Ambitious.
We are excited to announce that SpaceX has been approached to fly two private citizens on a trip around the Moon late next year. They have already paid a significant deposit to do a Moon mission. Like the Apollo astronauts before them, these individuals will travel into space carrying the hopes and dreams of all humankind, driven by the universal human spirit of exploration. We expect to conduct health and fitness tests, as well as begin initial training later this year. Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow. Additional information will be released about the flight teams, contingent upon their approval and confirmation of the health and fitness test results.
http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year
Monday, 27 February 2017
Freedom of speech is a myth, let's discuss sensible regulations instead
A cheery and light-hearted start to the week. Quotes are slightly simplified summaries from the full post.
America's Whotsit Hitler is threatened by a media reporting unpleasant facts. But Britain's democracy is threatened by a media continuously reporting falsehoods and demonising its opponents. The American government seeks to control the press even as the British press seek to control the government. Fear rules both sides, with different consequences because of their different histories. Fear of the media leads to cruelty by Drumpf and cowardice by the British government. Cruelty by Drumpf because he cannot afford to accept media criticism without appearing weak, so he must suppress them. Cowardice by the UK government for the opposite reason : they cannot afford to avoid the media's demands without looking weak.
Absolute freedom of speech is impossible and stupid. You can't insist that everyone be allowed to barge into everyone else's home and start ranting - forcing people to listen is hardly free speech. And you certainly can't produce a list of flawed instructions for the use of heavy machinery that will get people killed "because you thought it would be funny". So whether you like it or not, you have to draw the line somewhere; your free market just became regulated - albeit perhaps only very lightly. Even so, you inescapably do have a Ministry of Truth of sorts : it's called the judiciary. And it's a damn good thing it exists.
See, the legal definition of free speech it only means, very broadly, "no imprisonment on the basis of what's said". So it doesn't automatically require the media of any form to give any and all views an airing. It doesn't even mean that the Advertising Standards Authority and various other agencies can't stop you promoting and distributing content which is misleading or simply false : this is not impinging anyone's freedom at all, it's protecting you from liars. Instead of granting them freedom to lie to you, it's given you freedom from the consequences of lies.
The question is not, "should we regulate the media ?" at all, because we already do - just as we regulate how food is labelled, what TV content can be shown at what times, what health and safety warnings must be displayed and whether things have to be labelled as "allegations" or not. We've always done this, there was never a mythical golden age where anyone could say whatever idiotic thing popped into their head no matter the consequences. Instead the question is only how much and to what extent the regulation should occur.
I will not end with conclusions, except to say that freedom is a double-edged sword and like all sharp pointy objects it needs careful handling. I'd rather try and provoke a discussion, so I'll end with questions instead. How much do you think the media should be regulated ? Do you think the press currently have the right amount of freedom ? What, if any, penalties would you exact on the media for violating freedom of speech laws ? Should there be limits on media ownership to ensure media independence ? How should we encourage media impartiality without throttling opinions and freedom of thought ? If you think freedom is a virtue in itself and we should have as much of it as possible, how do you maintain this given that freedom sometimes leads to terrible, self-destructive outcomes ?
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-sharp-pointy-objects.html
America's Whotsit Hitler is threatened by a media reporting unpleasant facts. But Britain's democracy is threatened by a media continuously reporting falsehoods and demonising its opponents. The American government seeks to control the press even as the British press seek to control the government. Fear rules both sides, with different consequences because of their different histories. Fear of the media leads to cruelty by Drumpf and cowardice by the British government. Cruelty by Drumpf because he cannot afford to accept media criticism without appearing weak, so he must suppress them. Cowardice by the UK government for the opposite reason : they cannot afford to avoid the media's demands without looking weak.
Absolute freedom of speech is impossible and stupid. You can't insist that everyone be allowed to barge into everyone else's home and start ranting - forcing people to listen is hardly free speech. And you certainly can't produce a list of flawed instructions for the use of heavy machinery that will get people killed "because you thought it would be funny". So whether you like it or not, you have to draw the line somewhere; your free market just became regulated - albeit perhaps only very lightly. Even so, you inescapably do have a Ministry of Truth of sorts : it's called the judiciary. And it's a damn good thing it exists.
See, the legal definition of free speech it only means, very broadly, "no imprisonment on the basis of what's said". So it doesn't automatically require the media of any form to give any and all views an airing. It doesn't even mean that the Advertising Standards Authority and various other agencies can't stop you promoting and distributing content which is misleading or simply false : this is not impinging anyone's freedom at all, it's protecting you from liars. Instead of granting them freedom to lie to you, it's given you freedom from the consequences of lies.
The question is not, "should we regulate the media ?" at all, because we already do - just as we regulate how food is labelled, what TV content can be shown at what times, what health and safety warnings must be displayed and whether things have to be labelled as "allegations" or not. We've always done this, there was never a mythical golden age where anyone could say whatever idiotic thing popped into their head no matter the consequences. Instead the question is only how much and to what extent the regulation should occur.
I will not end with conclusions, except to say that freedom is a double-edged sword and like all sharp pointy objects it needs careful handling. I'd rather try and provoke a discussion, so I'll end with questions instead. How much do you think the media should be regulated ? Do you think the press currently have the right amount of freedom ? What, if any, penalties would you exact on the media for violating freedom of speech laws ? Should there be limits on media ownership to ensure media independence ? How should we encourage media impartiality without throttling opinions and freedom of thought ? If you think freedom is a virtue in itself and we should have as much of it as possible, how do you maintain this given that freedom sometimes leads to terrible, self-destructive outcomes ?
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-sharp-pointy-objects.html
Sunday, 26 February 2017
Toil and trouble
Definitely filed under, "I just can't even..."
Most of Donald Drumpf's opponents believe they will have to wait four more years to see him leave the White House. But America's witches are more optimistic. At the stroke of midnight on Friday, followers of witchcraft across the US performed a mass spell designed to stop the president doing harm. A Facebook group devoted to the ritual has attracted over 10,500 likes, and coined the hashtag #magicresistance.
The development has sparked fury among Christian conservatives, who have accused the witches of "declaring spiritual war". Writer Michael Hughes, who describes himself as a "magical thinker" posted a version of the spell online, saying he had seen multiple versions on private witchcraft groups. In it, he suggests using a stubby orange candle, an unflattering picture of Mr Drumpf, and a Tower tarot card.
Under the tenets of witchcraft, a "binding spell" does not wish harm on its target, but aims to stop them from doing harm themselves.
"This is not the equivalent of magically punching a Nazi," Mr Hughes wrote. "Rather, it is ripping the bullhorn from his hands, smashing his phone so he can't tweet, tying him up, and throwing him in a dark basement where he can't hurt anyone."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39090334
Most of Donald Drumpf's opponents believe they will have to wait four more years to see him leave the White House. But America's witches are more optimistic. At the stroke of midnight on Friday, followers of witchcraft across the US performed a mass spell designed to stop the president doing harm. A Facebook group devoted to the ritual has attracted over 10,500 likes, and coined the hashtag #magicresistance.
The development has sparked fury among Christian conservatives, who have accused the witches of "declaring spiritual war". Writer Michael Hughes, who describes himself as a "magical thinker" posted a version of the spell online, saying he had seen multiple versions on private witchcraft groups. In it, he suggests using a stubby orange candle, an unflattering picture of Mr Drumpf, and a Tower tarot card.
Under the tenets of witchcraft, a "binding spell" does not wish harm on its target, but aims to stop them from doing harm themselves.
"This is not the equivalent of magically punching a Nazi," Mr Hughes wrote. "Rather, it is ripping the bullhorn from his hands, smashing his phone so he can't tweet, tying him up, and throwing him in a dark basement where he can't hurt anyone."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39090334
Thursday, 23 February 2017
The Oxford degree that runs Britain
Originally shared by Stephen Phillips
Am interesting piece. For me it asks the question "can you be a professional politician?".
It seems that this ultimately is that, a course for the ruling elite.
But is that really that bad?
PPE: the Oxford degree that runs Britain
" An Oxford University graduate in philosophy, politics and economics (PPE), Ed Miliband, launched the Labour party’s general election manifesto. It was examined by the BBC’s political editor, Oxford PPE graduate Nick Robinson, by the BBC’s economics editor, Oxford PPE graduate Robert Peston, and by the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Oxford PPE graduate Paul Johnson. It was criticised by the prime minister, Oxford PPE graduate David Cameron. It was defended by the Labour shadow chancellor, Oxford PPE graduate Ed Balls. "
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Google%2B
Am interesting piece. For me it asks the question "can you be a professional politician?".
It seems that this ultimately is that, a course for the ruling elite.
But is that really that bad?
PPE: the Oxford degree that runs Britain
" An Oxford University graduate in philosophy, politics and economics (PPE), Ed Miliband, launched the Labour party’s general election manifesto. It was examined by the BBC’s political editor, Oxford PPE graduate Nick Robinson, by the BBC’s economics editor, Oxford PPE graduate Robert Peston, and by the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Oxford PPE graduate Paul Johnson. It was criticised by the prime minister, Oxford PPE graduate David Cameron. It was defended by the Labour shadow chancellor, Oxford PPE graduate Ed Balls. "
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Google%2B
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Draw your own scary cat because that's what technology does now
Behold the miracle of technology ! You too can draw nightmarish cats in seconds with this handy interactive tool !
