- Very little is said quantitatively about the structure of the tail (which would not have been that difficult to do) so we only have their figures to compare with observations.
This isn't even the most determined effort to hide results that I've seen, but it's a serious contender for "using the widest variety of different ways to massage data". They aren't even small problems of detail either - potentially the main result is simply wrong. It's got 39 citations.
[Later I tested their results through a large series of numerical simulations. Their main conclusion is likely correct, in that the mechanism they present can explain certain observations in general. Whether it can explain the specific observations they discussed, though, is in my opinion very much less clear.]
Monday, 25 April 2016
The opposite of Dunning-Kruger is imposter syndrome
Nothing revolutionary here, but a nice little article all the same.
Yet if it's terrifying to feel like the only fraud in your field or organisation, it's equally terrifying to confront the truth that everyone is winging it. That's another reason why it can be hard to accept that the impostor phenomenon is universal : we desperately want to believe that there are grown-ups in control - especially in fields such as government, medicine or law.
Indeed, it has been argued that this is one reason people believe in otherwise ridiculous conspiracy theories. In some sense, it's actually more reassuring to believe that a sinister cabal is manipulating the course of history than that they aren't: that way, at least someone would be indisputably in charge.
Ultimately, you should probably worry more if someone tells you they've never felt like a fraud. These ultra-confident people may simply be too incompetent to realise how incompetent they are. This cognitive bias is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the classic example concerns a bank robber who was astonished to be caught despite having smeared lemon juice on his face, which he believed made him invisible to security cameras. It was an idiotic belief, of course - but he was too much of an idiot to see it. The truly incompetent, in short, rarely worry about being truly incompetent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36082469
Yet if it's terrifying to feel like the only fraud in your field or organisation, it's equally terrifying to confront the truth that everyone is winging it. That's another reason why it can be hard to accept that the impostor phenomenon is universal : we desperately want to believe that there are grown-ups in control - especially in fields such as government, medicine or law.
Indeed, it has been argued that this is one reason people believe in otherwise ridiculous conspiracy theories. In some sense, it's actually more reassuring to believe that a sinister cabal is manipulating the course of history than that they aren't: that way, at least someone would be indisputably in charge.
Ultimately, you should probably worry more if someone tells you they've never felt like a fraud. These ultra-confident people may simply be too incompetent to realise how incompetent they are. This cognitive bias is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the classic example concerns a bank robber who was astonished to be caught despite having smeared lemon juice on his face, which he believed made him invisible to security cameras. It was an idiotic belief, of course - but he was too much of an idiot to see it. The truly incompetent, in short, rarely worry about being truly incompetent.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36082469
Thursday, 21 April 2016
Testing how the EM drive works, if it does at all (hint : it doesn't)
This paper claims to explain how the notoriously click-baity EmDrive could actually be working. If you've been living under a stone on Mars, the EmDrive is a magical copper tube that proponents claim will be able to get you back home to Earth in double-quick time without using any propellant. Everyone else says that's just silly because it means violating the conservation of momentum, which is tantamount to saying that a wizard did it.
There are two very positive aspects to this paper :
1) It wouldn't violate the conservation of momentum after all, thus saving the Universe from magical leprechauns and wicked pixies.
2) It makes a very clear and testable prediction that the thrust the device is supposedly producing could be reversed if the tube was made shorter.
I remain extremely skeptical in many senses of the word (http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/09/skepticism.html) because there are also some very negative aspects of the paper, not least of which is that the idea behind it can also explain galaxy rotation without dark matter and the acceleration of the Universe without dark energy. That rather smacks of being too good to be true, and anyway it's not just galaxy rotation curves which suggest the need for dark matter.
Then there's the fact that it references few peer-reviewed journal articles (this article is itself not peer reviewed) and the acknowledgements section consists of : "Many thanks for Dr Jose Rodal and others on an NSF forum for estimating from photographs the proportions of the various experimental arrangements."
Yeah, really ? Some dudes on the internet looked at a photograph for you ?
None of which means the idea isn't true - I haven't gone through it properly. But "too good to be true" ideas with dodgy references have an awfully strong track record of being... well, too good to be true.
[The EM drive has been completely discredited by repeated tests that measured a small thrust even when turned off, indicating that this is a good old-fashioned low-significance measurement error.]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
There are two very positive aspects to this paper :
1) It wouldn't violate the conservation of momentum after all, thus saving the Universe from magical leprechauns and wicked pixies.
2) It makes a very clear and testable prediction that the thrust the device is supposedly producing could be reversed if the tube was made shorter.
I remain extremely skeptical in many senses of the word (http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/09/skepticism.html) because there are also some very negative aspects of the paper, not least of which is that the idea behind it can also explain galaxy rotation without dark matter and the acceleration of the Universe without dark energy. That rather smacks of being too good to be true, and anyway it's not just galaxy rotation curves which suggest the need for dark matter.
Then there's the fact that it references few peer-reviewed journal articles (this article is itself not peer reviewed) and the acknowledgements section consists of : "Many thanks for Dr Jose Rodal and others on an NSF forum for estimating from photographs the proportions of the various experimental arrangements."
Yeah, really ? Some dudes on the internet looked at a photograph for you ?
None of which means the idea isn't true - I haven't gone through it properly. But "too good to be true" ideas with dodgy references have an awfully strong track record of being... well, too good to be true.
[The EM drive has been completely discredited by repeated tests that measured a small thrust even when turned off, indicating that this is a good old-fashioned low-significance measurement error.]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
High altitude Victorians
Or, flying before Ryan Air and security checks came and ruined the whole thing.
“The illuminated dials of Westminster clock were like two dull moons,” he wrote, while Commercial Road “appeared like a line of brilliant fire”. The closest comparison, he thought, was the Milky Way on a clear dark night. “The field of view appeared covered with gold-dust, to be possessed of the power to see those minute spots of light as brilliant stars.”
“A flood of strong sunlight burst upon us with a beautiful blue sky without a cloud, and beneath us lay a magnificent sea of clouds, its surface varied with endless hills, hillocks, and mountain chains, and with many snow-white tufts rising from it.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160419-the-victorians-who-flew-as-high-as-jets
“The illuminated dials of Westminster clock were like two dull moons,” he wrote, while Commercial Road “appeared like a line of brilliant fire”. The closest comparison, he thought, was the Milky Way on a clear dark night. “The field of view appeared covered with gold-dust, to be possessed of the power to see those minute spots of light as brilliant stars.”
“A flood of strong sunlight burst upon us with a beautiful blue sky without a cloud, and beneath us lay a magnificent sea of clouds, its surface varied with endless hills, hillocks, and mountain chains, and with many snow-white tufts rising from it.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160419-the-victorians-who-flew-as-high-as-jets
Tuesday, 19 April 2016
Scientists will not be gagged by the government
A welcome moment of sanity. No gagging threat for government-funded British scientists, hurrah ! There was quite a surge in the recent poll of ~10,000 signatures in the last two days, so maybe there's hope for democracy yet.
Though I won't be satisfied until the Boaty McBoatface sets sail.