The pix2pix model works by training on pairs of images such as building facade labels to building facades, and then attempts to generate the corresponding output image from any input image you give it. Trained on about 2k stock cat photos and edges automatically generated from those photos. Generates cat-colored objects, some with nightmare faces.
http://affinelayer.com/pixsrv/index.html
The pix2pix model works by training on pairs of images such as building facade labels to building facades, and then attempts to generate the corresponding output image from any input image you give it. Trained on about 2k stock cat photos and edges automatically generated from those photos. Generates cat-colored objects, some with nightmare faces.
http://affinelayer.com/pixsrv/index.html
The mammoth may be coming back, but not this decade
Great article, albeit ridden with terrible puns.
I am a former cell biologist and have spent the last two years researching and writing about de-extinction, the science of bringing extinct animals back to life. I have spoken with Church, as well as many of the other scientists at the forefront of de-extinction research, and two things are clear to me. The first is that a living, breathing woolly mammoth is far from imminent, and the second is that, nevertheless, the science needed to make it is progressing at quite a lick.
The first thing to bear in mind is that Church is not talking about making a living, breathing, fur-coated mammoth calf. His work so far focuses solely on single cells... Church's team have made 45 changes to the elephant genome. They are moving closer to their goal of "mammoth-ifying" an elephant cell. Church argues that he does not need to put every single tweak into his elephant cells to make something mammoth-like.
Church has never claimed that he is making a bona-fide, genuine, 100% authentic woolly mammoth. Instead it will be an animal whose DNA is largely elephant, but with a smattering of judiciously-placed mammoth DNA. He talks of making a "mammoth-elephant hybrid" or a "cold-adapted elephant". I prefer to call it a "mammophant" or "elemoth".
Assuming Church manages to create a mammophant cell, the next step will be to convert it into a mammophant embryo... It is a mammoth task (sorry about that) but it is not impossible. However, even if Church pulls it off, he will still need to find a way to nourish the embryo while it grows.
The elephant eggs needed for cloning need not come from the reproductive systems of living elephants. There are other ways to make them. Animal studies have shown that skin cells can be reprogrammed in a dish to make stem cells, which can then be coaxed to form eggs. It is almost like cellular alchemy. Rather than performing invasive surgery to retrieve eggs from adult female elephants, it should be possible to make them from non-invasive skin biopsies.
Once the embryos have been made, they could be nurtured, not in adult animals, but in "artificial wombs". This may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but Church and other researchers are quietly developing the science needed to make it happen. He explained last week that researchers in his lab have grown a mouse embryo in an artificial womb for 10 days; halfway through its normal gestation period.
At this point it should be clear that de-extinction is profoundly difficult, and that we are not going to have any living mammoths roaming the Siberian tundra in the next few years. But at the same time, it seems likely that if scientists like Church keep pushing, they will get there eventually. The bigger question is: should we do it? What would be the point?
For me, the single biggest argument in favour of resurrecting extinct species is the beneficial spin-offs it will create for endangered living species. The same techniques being used to bring back extinct animals – stem cell technology, genome sequencing and editing, and assisted reproduction techniques such as cloning – can be used, far more easily, on threatened living species.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170221-reviving-woolly-mammoths-will-take-more-than-two-years
I am a former cell biologist and have spent the last two years researching and writing about de-extinction, the science of bringing extinct animals back to life. I have spoken with Church, as well as many of the other scientists at the forefront of de-extinction research, and two things are clear to me. The first is that a living, breathing woolly mammoth is far from imminent, and the second is that, nevertheless, the science needed to make it is progressing at quite a lick.
The first thing to bear in mind is that Church is not talking about making a living, breathing, fur-coated mammoth calf. His work so far focuses solely on single cells... Church's team have made 45 changes to the elephant genome. They are moving closer to their goal of "mammoth-ifying" an elephant cell. Church argues that he does not need to put every single tweak into his elephant cells to make something mammoth-like.
Church has never claimed that he is making a bona-fide, genuine, 100% authentic woolly mammoth. Instead it will be an animal whose DNA is largely elephant, but with a smattering of judiciously-placed mammoth DNA. He talks of making a "mammoth-elephant hybrid" or a "cold-adapted elephant". I prefer to call it a "mammophant" or "elemoth".
Assuming Church manages to create a mammophant cell, the next step will be to convert it into a mammophant embryo... It is a mammoth task (sorry about that) but it is not impossible. However, even if Church pulls it off, he will still need to find a way to nourish the embryo while it grows.
The elephant eggs needed for cloning need not come from the reproductive systems of living elephants. There are other ways to make them. Animal studies have shown that skin cells can be reprogrammed in a dish to make stem cells, which can then be coaxed to form eggs. It is almost like cellular alchemy. Rather than performing invasive surgery to retrieve eggs from adult female elephants, it should be possible to make them from non-invasive skin biopsies.
Once the embryos have been made, they could be nurtured, not in adult animals, but in "artificial wombs". This may sound like the stuff of science fiction, but Church and other researchers are quietly developing the science needed to make it happen. He explained last week that researchers in his lab have grown a mouse embryo in an artificial womb for 10 days; halfway through its normal gestation period.
At this point it should be clear that de-extinction is profoundly difficult, and that we are not going to have any living mammoths roaming the Siberian tundra in the next few years. But at the same time, it seems likely that if scientists like Church keep pushing, they will get there eventually. The bigger question is: should we do it? What would be the point?
For me, the single biggest argument in favour of resurrecting extinct species is the beneficial spin-offs it will create for endangered living species. The same techniques being used to bring back extinct animals – stem cell technology, genome sequencing and editing, and assisted reproduction techniques such as cloning – can be used, far more easily, on threatened living species.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170221-reviving-woolly-mammoths-will-take-more-than-two-years
Politics makes us mean and nasty
Fascinating and depressing.
Mill hoped that participation would make citizens more concerned about the common good, and would entice them to educate themselves. He hoped getting factory workers to think about politics would be like getting fish to discover there is a world outside the ocean.
20th century sociologist and economist Joseph Schumpeter tendered a grimmer hypothesis about how political involvement affects us: “The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in away which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again.”
We now possess over sixty years’ worth of detailed, varied, and rigorous empirical research in political science and political psychology. The test results are in. Overall, Schumpeter was largely right and Mill largely wrong. In general, political participation makes us mean and dumb. Emotion has a large role in explaining why.
“Reasoning” can actually undermine rationality. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2010) puts it, “…reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." In short, the evolutionary purpose of “reasoning” is not so much to turn us into scientists who can discover how the world works. Rather, it is to give us the power to influence, manipulate, and control one another. As a result, when it comes to politics in particular, when we confront contrary points of view from our own or evidence that shows we are wrong, we tend to react by getting angry and becoming more extreme in our views.
For instance, when people are (for reasons unrelated to politics) sad, angry, joyful, this corrupts their ability to think clearly about politics. How you evaluate political information, what conclusions you draw, depends upon your current mood. How you respond to evidence depends upon how you are feeling. Experiments show that emotion causes us to ignore and evade evidence, or to rationalize political beliefs.
Philosophers seem convinced that organized group deliberation will deliver a wide range of positive moral and psychological benefits. But what deliberative democracy does to us depends on our psychology, on whether we are inclined to develop into Hooligans or Vulcans. Of course, deliberation enlightens would-be Vulcans. Vulcans apportion belief according to the evidence and have no dogmatic loyalty to their beliefs. But we can expect deliberation to make Hooligans more entrenched in their pre-existing beliefs. Hooligans will just ignore, jeer at, and dismiss contrary evidence, digging in their heels and getting angry at the opponent.
When groups are of different sizes, deliberation tends to exacerbate conflict rather then mediate it. Status-seeking drives the discussion. Deliberators try to win positions of influence and power over others. High-status individuals have more influence, regardless of whether the high status individuals actually know more. During deliberation, people use language in biased and manipulative ways. As Mendelberg concludes, “in most deliberations about public matters”, group discussion tends to “amplify” intellectual biases rather than “neutralize” them.
In short: people “deliberate” on political matters like Hooligans, not like Vulcans. Some might wonder, if deliberative democracy does not work, then what does? Unfortunately, the answer might be nothing.
I would say that this indicates the nature of the debate is wrong. Debates driven purely by emotion clearly don't work. Neither do debates driven purely by facts, because that view ultimately ends up with humans as a bunch of meaningless atoms. What is needed is a form of debate where emotions and reasoning moderate each other, not dictate one another. Which is not at all easy to do.
In short, the reason people are mostly ignorant and biased about politics is that the incentives are all wrong. Democracies make it so that no individual voters’ votes (or political beliefs) make a difference. As a result, no individual is punished for being ignorant or irrational, and no individual is rewarded for becoming informed and rational. Democracies incentivizes us to be “dumb”.