The government has bowed to intense behind-the-scenes pressure from the science community and will exempt some researchers from a controversial "anti-lobbying clause". Universities and royal colleges have been raising questions since the clause, which aims to stop organisations – primarily charities – using taxpayer-funded grants to lobby the government or parliament, was announced in February. Charities have told BuzzFeed News it is an ideological attack on a problem that "doesn't exist" and will actually cost the government money in the long run.
Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, has written to the Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock to say universities will be affected and has told BuzzFeed News the clause is an "extreme restriction on academic freedom will be bad for policy-making, bad for the public interest and bad for democracy".
In a statement he said: "I am very glad that the Government has today announced its intention to create this exemption for university researchers. I do not believe that the Government meant for the 'anti-lobbying' clause to apply to grants for researchers in universities and research institutes, and I am glad that the Cabinet Office has today indicated that it will do the right thing.
"I hope that the exemption will apply not just to grants from the higher education funding councils and research councils, but also to grants from Government Departments for research. Without the exemption, the clause would forbid researchers from using Government grants to attempt to influence policy-making. Such a restriction would be bad for policy-making, bad for the public interest and bad for democracy."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/government-exempts-some-scientific-researchers-from-gagging?utm_term=.hi9Bwq8Ap#.gu6vEPJ7x
Though I won't be satisfied until the Boaty McBoatface sets sail.
The government has bowed to intense behind-the-scenes pressure from the science community and will exempt some researchers from a controversial "anti-lobbying clause". Universities and royal colleges have been raising questions since the clause, which aims to stop organisations – primarily charities – using taxpayer-funded grants to lobby the government or parliament, was announced in February. Charities have told BuzzFeed News it is an ideological attack on a problem that "doesn't exist" and will actually cost the government money in the long run.
Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, has written to the Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock to say universities will be affected and has told BuzzFeed News the clause is an "extreme restriction on academic freedom will be bad for policy-making, bad for the public interest and bad for democracy".
In a statement he said: "I am very glad that the Government has today announced its intention to create this exemption for university researchers. I do not believe that the Government meant for the 'anti-lobbying' clause to apply to grants for researchers in universities and research institutes, and I am glad that the Cabinet Office has today indicated that it will do the right thing.
"I hope that the exemption will apply not just to grants from the higher education funding councils and research councils, but also to grants from Government Departments for research. Without the exemption, the clause would forbid researchers from using Government grants to attempt to influence policy-making. Such a restriction would be bad for policy-making, bad for the public interest and bad for democracy."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/government-exempts-some-scientific-researchers-from-gagging?utm_term=.hi9Bwq8Ap#.gu6vEPJ7x
People prefer talking to machines because machines don't judge
Fascinating article which falls firmly into, "well that's obvious, hang on why didn't I realise this before ?" category. With profound consequences for everyone.
People are more open with automated tools because they believe computers don’t judge and that they’re more ethical, studies show. “People who talk to a virtual agent know their data is anonymous and safe and that no one is going to judge them.”
Intensions Consulting found that 26% of Canadian adults believed an unbiased computer program would be more trustworthy and ethical than their workplace leaders and mangers. The study also found that 26% of Canadians would rather be screened, hired and have their job performance assessed by an unbiased computer program.
Nick Badminton, a futurist and a co-author of the study, said in a release that “people are losing faith in human management, and rightly so. Who would you trust, a human with personal biases and opinions or a rational and balanced (artificial intelligence)?”
It’s important to keep in mind that robots are still machines and they can be manipulated by the end user. Georgia Tech Research Institute in Atlanta, Georgia ran a study where he simulated a fire in a building and asked people to follow a robot to safety. The robot, though, took them into wrong rooms, to a back door instead of the correct door, and (by design) it broke down in the middle of the emergency exit. Yet, through all of that, people still followed the robot around the building hoping it would lead them outside. This study proved to Wagner that people have an “automation bias”, or a tendency to believe an automated system even when they shouldn’t.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160412-truth-be-told-were-more-honest-with-robots
People are more open with automated tools because they believe computers don’t judge and that they’re more ethical, studies show. “People who talk to a virtual agent know their data is anonymous and safe and that no one is going to judge them.”
Intensions Consulting found that 26% of Canadian adults believed an unbiased computer program would be more trustworthy and ethical than their workplace leaders and mangers. The study also found that 26% of Canadians would rather be screened, hired and have their job performance assessed by an unbiased computer program.
Nick Badminton, a futurist and a co-author of the study, said in a release that “people are losing faith in human management, and rightly so. Who would you trust, a human with personal biases and opinions or a rational and balanced (artificial intelligence)?”
It’s important to keep in mind that robots are still machines and they can be manipulated by the end user. Georgia Tech Research Institute in Atlanta, Georgia ran a study where he simulated a fire in a building and asked people to follow a robot to safety. The robot, though, took them into wrong rooms, to a back door instead of the correct door, and (by design) it broke down in the middle of the emergency exit. Yet, through all of that, people still followed the robot around the building hoping it would lead them outside. This study proved to Wagner that people have an “automation bias”, or a tendency to believe an automated system even when they shouldn’t.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160412-truth-be-told-were-more-honest-with-robots
Monday, 18 April 2016
The case for Boaty McBoatface
I'm sort of tempted to start an e-petition to compel them to actually use the name. Yes, the government couldn't directly force them to choose the name, but I'll bet the science minister has some influential clout.
Why I think they should actually use the name instead of dismissing it as the internet having a laugh :
- By having the audacity to use such a silly name for such a serious project, it will project supreme self confidence to the world.
- It will instantly appeal to a huge number of young taxpayers who would otherwise not have cared.
- It's a conversation starter. The name buys you a massive outreach opportunity that a polar explorer or a naturalist just doesn't.
- It will instantly and forever shatter the image of the elitist, out of touch, boring scientist. I can't emphasise enough how important that is. Also this : http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/16/ask-ethan-why-dont-you-look-like-a-scientist/#61aedb12272c
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36064659
Why I think they should actually use the name instead of dismissing it as the internet having a laugh :
- By having the audacity to use such a silly name for such a serious project, it will project supreme self confidence to the world.
- It will instantly appeal to a huge number of young taxpayers who would otherwise not have cared.
- It's a conversation starter. The name buys you a massive outreach opportunity that a polar explorer or a naturalist just doesn't.
- It will instantly and forever shatter the image of the elitist, out of touch, boring scientist. I can't emphasise enough how important that is. Also this : http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/16/ask-ethan-why-dont-you-look-like-a-scientist/#61aedb12272c
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36064659
Sunday, 17 April 2016
Stop the government from preventing science lobbyists
Sign it for God's sake, unless you want the government to be allowed a free hand to ignore evidence as it sees fit.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122957
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122957
The government is trying to restrict academic freedom
The aim of the Cabinet Office edict was to stop NGOs from lobbying politicians and Whitehall departments using the government’s own funds. The effect, say senior scientists, campaigners and research groups, will be to muzzle scientists from speaking out on important issues. The government move is a straightforward assault on academic freedom, they argue.