An interesting assessment. I'm not sure I agree, because there are social rewards and punishments of a sort for winning and losing arguments, but it's interesting all the same.
http://emotionresearcher.com/politics-makes-us-mean-and-dumb/
Mill hoped that participation would make citizens more concerned about the common good, and would entice them to educate themselves. He hoped getting factory workers to think about politics would be like getting fish to discover there is a world outside the ocean.
20th century sociologist and economist Joseph Schumpeter tendered a grimmer hypothesis about how political involvement affects us: “The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in away which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again.”
We now possess over sixty years’ worth of detailed, varied, and rigorous empirical research in political science and political psychology. The test results are in. Overall, Schumpeter was largely right and Mill largely wrong. In general, political participation makes us mean and dumb. Emotion has a large role in explaining why.
“Reasoning” can actually undermine rationality. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2010) puts it, “…reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments." In short, the evolutionary purpose of “reasoning” is not so much to turn us into scientists who can discover how the world works. Rather, it is to give us the power to influence, manipulate, and control one another. As a result, when it comes to politics in particular, when we confront contrary points of view from our own or evidence that shows we are wrong, we tend to react by getting angry and becoming more extreme in our views.
For instance, when people are (for reasons unrelated to politics) sad, angry, joyful, this corrupts their ability to think clearly about politics. How you evaluate political information, what conclusions you draw, depends upon your current mood. How you respond to evidence depends upon how you are feeling. Experiments show that emotion causes us to ignore and evade evidence, or to rationalize political beliefs.
Philosophers seem convinced that organized group deliberation will deliver a wide range of positive moral and psychological benefits. But what deliberative democracy does to us depends on our psychology, on whether we are inclined to develop into Hooligans or Vulcans. Of course, deliberation enlightens would-be Vulcans. Vulcans apportion belief according to the evidence and have no dogmatic loyalty to their beliefs. But we can expect deliberation to make Hooligans more entrenched in their pre-existing beliefs. Hooligans will just ignore, jeer at, and dismiss contrary evidence, digging in their heels and getting angry at the opponent.
When groups are of different sizes, deliberation tends to exacerbate conflict rather then mediate it. Status-seeking drives the discussion. Deliberators try to win positions of influence and power over others. High-status individuals have more influence, regardless of whether the high status individuals actually know more. During deliberation, people use language in biased and manipulative ways. As Mendelberg concludes, “in most deliberations about public matters”, group discussion tends to “amplify” intellectual biases rather than “neutralize” them.
In short: people “deliberate” on political matters like Hooligans, not like Vulcans. Some might wonder, if deliberative democracy does not work, then what does? Unfortunately, the answer might be nothing.
I would say that this indicates the nature of the debate is wrong. Debates driven purely by emotion clearly don't work. Neither do debates driven purely by facts, because that view ultimately ends up with humans as a bunch of meaningless atoms. What is needed is a form of debate where emotions and reasoning moderate each other, not dictate one another. Which is not at all easy to do.
In short, the reason people are mostly ignorant and biased about politics is that the incentives are all wrong. Democracies make it so that no individual voters’ votes (or political beliefs) make a difference. As a result, no individual is punished for being ignorant or irrational, and no individual is rewarded for becoming informed and rational. Democracies incentivizes us to be “dumb”.
An interesting assessment. I'm not sure I agree, because there are social rewards and punishments of a sort for winning and losing arguments, but it's interesting all the same.
http://emotionresearcher.com/politics-makes-us-mean-and-dumb/
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
I want one of these
Presumably the next version will be bigger version that charges across the battlefield eating enemy soldiers ? This is ridiculously impressive.
http://laughingsquid.com/a-realistic-human-controlled-robot-allosaurus-comes-to-life-and-sizes-up-strangers/
http://laughingsquid.com/a-realistic-human-controlled-robot-allosaurus-comes-to-life-and-sizes-up-strangers/
Monday, 20 February 2017
Blair on Brexit
Oh, so much this. The full speech (starts at 5min 34s) is well worth listening to, but the final couple of questions (hopefully correctly linked to in the embedded video, if not skip to 52min 10s) are probably the most important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqMfKAM9Bo#t=52m10s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqMfKAM9Bo#t=52m10s
Meanwhile at Nuremberg...
Yep, that about sums it up.
[Who gets to decide, they say, as though that were a question that can't be answered. The answer is always someone, and the fact that other people don't like it is not something we have to even address.]
Racing isn't boring enough, here's how to fix it
How to make the hugely uninteresting sport of motor racing even more uninteresting : take the drivers out. Now you can watch algorithms chase each other round a track for 57 laps, hurrah !
Better option : giant version of Robot Wars...
A landmark race between two driverless electric cars has ended badly for one of the contestants. The unfortunate Devbot vehicle crashed out of the Roborace competition after misjudging a corner while travelling at high speed. The incident occurred ahead of the start of the latest Formula E electric car race in Buenos Aires. The other vehicle managed to complete the course after achieving a top speed of 186km/h (116mph).
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39027477
Better option : giant version of Robot Wars...
A landmark race between two driverless electric cars has ended badly for one of the contestants. The unfortunate Devbot vehicle crashed out of the Roborace competition after misjudging a corner while travelling at high speed. The incident occurred ahead of the start of the latest Formula E electric car race in Buenos Aires. The other vehicle managed to complete the course after achieving a top speed of 186km/h (116mph).
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39027477
Blair behind the scenes
Interesting. Will watch his full speech tonight. My position on Blair can only be summarised as, "it's complicated." I do not think he's the antichrist. I also don't think he's moral. But I do think he genuinely believes in left-wing ideologies and understands politics perhaps better than anyone else alive.
Unlike the wider left, he dismisses the idea of historical inevitability and profoundly believes in the power of human agency. Unlike the populist right, he contests the notion of light-switch moments where the electorate has the right to issue irreversible instructions.
From this premise follows a sense of responsibility, deepened by a new sense of pessimism. As he said on Friday, “for the first time in my adult life” it is no longer obvious that liberty, democracy and the rule of law are secure... it is to his credit that, unlike many on the embattled centre-ground, he has not yielded to fatalism.
There will be no Churchillian return to office, nor to frontline politics. What counts is his convening power: his capacity to bring people together, to build networks of the like-minded as well as an institute in bricks and mortar.
And if not him, then who? A lesser character, hearing the rumblings of the mob, would walk away. Blair chooses to do precisely the opposite. Good for him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/tony-blair-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Unlike the wider left, he dismisses the idea of historical inevitability and profoundly believes in the power of human agency. Unlike the populist right, he contests the notion of light-switch moments where the electorate has the right to issue irreversible instructions.
From this premise follows a sense of responsibility, deepened by a new sense of pessimism. As he said on Friday, “for the first time in my adult life” it is no longer obvious that liberty, democracy and the rule of law are secure... it is to his credit that, unlike many on the embattled centre-ground, he has not yielded to fatalism.
There will be no Churchillian return to office, nor to frontline politics. What counts is his convening power: his capacity to bring people together, to build networks of the like-minded as well as an institute in bricks and mortar.
And if not him, then who? A lesser character, hearing the rumblings of the mob, would walk away. Blair chooses to do precisely the opposite. Good for him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/tony-blair-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw
Political correctness : the shoe's on the other foot
The right prides itself on being straight-talking, on calling a spade a spade, but when it comes to calling a Nazi a Nazi or a racist a racist – well then, things are more vague. They are the “alt-right”, please. Use unacceptable terminology and they will get very angry indeed.
But what’s this? I thought an easily triggered outrage button was the preserve of politically correct liberals? From the vitriol the right heaps on “sensitive snowflakes”, you’d think they have skins as thick as elephants. Far from it: nobody is offended by quite such a wide range of banal things as conservatives. Everything from insufficiently Christmassy Starbucks coffee cups to Budweiser ads to Kermit the Frog’s lack of trousers seems to cause an outpouring of outrage. And, while jokes about minorities or women may be considered just banter, don’t even try joking about white people – that’s reverse-racism! Indeed, many triggered rightwingers recently deleted their Netflix accounts in protest against a new comedy show called Dear White People.
Holiday greetings are another hot-button issue. A survey by Public Policy Polling found “very conservative” Americans were more than twice as likely to be personally offended by someone saying “Happy holidays” to them (21%) as “very liberal” respondents to be offended by someone saying “Merry Christmas” (10%) to them.
Kneeling down can also trigger conservatives. Last year, the American football player Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem to protest against racism. This caused distress to many “patriots”. A conservative post that went viral said: “My heart is exploding, my lungs are without air … my body is shaking, and tears are running down my face. Kaepernick … is refusing to stand for the national anthem.” But liberals are the sensitive snowflakes eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/populist-correctness-new-pc-culture-trump-america-brexit-britain
But what’s this? I thought an easily triggered outrage button was the preserve of politically correct liberals? From the vitriol the right heaps on “sensitive snowflakes”, you’d think they have skins as thick as elephants. Far from it: nobody is offended by quite such a wide range of banal things as conservatives. Everything from insufficiently Christmassy Starbucks coffee cups to Budweiser ads to Kermit the Frog’s lack of trousers seems to cause an outpouring of outrage. And, while jokes about minorities or women may be considered just banter, don’t even try joking about white people – that’s reverse-racism! Indeed, many triggered rightwingers recently deleted their Netflix accounts in protest against a new comedy show called Dear White People.
Holiday greetings are another hot-button issue. A survey by Public Policy Polling found “very conservative” Americans were more than twice as likely to be personally offended by someone saying “Happy holidays” to them (21%) as “very liberal” respondents to be offended by someone saying “Merry Christmas” (10%) to them.
Kneeling down can also trigger conservatives. Last year, the American football player Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem to protest against racism. This caused distress to many “patriots”. A conservative post that went viral said: “My heart is exploding, my lungs are without air … my body is shaking, and tears are running down my face. Kaepernick … is refusing to stand for the national anthem.” But liberals are the sensitive snowflakes eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/19/populist-correctness-new-pc-culture-trump-america-brexit-britain
Sunday, 19 February 2017
The backfire effect and how to prevent it
As this is an hour-long podcast, I took notes.
People do not update their views automatically when new facts come along (as we know, they're not Bayes nets). They cling to their beliefs in the face of strong contrary evidence. Indeed such evidence can produce a "backfire effect", causing them not just to dig in their heels and defend that belief more strongly, but actually believe more strongly.
There's a flip side of confirmation bias : not only are people more trusting and less skeptical of things they already believe, but they're also less trusting and more skeptical of contrary positions.
Scientists do not suffer from this to such a great extent as other groups in part because of the system in which they operate, which rewards presenting data and forming a conclusion. This is not always the case in other spheres, and scientists being more objective than other people is not (at least wholly) due to their being innately more rational than everyone else.
It seems that the backfire effect may have a breaking point : give people enough information and they do change their minds. Researchers conducted a study in which participants were given information about a fake presidental primary election. Beforehand they were given a questionnaire to fill in about their pre-existing political beliefs. The researchers then gave them news stories about the various candidates they could vote for. Participants were divided into different groups which received different fractions of neutral and negative news, from entirely neutral up to 80% negative. This negative news was based on the individual questionnaires, tailored to paint the candidates in a way the participants were likely to personally, viscerally object to.
They found that levels of around 10-15% negative news produced the backfire effect. At around 15-30% the backfire effect was still present, but participants began to also start to question their preferred candidate more critically. Beyond 30% the backfire effect dropped away and they began to change their opinion about their candidates.
This is a laboratory test, of course, where the researchers had total control over what the participants were reading (though they were allowed to decide for themselves how much they read). In the real world people have much more control, selecting trusted news sources for themselves. So they can be much harder to reach because they never see the negative facts or alternative opinions. This means that actually getting them to hear this much negative information is extremely difficult : it's not that people don't know, it's that they refuse to know. A more optimistic take-away point is that people do change their minds if you can reach them.
Being aware of this effect can help, but it doesn't stop it entirely. The researchers conclude that to win people over, you have to keep trying. Keep bringing facts and entering discussions. Those are important, however, they are not the whole story.
It's true that people don't learn if you don't give them anything to learn, so you do have to keep debating and bringing evidence. But there are other factors at work. If they have become especially convinced of an idea, it becomes part of their identity. And the brain does not like having its identity threatened, so it rejects the attack. An alternative view may seem terrifying as it threatens a believer's world view and their whole identity. That's why people do have a motivation to disbelieve alternative ideas even when it seems they should have no good reason to do so.
The most deeply convinced hardcore supporters are not impossible to reach but it will require a long struggle. Even those who are more persuadable have to be approached with more than just data. One approach is not to explicitly try and debunk an idea, but engage a believer as though you were helping to solve a mystery together (also, even just mentioning whatever myth they believe can reinforce it in their own minds). Perhaps the overt effort to debunk is unconsciously seen as a threat, "you must be stupid to believe that".
Another approach is not to try and change people's beliefs to change their behaviour, but to change their behaviour to change their beliefs. E.g. get employees to wash their hands by stamping them with something that takes a few washes to remove, thus forming a habit which then becomes a belief in the importance of cleanliness.
While it's okay to engage in multiple lines of inquiry in an openly-debating situation, where the stated goal is to reach a conclusion and change minds, this doesn't necessarily work in all situations. If people think you're going for overkill, they may sense that you're just trying to change their mind and not establish the truth : if one reason is enough, why are you giving me ten ? Hence politicians go for repetitive, limited sound bites with strong messages.
Finally, people like narrative, causal explanations. Never leave a gap. If your message undermines their existing belief for why a thing happens, you must simultaneously replace it with another one. People prefer an incorrect model to an incomplete one - if you simply take something away from them without offering any replacement, you will do more harm than good.
https://boingboing.net/2017/02/13/how-to-fight-back-against-the.html
People do not update their views automatically when new facts come along (as we know, they're not Bayes nets). They cling to their beliefs in the face of strong contrary evidence. Indeed such evidence can produce a "backfire effect", causing them not just to dig in their heels and defend that belief more strongly, but actually believe more strongly.
There's a flip side of confirmation bias : not only are people more trusting and less skeptical of things they already believe, but they're also less trusting and more skeptical of contrary positions.
Scientists do not suffer from this to such a great extent as other groups in part because of the system in which they operate, which rewards presenting data and forming a conclusion. This is not always the case in other spheres, and scientists being more objective than other people is not (at least wholly) due to their being innately more rational than everyone else.
It seems that the backfire effect may have a breaking point : give people enough information and they do change their minds. Researchers conducted a study in which participants were given information about a fake presidental primary election. Beforehand they were given a questionnaire to fill in about their pre-existing political beliefs. The researchers then gave them news stories about the various candidates they could vote for. Participants were divided into different groups which received different fractions of neutral and negative news, from entirely neutral up to 80% negative. This negative news was based on the individual questionnaires, tailored to paint the candidates in a way the participants were likely to personally, viscerally object to.
They found that levels of around 10-15% negative news produced the backfire effect. At around 15-30% the backfire effect was still present, but participants began to also start to question their preferred candidate more critically. Beyond 30% the backfire effect dropped away and they began to change their opinion about their candidates.
This is a laboratory test, of course, where the researchers had total control over what the participants were reading (though they were allowed to decide for themselves how much they read). In the real world people have much more control, selecting trusted news sources for themselves. So they can be much harder to reach because they never see the negative facts or alternative opinions. This means that actually getting them to hear this much negative information is extremely difficult : it's not that people don't know, it's that they refuse to know. A more optimistic take-away point is that people do change their minds if you can reach them.
Being aware of this effect can help, but it doesn't stop it entirely. The researchers conclude that to win people over, you have to keep trying. Keep bringing facts and entering discussions. Those are important, however, they are not the whole story.
It's true that people don't learn if you don't give them anything to learn, so you do have to keep debating and bringing evidence. But there are other factors at work. If they have become especially convinced of an idea, it becomes part of their identity. And the brain does not like having its identity threatened, so it rejects the attack. An alternative view may seem terrifying as it threatens a believer's world view and their whole identity. That's why people do have a motivation to disbelieve alternative ideas even when it seems they should have no good reason to do so.
The most deeply convinced hardcore supporters are not impossible to reach but it will require a long struggle. Even those who are more persuadable have to be approached with more than just data. One approach is not to explicitly try and debunk an idea, but engage a believer as though you were helping to solve a mystery together (also, even just mentioning whatever myth they believe can reinforce it in their own minds). Perhaps the overt effort to debunk is unconsciously seen as a threat, "you must be stupid to believe that".
Another approach is not to try and change people's beliefs to change their behaviour, but to change their behaviour to change their beliefs. E.g. get employees to wash their hands by stamping them with something that takes a few washes to remove, thus forming a habit which then becomes a belief in the importance of cleanliness.
While it's okay to engage in multiple lines of inquiry in an openly-debating situation, where the stated goal is to reach a conclusion and change minds, this doesn't necessarily work in all situations. If people think you're going for overkill, they may sense that you're just trying to change their mind and not establish the truth : if one reason is enough, why are you giving me ten ? Hence politicians go for repetitive, limited sound bites with strong messages.
Finally, people like narrative, causal explanations. Never leave a gap. If your message undermines their existing belief for why a thing happens, you must simultaneously replace it with another one. People prefer an incorrect model to an incomplete one - if you simply take something away from them without offering any replacement, you will do more harm than good.
https://boingboing.net/2017/02/13/how-to-fight-back-against-the.html
Just because I don't like it, eh ? We'll see about that
Deep Space Nine and contemporary politics, the cases when ad hominem attacks are justified, and a possible reason why our MPs are still voting for Brexit even though hardly anyone wants the hard Brexit the government are driving towards (including the government). Maybe if I write enough rants this will make a difference ? :P
What you seemed to have got very confused about is the nature of protest. Yes, we have the right to protest over any damn thing we like, be it the poor quality of Vin Diesel's acting or the oppression of minorities - but let's not pretend for one minute that the two are morally comparable. They are not. Just because we're offended by bigotry and are protesting about it, it does not follow, as you seem to think, that we are merely angry protesters who can be dismissed as sore losers. This is not whining for the sake of whining or even simply because of strong moral views - it's protesting a course of action which, as sure as anything can ever be, will cause all of us harm. Protesting against xenophobia is not the same as protesting because we're unhappy about closing the local library.