These critics highlight examples such as those of sociologists whose government-funded research shows new housing regulations are proving particularly damaging to the homeless; ecologists who discover new planning laws are harming wildlife; or climate scientists whose findings undermine government energy policy. All would be prevented from speaking out under the new grant scheme as it stands.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/17/britains-scientists-must-not-be-gagged?CMP=share_btn_tw
These critics highlight examples such as those of sociologists whose government-funded research shows new housing regulations are proving particularly damaging to the homeless; ecologists who discover new planning laws are harming wildlife; or climate scientists whose findings undermine government energy policy. All would be prevented from speaking out under the new grant scheme as it stands.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/17/britains-scientists-must-not-be-gagged?CMP=share_btn_tw
Saturday, 16 April 2016
Friday, 15 April 2016
Statistical truth ? You can't handle the statistical truth !
This article is so good it makes me want to read the Financial Times, and that's saying something. You should read the whole thing, but here's an extract.
The British election campaign of spring last year, by contrast, was characterised by a relentless statistical crossfire. Ed Balls declared that a couple with children had lost £1,800 thanks to the government’s increase in value added tax. David Cameron countered that 94 per cent of working households were better off thanks to recent tax changes, while Nick Clegg was proud to say that 27 million people were £825 better off in terms of the income tax they paid.
Could any of this be true? Yes — all three claims were. But Ed Balls had reached his figure by summing up extra VAT payments over several years... If you offer to hire someone for £100,000, and then later admit you meant £25,000 a year for a four-year contract, you haven’t really lied — but neither have you really told the truth. Clegg boasted about income-tax cuts but ignored the larger rise in VAT. And Cameron asked to be evaluated only on his pre-election giveaway budget rather than the tax rises he had introduced earlier in the parliament — the equivalent of punching someone on the nose, then giving them a bunch of flowers and pointing out that, in floral terms, they were ahead on the deal.
Another source of confusion: if wages for the low-paid and the high-paid are rising but wages in the middle are sagging, then the median wage can fall, even though the median wage increase is healthy. The UK labour market has long been prone to this kind of “job polarisation”, where demand for jobs is strongest for the highest and lowest-paid in the economy. Job polarisation means that the median pay rise can be sizeable even if median pay has not risen.
Confused? Good. The world is a complicated place; it defies description by sound bite statistics. No single number could ever answer Ronald Reagan’s question — “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” — for everyone in a country.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2e43b3e8-01c7-11e6-ac98-3c15a1aa2e62.html?siteedition=uk
The British election campaign of spring last year, by contrast, was characterised by a relentless statistical crossfire. Ed Balls declared that a couple with children had lost £1,800 thanks to the government’s increase in value added tax. David Cameron countered that 94 per cent of working households were better off thanks to recent tax changes, while Nick Clegg was proud to say that 27 million people were £825 better off in terms of the income tax they paid.
Could any of this be true? Yes — all three claims were. But Ed Balls had reached his figure by summing up extra VAT payments over several years... If you offer to hire someone for £100,000, and then later admit you meant £25,000 a year for a four-year contract, you haven’t really lied — but neither have you really told the truth. Clegg boasted about income-tax cuts but ignored the larger rise in VAT. And Cameron asked to be evaluated only on his pre-election giveaway budget rather than the tax rises he had introduced earlier in the parliament — the equivalent of punching someone on the nose, then giving them a bunch of flowers and pointing out that, in floral terms, they were ahead on the deal.
Another source of confusion: if wages for the low-paid and the high-paid are rising but wages in the middle are sagging, then the median wage can fall, even though the median wage increase is healthy. The UK labour market has long been prone to this kind of “job polarisation”, where demand for jobs is strongest for the highest and lowest-paid in the economy. Job polarisation means that the median pay rise can be sizeable even if median pay has not risen.
Confused? Good. The world is a complicated place; it defies description by sound bite statistics. No single number could ever answer Ronald Reagan’s question — “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” — for everyone in a country.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2e43b3e8-01c7-11e6-ac98-3c15a1aa2e62.html?siteedition=uk
Oh dear God no. How many films about 9ft smurfs does anyone reallyneed ?
Oh dear God no. How many films about 9ft smurfs does anyone really need ?
The Avatar franchise will carry on for at least four more films, after James Cameron announced a fifth installment would be released in 2023. The Oscar-winning director had already committed to three sequels but revealed he had too much material to tell the story in only three films.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36052818
The Avatar franchise will carry on for at least four more films, after James Cameron announced a fifth installment would be released in 2023. The Oscar-winning director had already committed to three sequels but revealed he had too much material to tell the story in only three films.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36052818
It matters what you wear and this makes me cross
Disappointingly, it appears that people really do like douchebags. The wealth = goodness fallacy is very deeply ingrained.
A recent survey from global staffing service OfficeTeam found that 80% of executives take clothing choices into account when considering an employee for a promotion, while a similar studyat Korea’s Yonsei University found that interviewees with clearly branded luxury clothing were more likely than their competitors in cheaper clothing to not only win the job, but also receive a higher salary.
The study concluded that the job candidates instantly increased their status in the eyes of others by actively signalling that they could afford the luxury brands and were, thus, seen as higher up in the hierarchy of capitalism.
Perhaps job interviews should require everyone to wear work overalls.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160406-there-are-surprising-benefits-of-living-above-your-means
A recent survey from global staffing service OfficeTeam found that 80% of executives take clothing choices into account when considering an employee for a promotion, while a similar studyat Korea’s Yonsei University found that interviewees with clearly branded luxury clothing were more likely than their competitors in cheaper clothing to not only win the job, but also receive a higher salary.
The study concluded that the job candidates instantly increased their status in the eyes of others by actively signalling that they could afford the luxury brands and were, thus, seen as higher up in the hierarchy of capitalism.
Perhaps job interviews should require everyone to wear work overalls.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160406-there-are-surprising-benefits-of-living-above-your-means
Thursday, 14 April 2016
This is supposed to be an urban legend, not something that actuallyhappens in real life.
This is supposed to be an urban legend, not something that actually happens in real life.
Originally shared by Hannu Varjoranta
"Last night I accidentally ran, on all servers, a #Bash script with a rm -rf {foo}/{bar} with foo and bar empty" - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/man-accidentally-deletes-his-entire-company-with-one-line-of-bad-code-a6984256.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/man-accidentally-deletes-his-entire-company-with-one-line-of-bad-code-a6984256.html
Originally shared by Hannu Varjoranta
"Last night I accidentally ran, on all servers, a #Bash script with a rm -rf {foo}/{bar} with foo and bar empty" - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/man-accidentally-deletes-his-entire-company-with-one-line-of-bad-code-a6984256.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/man-accidentally-deletes-his-entire-company-with-one-line-of-bad-code-a6984256.html
Wednesday, 13 April 2016
Busting the myths against nuclear power
The word Chernobyl became synonymous with death on a massive scale. But perception and reality do not always neatly align; in the wake of the disaster, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and others undertook a co-ordinated effort to follow up on health effects. In 2006, after two decades of monitoring they outlined the health effects; of the firefighters exposed to the huge core doses and incredibly toxic smoke, 28 died from acute radiation sickness. A further 15 perished from thyroid cancer. Despite aggressive monitoring for three decades, there has been no significant increase in solid tumours or delayed health effects, even in the hundreds of thousands of minimally protected cleanup workers who helped purge the site after the accident. In the words of the 2008 UNSCEAR report: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure."