Neither freedom nor democracy are necessarily virtuous in themselves. Not if they lead to things which are wholly negative, that cause nothing but suffering. And while it's good to let people make their own mistakes and learn from them, letting them fall off a cliff could hardly be called a sensible way of educating them about gravity.
Political leaders supporting Brexit are a consequence of thinking that democracy is innately virtuous, and that the more democratic the process, the better the result must be. British MPs supporting Drumpf are a consequence of thinking that America is innately virtuous. And Labour MPs still supporting Corbyn are a consequence of thinking that their leader is somehow innately virtuous too; if not in character then merely deserving of support because he's the leader, which has much the same outcome.
But these things are not innately virtuous. We should not value freedom and democracy just because they are freedom and democracy, but because we believe those things will enable us to lead good lives that we want to lead. They should be seen as means to an end, not an end in themselves. Freedom that leads you to unjustly hate and demonise those who don't belong to your social group is no virtue at all, nor is such discrimination somehow more palatable because it was enacted by a democratic vote.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/an-open-letter-to-british-political.html
What you seemed to have got very confused about is the nature of protest. Yes, we have the right to protest over any damn thing we like, be it the poor quality of Vin Diesel's acting or the oppression of minorities - but let's not pretend for one minute that the two are morally comparable. They are not. Just because we're offended by bigotry and are protesting about it, it does not follow, as you seem to think, that we are merely angry protesters who can be dismissed as sore losers. This is not whining for the sake of whining or even simply because of strong moral views - it's protesting a course of action which, as sure as anything can ever be, will cause all of us harm. Protesting against xenophobia is not the same as protesting because we're unhappy about closing the local library.
Neither freedom nor democracy are necessarily virtuous in themselves. Not if they lead to things which are wholly negative, that cause nothing but suffering. And while it's good to let people make their own mistakes and learn from them, letting them fall off a cliff could hardly be called a sensible way of educating them about gravity.
Political leaders supporting Brexit are a consequence of thinking that democracy is innately virtuous, and that the more democratic the process, the better the result must be. British MPs supporting Drumpf are a consequence of thinking that America is innately virtuous. And Labour MPs still supporting Corbyn are a consequence of thinking that their leader is somehow innately virtuous too; if not in character then merely deserving of support because he's the leader, which has much the same outcome.
But these things are not innately virtuous. We should not value freedom and democracy just because they are freedom and democracy, but because we believe those things will enable us to lead good lives that we want to lead. They should be seen as means to an end, not an end in themselves. Freedom that leads you to unjustly hate and demonise those who don't belong to your social group is no virtue at all, nor is such discrimination somehow more palatable because it was enacted by a democratic vote.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/an-open-letter-to-british-political.html
Saturday, 18 February 2017
Living in a crystal for ten thousand years
Scientists have extracted long-dormant microbes from inside the famous giant crystals of the Naica mountain caves in Mexico - and revived them. The organisms were likely encased in the striking shafts of gypsum at least 10,000 years ago, and possibly up to 50,000 years ago.
"Other people have made longer-term claims for the antiquity of organisms that were still alive, but in this case these organisms are all very extraordinary - they are not very closely related to anything in the known genetic databases," said Dr Penelope Boston.
The environment is hot (40-60C), humid and acidic. With no light at depth, any lifeform must chemosynthesise to survive. That is, it must derive the energy needed to sustain itself by processing rock minerals. Researchers had identified microbes living in the walls of the caves, but isolating them from inside the metres-long crystals is a surprise.
These outsized needles of gypsum have grown over millions of years. They are not perfect. In places they have defects - small voids where fluids have collected and become encased. Using sterile tools, Dr Boston and colleagues opened these inclusions and sampled their contents. Not only did they detect the presence of bacteria and archaea, but they were able also to re-animate these organisms in the lab.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39013829
"Other people have made longer-term claims for the antiquity of organisms that were still alive, but in this case these organisms are all very extraordinary - they are not very closely related to anything in the known genetic databases," said Dr Penelope Boston.
The environment is hot (40-60C), humid and acidic. With no light at depth, any lifeform must chemosynthesise to survive. That is, it must derive the energy needed to sustain itself by processing rock minerals. Researchers had identified microbes living in the walls of the caves, but isolating them from inside the metres-long crystals is a surprise.
These outsized needles of gypsum have grown over millions of years. They are not perfect. In places they have defects - small voids where fluids have collected and become encased. Using sterile tools, Dr Boston and colleagues opened these inclusions and sampled their contents. Not only did they detect the presence of bacteria and archaea, but they were able also to re-animate these organisms in the lab.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39013829
Friday, 17 February 2017
Tony Blair is fed up
Interesting times indeed.
Tony Blair has said it is his "mission" to persuade Britons to "rise up" and change their minds on Brexit. Speaking in the City of London, the former prime minister claimed that people voted in the referendum "without knowledge of the true terms of Brexit". He urged "a way out from the present rush over the cliff's edge". Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said the comments were arrogant and undemocratic but Lib Dem Nick Clegg said he "agreed with every word".
[How in God's name is it undemocratic if people change their minds ? If democracy really does deliver sensible choices, then it stands to reason that it ought to deliver the same results consistently. To ask people to ignore changing evidence - that's undemocratic.]
In the absence of an effective opposition, he said pro-Europeans needed to build a "movement " reaching across party lines, he said, adding the institute he is launching would play its part in developing the arguments to rethink the country's position. "The debilitation of the Labour Party is the facilitator of Brexit. I hate to say that, but it is true."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38996179
Tony Blair has said it is his "mission" to persuade Britons to "rise up" and change their minds on Brexit. Speaking in the City of London, the former prime minister claimed that people voted in the referendum "without knowledge of the true terms of Brexit". He urged "a way out from the present rush over the cliff's edge". Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said the comments were arrogant and undemocratic but Lib Dem Nick Clegg said he "agreed with every word".
[How in God's name is it undemocratic if people change their minds ? If democracy really does deliver sensible choices, then it stands to reason that it ought to deliver the same results consistently. To ask people to ignore changing evidence - that's undemocratic.]
In the absence of an effective opposition, he said pro-Europeans needed to build a "movement " reaching across party lines, he said, adding the institute he is launching would play its part in developing the arguments to rethink the country's position. "The debilitation of the Labour Party is the facilitator of Brexit. I hate to say that, but it is true."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38996179
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Prove me wrong
Regular readers know I'm very skeptical of the existence of Planety McPlanetFace, a.k.a. Planet 9. So here's your chance to prove me wrong !
Is there a large planet at the fringes of our solar system awaiting discovery, a world astronomers call Planet Nine? We’re looking for this planet and for new brown dwarfs in the backyard of the solar system using data from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) mission. But we need your help! Finding these dim objects requires combing through the images by eye to distinguish moving celestial bodies from ghosts and other artifacts. There are too many images for us to search through by ourselves. So come join the search, and you might find a rogue world that's nearer to the Sun than Proxima Centauri---or even the elusive Planet Nine.
https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/marckuchner/backyard-worlds-planet-9?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=BWP9Launch15Feb2017&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=GM
Is there a large planet at the fringes of our solar system awaiting discovery, a world astronomers call Planet Nine? We’re looking for this planet and for new brown dwarfs in the backyard of the solar system using data from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) mission. But we need your help! Finding these dim objects requires combing through the images by eye to distinguish moving celestial bodies from ghosts and other artifacts. There are too many images for us to search through by ourselves. So come join the search, and you might find a rogue world that's nearer to the Sun than Proxima Centauri---or even the elusive Planet Nine.
https://www.zooniverse.org/projects/marckuchner/backyard-worlds-planet-9?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=BWP9Launch15Feb2017&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=GM
Yes, you can prove a theory
You just have to be very careful about how you define "proof" and "theory". Which sounds silly, but it isn't really. If you accept that reality is an illusion, and/or that our senses cannot be trusted or give information which is always unreliable, that we cannot ever really know what reality is like, then it's true you can't prove a theory. But in that case you can't even have true facts either, only things which (at best) can be assigned probabilities.
But this is not typically how most of us think or how science normally works either. It operates under the assumption that we can actually objectively measure the world, even if our information about it is not complete. Our measurements do represent reality in some way. They may occasionally be wrong or people may lie about them and deceive us, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Thus, under this assumption, it is perfectly possible to measure things we may consider to be absolute, true facts. The only way to say the Earth is flat is to invoke a massive conspiracy theory and/or our memories are being constantly manipulated. This isn't wrong, but it isn't science.
Once you allow absolute facts, you also allow provable theories. Evolution has been proven to occur, the Earth has been proven to be roughly spherical. These are both theories, in that they tell us how the world works, and facts, in that they are known to be true. They have varying degrees of predictive power, and you have to specify precisely under what conditions they should occur - but if those conditions are indeed replicated precisely, then evolution will always happen and gravity will always operate.
It's true that most of the time things are not always so black and white - most theories are varying shades of grey. But the absolute extremes - the definitely true and the definitely false - do happen. "Alternative facts" are indeed simply lies.
With cast of mice, necromancy, snakes, cats, and a tiny elephant... see also this post about proving negatives.
But this is not typically how most of us think or how science normally works either. It operates under the assumption that we can actually objectively measure the world, even if our information about it is not complete. Our measurements do represent reality in some way. They may occasionally be wrong or people may lie about them and deceive us, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Thus, under this assumption, it is perfectly possible to measure things we may consider to be absolute, true facts. The only way to say the Earth is flat is to invoke a massive conspiracy theory and/or our memories are being constantly manipulated. This isn't wrong, but it isn't science.
Once you allow absolute facts, you also allow provable theories. Evolution has been proven to occur, the Earth has been proven to be roughly spherical. These are both theories, in that they tell us how the world works, and facts, in that they are known to be true. They have varying degrees of predictive power, and you have to specify precisely under what conditions they should occur - but if those conditions are indeed replicated precisely, then evolution will always happen and gravity will always operate.
It's true that most of the time things are not always so black and white - most theories are varying shades of grey. But the absolute extremes - the definitely true and the definitely false - do happen. "Alternative facts" are indeed simply lies.
With cast of mice, necromancy, snakes, cats, and a tiny elephant... see also this post about proving negatives.
You Can't Not Prove It Wasn't Me Who Didn't Do It
Science is about working out how the world actually functions. It doesn't have any truck with hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo or fairy stories about some magical deity running the show - it's about solid, hard facts, evidence and proof. Nice, comfortable, iron-clad certainties all the way !
The fabric of the cosmos
Coolness level : gushing.
We introduce The Fabric of the Universe, an art and science collaboration focused on exploring the cosmic web of dark matter with unconventional techniques and materials. We discuss two of our projects in detail. First, we describe a pipeline for translating three-dimensional density structures from N-body simulations into solid surfaces suitable for 3D printing, and present prints of a cosmological volume and of the infall region around a massive cluster halo. In these models, we discover wall-like features that are invisible in two-dimensional projections. Going beyond the sheer visualization of simulation data, we undertake an exploration of the cosmic web as a three-dimensional woven textile. To this end, we develop experimental 3D weaving techniques to create sphere-like and filamentary shapes and radically simplify a region of the cosmic web into a set of filaments and halos. We translate the resulting tree structure into a series of commands that can be executed by a digital weaving machine, and describe the resulting large-scale textile installation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03897
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Flying cars in Dubai
Clickbait ? Probably. But at least it's testable and we don't have long to wait.
Dubai’s head of transportation, Mattar al-Tayer, says the city will be “making every effort to start the operation of the autonomous aerial vehicle in July 2017,” and that the program would hopefully help remove some of the traffic burden which is causing a problem in the city of nearly three million.
The EHang 184 is built by the Chinese company that shares its name, and has been in development for many years. The vehicle, which is a single-seat drone-like contraption with four arms carrying a pair of propellers each, has a maximum payload capacity of 220lbs. It has a top speed of just over 35mph and a maximum cruising time of about 25 minutes, giving it a range of somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 miles.
http://bgr.com/2017/02/13/flying-cars-dubai-taxi-drones/
Dubai’s head of transportation, Mattar al-Tayer, says the city will be “making every effort to start the operation of the autonomous aerial vehicle in July 2017,” and that the program would hopefully help remove some of the traffic burden which is causing a problem in the city of nearly three million.
The EHang 184 is built by the Chinese company that shares its name, and has been in development for many years. The vehicle, which is a single-seat drone-like contraption with four arms carrying a pair of propellers each, has a maximum payload capacity of 220lbs. It has a top speed of just over 35mph and a maximum cruising time of about 25 minutes, giving it a range of somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 miles.
http://bgr.com/2017/02/13/flying-cars-dubai-taxi-drones/
Monday, 13 February 2017
The rainforest is partly the product of human design
A new study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the Amazonian forests in the Acre state of Brazil were managed by human inhabitants for thousands of years, further supporting the theory that much of the Amazon rainforest was already to some extent a product of human design by the time Europeans arrived in the region more than 450 years ago.
Scientists and explorers have discovered hundreds of geometric earthworks — over 450 pre-Columbian (pre-AD 1492) geometric ditched enclosures (“geoglyphs”) occupying about 13,000 km2 of the Acre state in Brazil. These huge earthworks were concealed for centuries within the upland interfluvial rainforest, directly challenging the “pristine” status of this ecosystem and its perceived vulnerability to human impacts — suggesting that this region was also deforested to a large extent in the past, challenging the apparent vulnerability of Amazonian forests to human land use.
In a study co-authored by Jennifer Watling of the University of Sao Paulo and University of Exeter and colleagues, researchers show that bamboo forest dominated the region for at least 6,000 years and that small, temporary clearings were made to build the geoglyphs; however, construction occurred within an anthropogenic forest, meaning that the forest had already been actively managed by its human inhabitants for millennia
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/winter-2017/article/study-shows-pre-columbian-builders-managed-amazonian-forests
Scientists and explorers have discovered hundreds of geometric earthworks — over 450 pre-Columbian (pre-AD 1492) geometric ditched enclosures (“geoglyphs”) occupying about 13,000 km2 of the Acre state in Brazil. These huge earthworks were concealed for centuries within the upland interfluvial rainforest, directly challenging the “pristine” status of this ecosystem and its perceived vulnerability to human impacts — suggesting that this region was also deforested to a large extent in the past, challenging the apparent vulnerability of Amazonian forests to human land use.
In a study co-authored by Jennifer Watling of the University of Sao Paulo and University of Exeter and colleagues, researchers show that bamboo forest dominated the region for at least 6,000 years and that small, temporary clearings were made to build the geoglyphs; however, construction occurred within an anthropogenic forest, meaning that the forest had already been actively managed by its human inhabitants for millennia
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/winter-2017/article/study-shows-pre-columbian-builders-managed-amazonian-forests
Saturday, 11 February 2017
Behold my own personal utopia !
I reject your political reality and substitute my own.
The Grand Duchy of Rhysyland II is a huge, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its rampant corporate plagiarism, ubiquitous missile silos, and punitive income tax rates. The compassionate, democratic, devout population of 444 million Rhysyland IIians love a good election, and the government gives them plenty of them. Universities tend to be full of students debating the merits of various civil and political rights, while businesses are tightly regulated and the wealthy viewed with suspicion.
The enormous, socially-minded, outspoken government juggles the competing demands of Education, Welfare, and Defense. It meets to discuss matters of state in the capital city of Rhysyland II City. The average income tax rate is 65.4%, and even higher for the wealthy.
The sizeable but underdeveloped Rhysyland IIian economy, worth 12.3 trillion Bottle Caps a year, is quite specialized and led by the Pizza Delivery industry, with major contributions from Tourism, Woodchip Exports, and Information Technology. State-owned companies are common. Average income is 27,800 Bottle Caps, and distributed extremely evenly, with little difference between the richest and poorest citizens.
All new "spies" are fifteen-year-old acne-ridden kids on computers, jails have become colloquially known as 'vampire houses', citizens recently voted in favour of declaring bubblewrap an 'abomination of nature', and it is a crime to operate a combine harvester while intoxicated. Crime, especially youth-related, is totally unknown, thanks to a capable police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Rhysyland II's national animal is the Swamp Dragon, which soars majestically through the nation's famously clear skies.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rhysyland_ii
The Grand Duchy of Rhysyland II is a huge, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its rampant corporate plagiarism, ubiquitous missile silos, and punitive income tax rates. The compassionate, democratic, devout population of 444 million Rhysyland IIians love a good election, and the government gives them plenty of them. Universities tend to be full of students debating the merits of various civil and political rights, while businesses are tightly regulated and the wealthy viewed with suspicion.
The enormous, socially-minded, outspoken government juggles the competing demands of Education, Welfare, and Defense. It meets to discuss matters of state in the capital city of Rhysyland II City. The average income tax rate is 65.4%, and even higher for the wealthy.
The sizeable but underdeveloped Rhysyland IIian economy, worth 12.3 trillion Bottle Caps a year, is quite specialized and led by the Pizza Delivery industry, with major contributions from Tourism, Woodchip Exports, and Information Technology. State-owned companies are common. Average income is 27,800 Bottle Caps, and distributed extremely evenly, with little difference between the richest and poorest citizens.
All new "spies" are fifteen-year-old acne-ridden kids on computers, jails have become colloquially known as 'vampire houses', citizens recently voted in favour of declaring bubblewrap an 'abomination of nature', and it is a crime to operate a combine harvester while intoxicated. Crime, especially youth-related, is totally unknown, thanks to a capable police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Rhysyland II's national animal is the Swamp Dragon, which soars majestically through the nation's famously clear skies.