It added: “The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
Despite the preponderance of breathless headlines since the reality is that five years later, radiobiological consequences of Fukushima are practically negligible - no one has died from the event, and is it extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will do so in future. The volume of radioactive leak from the site is so small as to be of no health concern; there is no detectable radiation from the accident in Fukushima grown-food, nor in fish caught off the coast.
http://gu.com/p/4t324/sgp
It added: “The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
Despite the preponderance of breathless headlines since the reality is that five years later, radiobiological consequences of Fukushima are practically negligible - no one has died from the event, and is it extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will do so in future. The volume of radioactive leak from the site is so small as to be of no health concern; there is no detectable radiation from the accident in Fukushima grown-food, nor in fish caught off the coast.
http://gu.com/p/4t324/sgp
How the Guardian moderates comments
Nice article which includes a quiz to see if you would block or allow comments in the same way as a Guardian moderator. I agree on 7/8. I don't think the scrolling format of the article is a particularly good way to present the statistics though.
I try to take a somewhat more liberal line on G+, though I will close comments if it gets out of hand and occasionally delete comments if they're way off-topic tripe (e.g., link to a badly-written article about the mysticisms of consciousness posted in response to the recent constellation gif).
Originally shared by John Poteet
A fair amount of internet trolling is about imposing social violence by proxy. If you reveal female, a minority, gay, or disabled you will be attacked and be targeted for hate speech. It's just a matter of when and how much. It has to stop.
"New research into our own comment threads provides the first quantitative evidence for what female journalists have long suspected: that articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.
_Although the majority of our regular opinion writers are white men, we found that those who experienced the highest levels of abuse and dismissive trolling were not. The 10 regular writers who got the most abuse were eight women (four white and four non-white) and two black men. Two of the women and one of the men were gay. And of the eight women in the “top 10”, one was Muslim and one Jewish.
And the 10 regular writers who got the least abuse? All men.
How should digital news organisations respond to this? Some say it is simple – “Don’t read the comments” or, better still, switch them off altogether. And many have done just that, disabling their comment threads for good because they became too taxing to bother with."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
#moderation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
I try to take a somewhat more liberal line on G+, though I will close comments if it gets out of hand and occasionally delete comments if they're way off-topic tripe (e.g., link to a badly-written article about the mysticisms of consciousness posted in response to the recent constellation gif).
Originally shared by John Poteet
A fair amount of internet trolling is about imposing social violence by proxy. If you reveal female, a minority, gay, or disabled you will be attacked and be targeted for hate speech. It's just a matter of when and how much. It has to stop.
"New research into our own comment threads provides the first quantitative evidence for what female journalists have long suspected: that articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.
_Although the majority of our regular opinion writers are white men, we found that those who experienced the highest levels of abuse and dismissive trolling were not. The 10 regular writers who got the most abuse were eight women (four white and four non-white) and two black men. Two of the women and one of the men were gay. And of the eight women in the “top 10”, one was Muslim and one Jewish.
And the 10 regular writers who got the least abuse? All men.
How should digital news organisations respond to this? Some say it is simple – “Don’t read the comments” or, better still, switch them off altogether. And many have done just that, disabling their comment threads for good because they became too taxing to bother with."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
#moderation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments
Monday, 11 April 2016
Being right is necessary but not sufficient
Not Even Right
A cautionary tale of just how good a model can be and still be wrong. The two galaxies on the right are a very famous pair known as Markarian's Eyes. It seems logical and sensible to assume that the weird structures have been formed by a collision between the two galaxies. Indeed, simulations (such as the one on the left) managed to reproduce very similar features using nothing more than two virtual galaxies and the absolute minimum of physics (i.e. gravity). Using more sophisticated models gave even better results (see link).
But this extremely simple and consistent picture turned out to be wrong - or at least woefully incomplete. Observations later revealed that there's a huge and spectacular stream of ionized gas linking these two galaxies to a third much larger galaxy, which was previously thought not to have been involved at all.
It's all too easy to assume that just because a model gets very precise details right, it must be the correct solution. In fact that's a necessary condition of a good model - but even reproducing very precise details is sometimes not enough to guarantee that you've come up with the true explanation. Sometimes even being right isn't good enough.
A cautionary tale of just how good a model can be and still be wrong. The two galaxies on the right are a very famous pair known as Markarian's Eyes. It seems logical and sensible to assume that the weird structures have been formed by a collision between the two galaxies. Indeed, simulations (such as the one on the left) managed to reproduce very similar features using nothing more than two virtual galaxies and the absolute minimum of physics (i.e. gravity). Using more sophisticated models gave even better results (see link).
But this extremely simple and consistent picture turned out to be wrong - or at least woefully incomplete. Observations later revealed that there's a huge and spectacular stream of ionized gas linking these two galaxies to a third much larger galaxy, which was previously thought not to have been involved at all.
It's all too easy to assume that just because a model gets very precise details right, it must be the correct solution. In fact that's a necessary condition of a good model - but even reproducing very precise details is sometimes not enough to guarantee that you've come up with the true explanation. Sometimes even being right isn't good enough.
The life of the ultra-orthodox
And this your mountainish inhumanity.
In the world I live in, being gay is the equivalent of being a bad person. It's seen as an evil desire that is completely unnatural. People I have grown up with would wonder what else I could be capable of. Few would believe that I could still be religious and if I did eventually leave the Haredi community it would mean losing my job, my home and potentially my children.
It's just easier for everyone to pretend that there is nothing different about me. In fact, most people prefer to act as though homosexuality does not exist.
My family decided that they wanted to find me a husband themselves. Everyone was involved in the process except me. Once the background checks were done and a boy was approved, we met for about half an hour. It took place in the dining room. His family and my family sat around a table talking awkwardly for a few minutes until eventually everyone else went out and left us to be awkward together.
Once you are pregnant that child becomes both a hostage and your hostage taker. You are held hostage by your child. We are expected to have eight or nine children and I kept getting pregnant. My feelings built up inside me until one day I was walking down the street in a little cul-de-sac somewhere. There was so much noise in my head that I started saying "I'm gay, I'm gay, I'm gay!" out loud.
I own my religion. I'll always be Jewish - it's part of my identity, just like anything else is. I have even invented a word for it. They have ultra-Orthodoxy and modern Orthodoxy. But I call it honest Orthodoxy. I don't know, maybe in 40 years' time it will be a movement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35978328
In the world I live in, being gay is the equivalent of being a bad person. It's seen as an evil desire that is completely unnatural. People I have grown up with would wonder what else I could be capable of. Few would believe that I could still be religious and if I did eventually leave the Haredi community it would mean losing my job, my home and potentially my children.