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rhysyland_ii
Tuesday, 7 February 2017
Sometimes skin is an optional extra
Skin ? It's over-rated. Second photo in the link is truly bizarre.
A newly discovered species of gecko has tearaway skin that leaves predators with nothing but a mouthful of scales when attacked. Many lizards can detach their tails when attacked, but fish-scale geckos have large scales that tear away with ease. The new species is a master of this art, say scientists, having the largest scales of any known gecko.
The skin of fish-scale geckos is specially adapted to tearing. The large scales are attached only by a relatively narrow region that tears with ease. In addition, beneath the scales there is a pre-formed splitting zone within the skin itself. When grasped by a predator, fish-scale geckos lose not just their scales but also the skin underneath.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38897327
A newly discovered species of gecko has tearaway skin that leaves predators with nothing but a mouthful of scales when attacked. Many lizards can detach their tails when attacked, but fish-scale geckos have large scales that tear away with ease. The new species is a master of this art, say scientists, having the largest scales of any known gecko.
The skin of fish-scale geckos is specially adapted to tearing. The large scales are attached only by a relatively narrow region that tears with ease. In addition, beneath the scales there is a pre-formed splitting zone within the skin itself. When grasped by a predator, fish-scale geckos lose not just their scales but also the skin underneath.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38897327
Saturday, 4 February 2017
Banning the ban
Wait, is this some... actual... good... news ? SSSH, Rhys, don't jinx it !
The US authorities have rolled back a controversial travel ban on people from seven mainly Muslim countries after a judge suspended it. The state department said it was reversing the cancellations of visas, 60,000 of which were revoked after President Donald Drumpf's order. Judge James Robart ruled there were legal grounds to challenge the ban. Mr Drumpf called the verdict by the Seattle judge "ridiculous" and vowed to restore the ban.
Among those standing to benefit most from the suspension of the ban is four-month-old Fatemeh Reshad, an Iranian infant with a heart defect who will now receive life-saving surgery in the US after all. US doctors have pledged to treat her for free, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38868571
The US authorities have rolled back a controversial travel ban on people from seven mainly Muslim countries after a judge suspended it. The state department said it was reversing the cancellations of visas, 60,000 of which were revoked after President Donald Drumpf's order. Judge James Robart ruled there were legal grounds to challenge the ban. Mr Drumpf called the verdict by the Seattle judge "ridiculous" and vowed to restore the ban.
Among those standing to benefit most from the suspension of the ban is four-month-old Fatemeh Reshad, an Iranian infant with a heart defect who will now receive life-saving surgery in the US after all. US doctors have pledged to treat her for free, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38868571
You don't win over fascists - you fight them
It still doesn’t seem real, so it feels daft even trying to come to terms with it, as if the new President was Spongebob Squarepants. But now the world has to take Donald Drumpf and his new rules seriously. Theresa May has to laugh at his jokes and interruptions, and not complain when he grabs her hand, for reasons of trade. This is the way deals are done now, he’ll tell the Germans he’ll put a tariff on Volkswagen cars unless Angela Merkel lets him squeeze her tits.
At least Merkel might offer some opposition, and insist he only grabs the left one, even if it results in a 12 per cent tax on German sausage exports.
Until this week it still seemed like a game, with commentators and politicians assuring us “In time we must hope the new President comes to terms with his responsibilities and acts to unify his nation.” This strategy of stopping him by hoping he becomes nicer, may already have proved a little optimistic. It’s a method that hasn’t always enjoyed the success it deserves. In the 1930s, responsible characters probably suggested, “In time we must hope the Ku Klux Klan learn to behave responsibly, as fire can be quite a hazard, especially with inflammable sheets nearby.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-campaign-pledges-doesnt-know-how-politics-works-a7559571.html
At least Merkel might offer some opposition, and insist he only grabs the left one, even if it results in a 12 per cent tax on German sausage exports.
Until this week it still seemed like a game, with commentators and politicians assuring us “In time we must hope the new President comes to terms with his responsibilities and acts to unify his nation.” This strategy of stopping him by hoping he becomes nicer, may already have proved a little optimistic. It’s a method that hasn’t always enjoyed the success it deserves. In the 1930s, responsible characters probably suggested, “In time we must hope the Ku Klux Klan learn to behave responsibly, as fire can be quite a hazard, especially with inflammable sheets nearby.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-campaign-pledges-doesnt-know-how-politics-works-a7559571.html
Friday, 3 February 2017
Arecibo's recent discoveries
I was asked to put this on a " popular bulletin board in your lab/office/department." but I figure I'll reach more people here. [And it did on Google Plus, because it wasn't a bloody ghost town !]
Woman votes to leave the EU because Bananas, apparently
Woman votes to leave the EU because Bananas. Dark and depressing times indeed. And while all we have to decide may be what to do with the time that is given to us, I have absolutely no fucking clue how the hell to deal with stupidity of that level.
[Walks away, muttering dark things about eugenics...]
It seems totally incredible to me now that everyone spent that evening as though it were just like any other. From the railway station came the sound of shunting trains, ringing and rumbling, softened almost into melody by the distance. It all seemed so safe and tranquil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ElkNcCAhSU
[Walks away, muttering dark things about eugenics...]
It seems totally incredible to me now that everyone spent that evening as though it were just like any other. From the railway station came the sound of shunting trains, ringing and rumbling, softened almost into melody by the distance. It all seemed so safe and tranquil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ElkNcCAhSU
Thursday, 2 February 2017
Bias in the political and scientific arenas explained
On bias in science and politics, explained with tortoises, gingers, and the Trump vs. Obama's "Muslim" ban :
Being biased doesn't always mean you're wrong - so long as you understand that bias. But is there an unfair perspective at work here ? Is one side resorting to double standards, engaging in mass hysteria because Drumpf instigated a ban but completely ignoring Obama's earlier, similar restrictions ?
If you were to say, "President Obama's Muslim ban was bad because Obama is a bad person, but Drumpf's ban is good because Drumpf is a great man and he can do no wrong", then you are irredeemably biased and unprincipled. You are supporting a policy not based on that policy itself but on who enacts it. If, however, you were to say, "I support Obama overall, but the Muslim ban was an inexcusable failure. I campaigned against it and will do the same against Drumpf's ban." then you are not biased. You are judging the policy based on the policy itself, and while you may still be an Obama supporter you aren't trying to excuse one particular action you don't like.
The flip side of this is that you could be unbiased on the other side. You could say, "I didn't vote for Obama but I supported his Muslim ban because it was the right thing to do, and I support Drumpf in part because of this policy". That's not biased or unprincipled either. I personally wouldn't support your principles in this case, and would in fact strongly object to them, but I will acknowledge that you have them.
The crucial difference is the preliminary rhetoric to the ban. Obama never made a ban on Muslims a major part of his campaign policy, and was in fact well-known for speaking out against discrimination. He also didn't institute the ban as an executive order either, though he did fail to veto it. Only the most extreme Obamaphiles would attempt to defend the Obama ban while decrying Drumpf's; the rest of us should see it as a failure.
But what was seen as a failure of the old administration is being touted as a triumph of the new - Drumpf didn't merely allow the ban, he encouraged it, enacted it as an executive order, and promoted it with discriminatory rhetoric. So it is wholly unfair to accuse all but the most extreme liberals of bias or double standards here - of course people are going to react differently when discrimination is promoted as a success rather than (at most) an excusable failure.
The most extreme supporters of a group or an individual are groupies. They care about who's saying it, not what they're saying. Such people of course certainly do exist. The mistake I see being made constantly at the moment is to assume that everyone who supports a policy does so because they favour who's saying it, rather than being viewed as favouring who's saying it because they like the policy.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-bias.html
Being biased doesn't always mean you're wrong - so long as you understand that bias. But is there an unfair perspective at work here ? Is one side resorting to double standards, engaging in mass hysteria because Drumpf instigated a ban but completely ignoring Obama's earlier, similar restrictions ?
If you were to say, "President Obama's Muslim ban was bad because Obama is a bad person, but Drumpf's ban is good because Drumpf is a great man and he can do no wrong", then you are irredeemably biased and unprincipled. You are supporting a policy not based on that policy itself but on who enacts it. If, however, you were to say, "I support Obama overall, but the Muslim ban was an inexcusable failure. I campaigned against it and will do the same against Drumpf's ban." then you are not biased. You are judging the policy based on the policy itself, and while you may still be an Obama supporter you aren't trying to excuse one particular action you don't like.
The flip side of this is that you could be unbiased on the other side. You could say, "I didn't vote for Obama but I supported his Muslim ban because it was the right thing to do, and I support Drumpf in part because of this policy". That's not biased or unprincipled either. I personally wouldn't support your principles in this case, and would in fact strongly object to them, but I will acknowledge that you have them.