It's just easier for everyone to pretend that there is nothing different about me. In fact, most people prefer to act as though homosexuality does not exist.
My family decided that they wanted to find me a husband themselves. Everyone was involved in the process except me. Once the background checks were done and a boy was approved, we met for about half an hour. It took place in the dining room. His family and my family sat around a table talking awkwardly for a few minutes until eventually everyone else went out and left us to be awkward together.
Once you are pregnant that child becomes both a hostage and your hostage taker. You are held hostage by your child. We are expected to have eight or nine children and I kept getting pregnant. My feelings built up inside me until one day I was walking down the street in a little cul-de-sac somewhere. There was so much noise in my head that I started saying "I'm gay, I'm gay, I'm gay!" out loud.
I own my religion. I'll always be Jewish - it's part of my identity, just like anything else is. I have even invented a word for it. They have ultra-Orthodoxy and modern Orthodoxy. But I call it honest Orthodoxy. I don't know, maybe in 40 years' time it will be a movement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35978328
Sunday, 10 April 2016
At least Cameron pays his taxes
I've not been following this too closely, but I have to say... it looks to me like he's paying a very fair amount in tax. Yes, he's very wealthy, but we knew that anyway. No, he's not a very nice man, is completely out of touch with the electorate, and doesn't have an inkling on the problems the "austerity" cuts are causing (witness his own mother's protestations). But he's paying £74,000 in tax on an income of ~£200,000. That seems like a reasonable amount to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718
Thursday, 7 April 2016
Sovereignty is not the same as power
Indeed this is difficult to summarise, but due to the length the attempt must be made.
During a break from that 10-hour Eurogroup meeting, in which I had struggled to reclaim some economic sovereignty on behalf of my battered parliament and our suffering people, another finance minister attempted to soothe me by saying: “Yanis, you must understand that no country can be sovereign today. Especially not a small and bankrupt one like yours.”
This line of argument is probably the most pernicious fallacy to have afflicted public debate in our modern liberal democracies... The problem begins once the distinction between sovereignty and power is blurred.
Sovereignty is about who decides legitimately on behalf of a people – whereas power is the capacity to impose these decisions on the outside world. Iceland is a tiny country. But to claim that Iceland’s sovereignty is illusory because it is too small to have much power is like arguing that a poor person with no political clout might as well give up her right to vote.
An alliance of states, which is what the EU is... can never legitimately strike down or overrule the sovereignty of one of its member states on the basis of the limited power it has been granted by the sovereign states that have agreed to participate in the alliance. There is no collective European sovereignty from which Brussels could draw the legitimate political authority to do so.
Our European Union is disintegrating. Should we accelerate the disintegration of a failed confederacy? If one insists that even small countries can retain their sovereignty, as I have done, does this mean Brexit is the obvious course? My answer is an emphatic “No!”
Here is why: if Britain and Greece were not already in the EU, they should most certainly stay out. But, once inside, it is crucial to consider the consequences of a decision to leave... Should the Greeks or the Brits care about the disintegration of an infuriating EU? Yes, of course we should care. And we should care very much because the disintegration of this frustrating alliance will create a vortex that will consume us all – a postmodern replay of the 1930s. The EU’s very existence depends on Britain staying in.
The third option is the only one worth going for: staying in the EU to form a cross-border alliance of democrats, which Europeans failed to manage in the 1930s, but which our generation must now attempt to prevent history repeating itself.
This is precisely what some of us are working towards in creating DiEM25 – the Democracy in Europe Movement, with a view to conjuring up a democratic surge across Europe, a common European identity, an authentic European sovereignty, an internationalist bulwark against both submission to Brussels and hyper-nationalist reaction.
Originally shared by Chris Blackmore (The Walrus)
A Guardian "long read" you should read.
Yanis Varoufakis was rudely ignored when he went to Germany to negotiate. Instead, a "solution" that couldn't possibly work, and left Greece owing twice as much as his suggestions, was imposed, without any meaningful negotiation.
No, it hasn't turned him against the EU. Read it to the end, I'm not going to risk an incorrect summary. I think his conclusion is correct. We should stay in the EU, and force it into democratic ways, so that it will work better. Not the pathetic pretence at negotiations our useless PR wonk Cameron has performed, but real change, to make it what it should have been.
NB Stupid or offensive comments will be deleted.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu
During a break from that 10-hour Eurogroup meeting, in which I had struggled to reclaim some economic sovereignty on behalf of my battered parliament and our suffering people, another finance minister attempted to soothe me by saying: “Yanis, you must understand that no country can be sovereign today. Especially not a small and bankrupt one like yours.”
This line of argument is probably the most pernicious fallacy to have afflicted public debate in our modern liberal democracies... The problem begins once the distinction between sovereignty and power is blurred.
Sovereignty is about who decides legitimately on behalf of a people – whereas power is the capacity to impose these decisions on the outside world. Iceland is a tiny country. But to claim that Iceland’s sovereignty is illusory because it is too small to have much power is like arguing that a poor person with no political clout might as well give up her right to vote.
An alliance of states, which is what the EU is... can never legitimately strike down or overrule the sovereignty of one of its member states on the basis of the limited power it has been granted by the sovereign states that have agreed to participate in the alliance. There is no collective European sovereignty from which Brussels could draw the legitimate political authority to do so.
Our European Union is disintegrating. Should we accelerate the disintegration of a failed confederacy? If one insists that even small countries can retain their sovereignty, as I have done, does this mean Brexit is the obvious course? My answer is an emphatic “No!”
Here is why: if Britain and Greece were not already in the EU, they should most certainly stay out. But, once inside, it is crucial to consider the consequences of a decision to leave... Should the Greeks or the Brits care about the disintegration of an infuriating EU? Yes, of course we should care. And we should care very much because the disintegration of this frustrating alliance will create a vortex that will consume us all – a postmodern replay of the 1930s. The EU’s very existence depends on Britain staying in.
The third option is the only one worth going for: staying in the EU to form a cross-border alliance of democrats, which Europeans failed to manage in the 1930s, but which our generation must now attempt to prevent history repeating itself.
This is precisely what some of us are working towards in creating DiEM25 – the Democracy in Europe Movement, with a view to conjuring up a democratic surge across Europe, a common European identity, an authentic European sovereignty, an internationalist bulwark against both submission to Brussels and hyper-nationalist reaction.
Originally shared by Chris Blackmore (The Walrus)
A Guardian "long read" you should read.
Yanis Varoufakis was rudely ignored when he went to Germany to negotiate. Instead, a "solution" that couldn't possibly work, and left Greece owing twice as much as his suggestions, was imposed, without any meaningful negotiation.
No, it hasn't turned him against the EU. Read it to the end, I'm not going to risk an incorrect summary. I think his conclusion is correct. We should stay in the EU, and force it into democratic ways, so that it will work better. Not the pathetic pretence at negotiations our useless PR wonk Cameron has performed, but real change, to make it what it should have been.
NB Stupid or offensive comments will be deleted.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu
Why would anyone lie about this ?
Worth reading in its entirety. Via Alun Jones.
It is worth asking the question of what scientists would stand to gain by maintaining such a conspiracy, versus what fossil fuel corporations would stand to gain by promulgating the idea that climate change is a conspiracy. It’s not clear what the answer is in the former case: climate science is neither particularly lucrative, nor is it tied to the truth of anthropogenic climate change directly. If we were wrong about climate change, the need to study the climate would not disappear – it’s no more predicated on the truth of this specific scenario than any other branch of science is predicated on a particular theory.
Moreover, science as a social institution is constructed in such a way that novel insights–especially those which overturn widely held orthodoxies–are highly rewarded, not suppressed. A scientist with strong, comprehensive evidence against anthropogenic climate change would become a celebrity overnight, just as a scientist with strong, comprehensive evidence against (say) general relativity would.
The scientific method was deliberately constructed so as to be self-correcting in this way; scientists make mistakes all the time, but the overall system of science has proven very effective at catching those mistakes and correcting them. By contrast, fossil fuel companies quite transparently stand to gain quite a lot by obfuscating the truth about climate change; their whole business model is predicated on a process that emits many tons of GHG annually. Which scenario seems more likely here?
Originally shared by Jon Lawhead
I turned that thing I wrote yesterday into a more shareably formatted blog post.
http://www.planetexperts.com/top-11-climate-change-myths-and-why-theyre-wrong
It is worth asking the question of what scientists would stand to gain by maintaining such a conspiracy, versus what fossil fuel corporations would stand to gain by promulgating the idea that climate change is a conspiracy. It’s not clear what the answer is in the former case: climate science is neither particularly lucrative, nor is it tied to the truth of anthropogenic climate change directly. If we were wrong about climate change, the need to study the climate would not disappear – it’s no more predicated on the truth of this specific scenario than any other branch of science is predicated on a particular theory.
Moreover, science as a social institution is constructed in such a way that novel insights–especially those which overturn widely held orthodoxies–are highly rewarded, not suppressed. A scientist with strong, comprehensive evidence against anthropogenic climate change would become a celebrity overnight, just as a scientist with strong, comprehensive evidence against (say) general relativity would.
The scientific method was deliberately constructed so as to be self-correcting in this way; scientists make mistakes all the time, but the overall system of science has proven very effective at catching those mistakes and correcting them. By contrast, fossil fuel companies quite transparently stand to gain quite a lot by obfuscating the truth about climate change; their whole business model is predicated on a process that emits many tons of GHG annually. Which scenario seems more likely here?
Originally shared by Jon Lawhead
I turned that thing I wrote yesterday into a more shareably formatted blog post.
http://www.planetexperts.com/top-11-climate-change-myths-and-why-theyre-wrong
Tuesday, 5 April 2016
You can't organise your photos in public now
"Visitors to the Offentlig Konst site could browse a map detailing public sculptures, statues and paintings. The non-profit organisation ... has a collection of royalty-free photographs that it says can be used by the public. But the supreme court said that while individuals were allowed to take photographs of public artwork, providing those images in a database for unlimited use was "an entirely different matter".
"Such a database can be assumed to have a commercial value that is not insignificant," the court said in a statement. "The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value."
That's just stupid.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35969734
"Such a database can be assumed to have a commercial value that is not insignificant," the court said in a statement. "The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value."
That's just stupid.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35969734
The scientific method as a complex network
I really like the scientific method made of memes from ascienceenthusiast.com, but it's too simple. So I've attempted to make it more accurate. Not complete or totally accurate, because that's not possible - just more accurate. It still has a few flaws and it's still a simplification, but I think it gets the point across.
Science is a very different process to the one taught in high schools. As I've written before, it has a lot more similarities to the humanities and particularly the arts than is often appreciated. Yes, it deals in hard facts. But the interpretation of those facts, when it comes to front-line research, is every bit as subjective as the beauty of a Shakespearean sonnet.
The difference is that science makes testable predictions, and it has that all-important "reject hypothesis" scenario. This is no small difference - but the similarities matter too. It's not a black-and-white case of "scientists baffled" versus "mystery solved", whatever the popular media might say. Which matters a great deal, because if you see scientists continually getting things wrong without understanding why that that's integral to the process, of course you'll see them as untrustworthy idiots. Getting children to do experiments is one thing. Getting them to understand that there might not actually be a right answer at all - just the best answer that's possible given the available data - is quite another.
Thinking about this some more, I think the major deficiencies of this version is that it lacks the extreme cases. You can prove a theory, occasionally. You can also disprove one - nowhere near as easily as a hypothesis, but it can be done.
Science is a very different process to the one taught in high schools. As I've written before, it has a lot more similarities to the humanities and particularly the arts than is often appreciated. Yes, it deals in hard facts. But the interpretation of those facts, when it comes to front-line research, is every bit as subjective as the beauty of a Shakespearean sonnet.
The difference is that science makes testable predictions, and it has that all-important "reject hypothesis" scenario. This is no small difference - but the similarities matter too. It's not a black-and-white case of "scientists baffled" versus "mystery solved", whatever the popular media might say. Which matters a great deal, because if you see scientists continually getting things wrong without understanding why that that's integral to the process, of course you'll see them as untrustworthy idiots. Getting children to do experiments is one thing. Getting them to understand that there might not actually be a right answer at all - just the best answer that's possible given the available data - is quite another.
Thinking about this some more, I think the major deficiencies of this version is that it lacks the extreme cases. You can prove a theory, occasionally. You can also disprove one - nowhere near as easily as a hypothesis, but it can be done.
Fifty Shades Of Science
The scientific method taught in schools is something like this : This is much too simple unless you're 12 and trying to make a lemon-powered clock or something. The internet throws up lots of variations on this theme, some of which are better than others.
Monday, 4 April 2016
On the totally unnecessary conflict between science and religion
Can't we all just get along ? Answer : yes, as long as we both agree not to tread on each other's toes.
People sometimes say that you can't pick and choose which bits of a religion you want to believe. That is complete nonsense. People do this all the time whether you think they can or not. There's a virtue in picking and choosing, and it demonstrates that religious followers are not all blindly unquestioning sheep. Theology would be completely unnecessary if everyone took their religious texts literally. There may be comfort in blind obedience to a set text, but there's no safety - for yourself or anyone else. It would indeed be an absolutely ghoulish world if people followed their religious books to the letter, so why on Earth are you trying to make people do this ? Fortunately, they don't - which, incidentally, also means that it's pointless to judge people by what their books say... And yet devout atheists continue to act as though all Christians - and by extension all theists - have this utterly ridiculous, uber-simplistic view of the world.
People sometimes say that you can't pick and choose which bits of a religion you want to believe. That is complete nonsense. People do this all the time whether you think they can or not. There's a virtue in picking and choosing, and it demonstrates that religious followers are not all blindly unquestioning sheep. Theology would be completely unnecessary if everyone took their religious texts literally. There may be comfort in blind obedience to a set text, but there's no safety - for yourself or anyone else. It would indeed be an absolutely ghoulish world if people followed their religious books to the letter, so why on Earth are you trying to make people do this ? Fortunately, they don't - which, incidentally, also means that it's pointless to judge people by what their books say... And yet devout atheists continue to act as though all Christians - and by extension all theists - have this utterly ridiculous, uber-simplistic view of the world.
Animals love Machiavelli
Animals : They're Not All Cute And Cuddly
I'm reminded of a recent discussion at lunch in which someone said that aggression is necessary to success. Are there any successful non-aggressive animals ? My response was the limpet. Though they do aggressively cling on to rocks, I suppose...
The dominant monkeys used unpredictable bursts of aggression to rule over subordinates. Alliances were formed and female monkeys looked out for their own daughters by mating with the alpha male – but they also mated with other males behind his back to ensure they would be protected if the alpha male died or was deposed.
In fact, every individual monkey seems to have the capacity for Machiavellian behaviour, says Maestripieri. "It's part of who they are. It's not that there are Machiavellian individuals that do it all the time and others who never do it. Just like humans, it's part of our nature, which doesn't mean we have to do it all the time."
Jane Goodall, meanwhile, studied a mother and daughter pair of chimpanzees – Passion and Pom – who systematically cannibalised eight infants over four years. Goodall called Passion a "cold mother". But are these apes psychopaths ? They might be.... The chimpanzee pair "cannibalised with such persistence that a human psychiatrist is tempted to render this as antisocial personality 'disorder'", wrote the researchers.
We might associate some of the purest forms of fun with childhood play – and, says Paulhus, perhaps this is one ultimate origin of sadism. "If you look at animals that play with their victims, they don’t kill them, they torture them," he says. "Maybe that's the connection, to learn to be an adult animal you have to play first and somewhere between play and becoming an adult who has to kill, there's a line. That play aspect carries over to some adults, they're actually fixated at the play stage, they never got over it."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160401-how-did-evil-evolve-and-why-did-it-persist
I'm reminded of a recent discussion at lunch in which someone said that aggression is necessary to success. Are there any successful non-aggressive animals ? My response was the limpet. Though they do aggressively cling on to rocks, I suppose...
The dominant monkeys used unpredictable bursts of aggression to rule over subordinates. Alliances were formed and female monkeys looked out for their own daughters by mating with the alpha male – but they also mated with other males behind his back to ensure they would be protected if the alpha male died or was deposed.
In fact, every individual monkey seems to have the capacity for Machiavellian behaviour, says Maestripieri. "It's part of who they are. It's not that there are Machiavellian individuals that do it all the time and others who never do it. Just like humans, it's part of our nature, which doesn't mean we have to do it all the time."
Jane Goodall, meanwhile, studied a mother and daughter pair of chimpanzees – Passion and Pom – who systematically cannibalised eight infants over four years. Goodall called Passion a "cold mother". But are these apes psychopaths ? They might be.... The chimpanzee pair "cannibalised with such persistence that a human psychiatrist is tempted to render this as antisocial personality 'disorder'", wrote the researchers.
We might associate some of the purest forms of fun with childhood play – and, says Paulhus, perhaps this is one ultimate origin of sadism. "If you look at animals that play with their victims, they don’t kill them, they torture them," he says. "Maybe that's the connection, to learn to be an adult animal you have to play first and somewhere between play and becoming an adult who has to kill, there's a line. That play aspect carries over to some adults, they're actually fixated at the play stage, they never got over it."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160401-how-did-evil-evolve-and-why-did-it-persist
Saturday, 2 April 2016
Saving us from ourselves
I have very mixed opinions about this and I don't think I can summarise them very well. But it's worth a read.
Originally shared by Satyr Icon
I remember I started reading fahrenheit 451 but found it too boring (I was young). I should steal a copy from somewhere and read it.
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy, isn’t that right?…Colored people don’t likeLittle Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, to the incinerator."
h/t Pam Adger
http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reason-we-need-to-stop-trying-to-protect-everyones-feelings/
Originally shared by Satyr Icon
I remember I started reading fahrenheit 451 but found it too boring (I was young). I should steal a copy from somewhere and read it.
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy, isn’t that right?…Colored people don’t likeLittle Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, to the incinerator."
h/t Pam Adger
http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2015/11/the-real-reason-we-need-to-stop-trying-to-protect-everyones-feelings/
Cultural appropriation
Err, yes. Yes it is. But y'all not allowed to drink tea, grow daffodils, have male voice choirs, mine coal, or binge drink any more. That's my culture, and you can't have any.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35944803
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35944803
Where's my airship, dammit ?
It may not have the $7.5 billion of pledged investments in Tesla's model 3, but it seems that people are rather keen on giant airships. Well, they're more interesting than phablets, at any rate.
Official website : http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35933333
Official website : http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35933333
Post-satire era
Good grief, ClickHole was accurate !
http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/theres-island-trash-pacific-size-texas-and-im-goin-1387
I don't know how to feel....
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/35948481
http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/theres-island-trash-pacific-size-texas-and-im-goin-1387
I don't know how to feel....
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/35948481
If Trump wrote a paper...
I'm gonna use this as my next counter-response to a referee.
https://twitter.com/MCrawford221/status/715835369170796544
https://twitter.com/MCrawford221/status/715835369170796544
Friday, 1 April 2016
Hand-held LIGO
In Czech, but the Google translation is reasonable.
In the laboratories of two US institutes of technology, MIT and Caltech, but there is a project that will soon bring mobile communications to revolutionize the truth on a global scale. Scientists from both institutions, is working on the possibility of transmission of mobile signals using gravitational waves.
At first glance, it may seem difficult to cram a huge device, which LIGO detector with its four kilometers long arms is in compact mobile phone. In fact, it is not so complicated and it's like with a camera phone. To get a cell phone made a nice photo, if it does not have to be exactly the image of a distant galaxy, you do not need a lens with a diameter of twenty or thirty meters. Snap a picture of your cat in daylight now easily cope with a lens with a diameter of less than a millimeter.
Mobile phone obviously needs gravitational waves and transmit to enable bi-directional transmission. This is equipped similar to the vibrator. Special motor that is designed to spin at speeds up to one hundred million revolutions per second, carries the end of its shaft asymmetrically placed weights, which can be based on the piezoelectric effect change its shape, and thereby modulate the amplitude gravitational waves generated by the phone.
LIGO mobile looks like a tiny Weber bar, which is adorable.
http://www.asu.cas.cz/articles/1048/19/mobilni-telefony-budou-vyuzivat-gravitacni-vlny
In the laboratories of two US institutes of technology, MIT and Caltech, but there is a project that will soon bring mobile communications to revolutionize the truth on a global scale. Scientists from both institutions, is working on the possibility of transmission of mobile signals using gravitational waves.
At first glance, it may seem difficult to cram a huge device, which LIGO detector with its four kilometers long arms is in compact mobile phone. In fact, it is not so complicated and it's like with a camera phone. To get a cell phone made a nice photo, if it does not have to be exactly the image of a distant galaxy, you do not need a lens with a diameter of twenty or thirty meters. Snap a picture of your cat in daylight now easily cope with a lens with a diameter of less than a millimeter.
Mobile phone obviously needs gravitational waves and transmit to enable bi-directional transmission. This is equipped similar to the vibrator. Special motor that is designed to spin at speeds up to one hundred million revolutions per second, carries the end of its shaft asymmetrically placed weights, which can be based on the piezoelectric effect change its shape, and thereby modulate the amplitude gravitational waves generated by the phone.
LIGO mobile looks like a tiny Weber bar, which is adorable.
http://www.asu.cas.cz/articles/1048/19/mobilni-telefony-budou-vyuzivat-gravitacni-vlny
The Cosmic Microwave Billboard
It's a good day for arXiv.
The irrational number π [17] occurs throughout physics, in anything related to rotations, waves, vibrations or phases. It occurs explicitly in Coulomb’s law, Kepler’s third law, Einstein’s field equations, the Fourier transform, the normalization of a Gaussian, the reduced Planck constant, etc. And perhaps most astonishingly, if you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get exactly π!
...
Despite the fact that the power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies carries around 2000 σ worth of information [23], the apparently 2–3 σ significance of the Cold Spot is fantastically important. A quick glance at Fig. 1(a) shows just how prominent this feature is on the sky. Although not the large blue region near the centre [24], and not actually the coldest place on the CMB sky [25], the chances of finding a cold region of exactly this size and shape in Gaussian random skies is quite small. And the chances of finding such a spot in precisely this direction is almost vanishingly small.
In the digits of π there is an analogous feature, which might be called a ‘hot spot’, since it involves a cluster of the number ‘9’. Specifically, ‘9’ occurs six times concurrently after the 762nd digit of π, as shown in Fig. 1(b). This is sometimes called the ‘Feynman point’ [26], and appears fantastically earlier in the digits of π than one would expect for such a repeated run... It has also been pointed out [27] that the digits of 2π contain seven consecutive 9s at about the same position as the six 9s in π. This is of course even less likely to occur by chance.
It was pointed out by the WMAP team [4] that one can find Stephen Hawking’s initials in the CMB sky, as shown in Fig. 7(a). These same features, clearly being two roman characters in roughly the same size, font and orientation, are also present in the Planck data. We are not aware of any systematic search for all combinations of letters, with arbitrary position, font, size and orientation. But presumably such a search would turn up many other interesting examples of writing on the ‘cosmic billboard’.
As a final remark, we add this utilitarian view – if the AAAs mean that the CMB information is somehow already encoded in π, then perhaps in future we can avoid all the fuss and bother of building real CMB experiments, minimising systematic effects while operating them, painstakingly analysing the data, and debating the statistical interpretation of the results – and instead simply look more carefully at the digits of π, or in any other random string of digits [44].
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09703
The irrational number π [17] occurs throughout physics, in anything related to rotations, waves, vibrations or phases. It occurs explicitly in Coulomb’s law, Kepler’s third law, Einstein’s field equations, the Fourier transform, the normalization of a Gaussian, the reduced Planck constant, etc. And perhaps most astonishingly, if you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get exactly π!
...
Despite the fact that the power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies carries around 2000 σ worth of information [23], the apparently 2–3 σ significance of the Cold Spot is fantastically important. A quick glance at Fig. 1(a) shows just how prominent this feature is on the sky. Although not the large blue region near the centre [24], and not actually the coldest place on the CMB sky [25], the chances of finding a cold region of exactly this size and shape in Gaussian random skies is quite small. And the chances of finding such a spot in precisely this direction is almost vanishingly small.
In the digits of π there is an analogous feature, which might be called a ‘hot spot’, since it involves a cluster of the number ‘9’. Specifically, ‘9’ occurs six times concurrently after the 762nd digit of π, as shown in Fig. 1(b). This is sometimes called the ‘Feynman point’ [26], and appears fantastically earlier in the digits of π than one would expect for such a repeated run... It has also been pointed out [27] that the digits of 2π contain seven consecutive 9s at about the same position as the six 9s in π. This is of course even less likely to occur by chance.
It was pointed out by the WMAP team [4] that one can find Stephen Hawking’s initials in the CMB sky, as shown in Fig. 7(a). These same features, clearly being two roman characters in roughly the same size, font and orientation, are also present in the Planck data. We are not aware of any systematic search for all combinations of letters, with arbitrary position, font, size and orientation. But presumably such a search would turn up many other interesting examples of writing on the ‘cosmic billboard’.
As a final remark, we add this utilitarian view – if the AAAs mean that the CMB information is somehow already encoded in π, then perhaps in future we can avoid all the fuss and bother of building real CMB experiments, minimising systematic effects while operating them, painstakingly analysing the data, and debating the statistical interpretation of the results – and instead simply look more carefully at the digits of π, or in any other random string of digits [44].
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09703
Ozone holes in explanetary atmospheres
Searching for signs of an advanced civilization destroying themselves and their environment is a rather grim endeavour (e.g. Stevens et al. 2015), so we propose instead to search for evidence of extraterrestrial environmentalism. In this brief paper, we describe how given high enough photometric precision and a long time baseline, it would be possible to observe the creation and diminution of a hole in the ozone layer of an exo-Earth.
...
By observing these systems across several decades, the actual number of environmental movements currently ongoing in the solar neighbourhood, ηGreen Earth, can be inferred. By replacing η⊕ in the Drake Equation with ηGreen Earth, this form of galactic anthropology allows us to recover not only the occurrence rate of advanced civilizations in the galaxy, but the occurrence rate of civilizations that we might actually want to contact.
...
Thanks to Ian Czekala for reading a draft of this manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We also thank both Sarah’s Market and Cafe and Armando’s Pizza and Subs, both of Cambridage, MA, for the beer and sandwiches which enabled much of the work in preparing this manuscript. We would especially like to acknowledge the ozone layer on the Earth for shielding us from UV radiation throughout the preparation of this manuscript.
Also includes the first time I've ever seen someone give a citation for the spherical nature of the Earth.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09428
...
By observing these systems across several decades, the actual number of environmental movements currently ongoing in the solar neighbourhood, ηGreen Earth, can be inferred. By replacing η⊕ in the Drake Equation with ηGreen Earth, this form of galactic anthropology allows us to recover not only the occurrence rate of advanced civilizations in the galaxy, but the occurrence rate of civilizations that we might actually want to contact.
...
Thanks to Ian Czekala for reading a draft of this manuscript and providing valuable feedback. We also thank both Sarah’s Market and Cafe and Armando’s Pizza and Subs, both of Cambridage, MA, for the beer and sandwiches which enabled much of the work in preparing this manuscript. We would especially like to acknowledge the ozone layer on the Earth for shielding us from UV radiation throughout the preparation of this manuscript.
Also includes the first time I've ever seen someone give a citation for the spherical nature of the Earth.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09428
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)