The crucial difference is the preliminary rhetoric to the ban. Obama never made a ban on Muslims a major part of his campaign policy, and was in fact well-known for speaking out against discrimination. He also didn't institute the ban as an executive order either, though he did fail to veto it. Only the most extreme Obamaphiles would attempt to defend the Obama ban while decrying Drumpf's; the rest of us should see it as a failure.
But what was seen as a failure of the old administration is being touted as a triumph of the new - Drumpf didn't merely allow the ban, he encouraged it, enacted it as an executive order, and promoted it with discriminatory rhetoric. So it is wholly unfair to accuse all but the most extreme liberals of bias or double standards here - of course people are going to react differently when discrimination is promoted as a success rather than (at most) an excusable failure.
The most extreme supporters of a group or an individual are groupies. They care about who's saying it, not what they're saying. Such people of course certainly do exist. The mistake I see being made constantly at the moment is to assume that everyone who supports a policy does so because they favour who's saying it, rather than being viewed as favouring who's saying it because they like the policy.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-bias.html
We could end the stupid right now, but chose not to
No, apparently 2017 is going to be year the stupid just continues.
MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way. They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114. But the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled. The bill now faces further scrutiny in the Commons and the House of Lords before it can become law.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had imposed a three-line whip - the strongest sanction at his disposal - on his MPs to back the bill. Shadow cabinet members Rachael Maskell and Dawn Butler quit the party's front bench shortly before the vote, in order to defy his orders. Also, 13 Labour frontbenchers voted against their own party position, apparently without first resigning.
Mr Corbyn said: "Labour MPs voted more than three to one in favour of triggering Article 50. Now the battle of the week ahead is to shape Brexit negotiations to put jobs, living standards and accountability centre stage. Labour's amendments are the real agenda. The challenge is for MPs of all parties to ensure the best deal for Britain, and that doesn't mean giving Theresa May a free hand to turn Britain into a bargain-basement tax haven."
[Corbyn is a complete fucking arse monkey. After effectively threatening them with expulsion, he acts as though Labour MPs support Brexit. History is going to judge this sorry episode - and May won't be the only one who gets the blame.]
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, seven of whose nine MPs voted against the government, said: "The Tories and Labour have failed future generations today by supporting a hard Brexit. Labour's leadership tonight have waved the white flag. They are not an opposition; they are cheerleaders."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38833883
MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way. They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114. But the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled. The bill now faces further scrutiny in the Commons and the House of Lords before it can become law.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had imposed a three-line whip - the strongest sanction at his disposal - on his MPs to back the bill. Shadow cabinet members Rachael Maskell and Dawn Butler quit the party's front bench shortly before the vote, in order to defy his orders. Also, 13 Labour frontbenchers voted against their own party position, apparently without first resigning.
Mr Corbyn said: "Labour MPs voted more than three to one in favour of triggering Article 50. Now the battle of the week ahead is to shape Brexit negotiations to put jobs, living standards and accountability centre stage. Labour's amendments are the real agenda. The challenge is for MPs of all parties to ensure the best deal for Britain, and that doesn't mean giving Theresa May a free hand to turn Britain into a bargain-basement tax haven."
[Corbyn is a complete fucking arse monkey. After effectively threatening them with expulsion, he acts as though Labour MPs support Brexit. History is going to judge this sorry episode - and May won't be the only one who gets the blame.]
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, seven of whose nine MPs voted against the government, said: "The Tories and Labour have failed future generations today by supporting a hard Brexit. Labour's leadership tonight have waved the white flag. They are not an opposition; they are cheerleaders."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38833883
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
The context of the Muslim travel ban should not be ignored
The suggestively labelled “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act” of December 2015 complicated the visa application process for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria. It also made it more difficult for anyone who had visited any of these countries on or after March 1 2011 to get a visa.
That act erected discriminatory barriers for access to the US for scholars, people with dual nationality, or tourists. And while the December 2015 act was not based on an executive order issued by the president, Obama could have vetoed that congressional piece of legislation, but didn’t. Somalia, Libya, and Yemen were added in February 2016 as “countries of concern” by the Department of Homeland Security, and it was this list of seven countries referred to in Drumpf’s executive order.
The arbitrary classification of these seven countries as “terror threats” stays the same. Saudi Arabia, Egypt or other countries with links to the 9/11 perpetrators are not on the list, rendering Drumpf’s evocation of the September 11 attacks in the executive order sketchy at best. Neither are countries like Turkey, in which the Drumpf Organisation has done business.
Drumpf’s new order, however, differs from the December 2015 law in its scale. Under the new rules, the US is detaining people that have already undergone lengthy vetting procedures. Imposing a blanket travel ban against entire nationalities not only violates commitments the US made under international law and is controversial constitutionally, it is also imprudent policy. Jihadist groups are already celebrating the new travel ban as a propaganda success, bolstering their claim that the US is waging a war on Islam – despite Drumpf’s attempts to underline that the travel ban is “not about religion”.
Although green card holders being detained is an important issue, I think the most important point is the rhetoric and bullshit behind the "totally not a Muslim ban even though I said it was a Muslim ban" ban. Drumpf sold it as much on the grounds of sheer, open bigotry as he did security. He originally called for, "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Now he's saying it's not about religion, as though banning people based on where they'd been makes it any better, or that excuses him from discriminating against Muslims originally. "I can call for a ban on Muslims, win votes as a result, then deliberately backpeddle to make make my detractors look biased against me." This isn't merely bullshit - it's bullshit polished to a shine. The man's a political genius in his own uniquely stupid way.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/07/worked-example-selective-reporting.html
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-travel-ban-differs-from-obamas-visa-restrictions-72125
That act erected discriminatory barriers for access to the US for scholars, people with dual nationality, or tourists. And while the December 2015 act was not based on an executive order issued by the president, Obama could have vetoed that congressional piece of legislation, but didn’t. Somalia, Libya, and Yemen were added in February 2016 as “countries of concern” by the Department of Homeland Security, and it was this list of seven countries referred to in Drumpf’s executive order.
The arbitrary classification of these seven countries as “terror threats” stays the same. Saudi Arabia, Egypt or other countries with links to the 9/11 perpetrators are not on the list, rendering Drumpf’s evocation of the September 11 attacks in the executive order sketchy at best. Neither are countries like Turkey, in which the Drumpf Organisation has done business.
Drumpf’s new order, however, differs from the December 2015 law in its scale. Under the new rules, the US is detaining people that have already undergone lengthy vetting procedures. Imposing a blanket travel ban against entire nationalities not only violates commitments the US made under international law and is controversial constitutionally, it is also imprudent policy. Jihadist groups are already celebrating the new travel ban as a propaganda success, bolstering their claim that the US is waging a war on Islam – despite Drumpf’s attempts to underline that the travel ban is “not about religion”.
Although green card holders being detained is an important issue, I think the most important point is the rhetoric and bullshit behind the "totally not a Muslim ban even though I said it was a Muslim ban" ban. Drumpf sold it as much on the grounds of sheer, open bigotry as he did security. He originally called for, "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Now he's saying it's not about religion, as though banning people based on where they'd been makes it any better, or that excuses him from discriminating against Muslims originally. "I can call for a ban on Muslims, win votes as a result, then deliberately backpeddle to make make my detractors look biased against me." This isn't merely bullshit - it's bullshit polished to a shine. The man's a political genius in his own uniquely stupid way.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/07/worked-example-selective-reporting.html
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-travel-ban-differs-from-obamas-visa-restrictions-72125
The completely disabled can still behave like jerks
Patients with absolutely no control over their body have finally been able to communicate, say scientists. A brain-computer interface was used to read the thoughts of patients to answer basic yes-or-no questions.
The patients all had advanced forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in which the brain loses the ability to control muscles. It eventually traps people in their own body - they are able to think, but incapable of moving or talking. When they become "locked in", it can still be possible to develop ways of communication using eye movements. But all the patients in the study, at the Wyss Center in Switzerland, were "completely locked in" and could not even move their eyes.
The activity of brain cells can change oxygen levels in the blood, which in turn changes the colour of the blood. And scientists were able to peer inside the brain using light to detect the blood's colour, through a technique called near-infrared spectroscopy. They then asked the patients yes-or-no questions such as: "Your husband's name is Joachim?" to train a computer to interpret the brain signals. The system achieved an accuracy of about 75%. It means questions need to be asked repeatedly in order to be certain of a patient's answer.
One man was able to repeatedly refuse permission for his daughter to get married... a daughter wanted the blessing of her completely locked-in father before marrying her boyfriend. But eight times out of 10 the answer came back no. "We don't know why he said no," said Prof Chaudhary. "But they got married… nothing can come between love."
Well, I guess even the totally incapacitated can still be jerks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38761461
The patients all had advanced forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in which the brain loses the ability to control muscles. It eventually traps people in their own body - they are able to think, but incapable of moving or talking. When they become "locked in", it can still be possible to develop ways of communication using eye movements. But all the patients in the study, at the Wyss Center in Switzerland, were "completely locked in" and could not even move their eyes.
The activity of brain cells can change oxygen levels in the blood, which in turn changes the colour of the blood. And scientists were able to peer inside the brain using light to detect the blood's colour, through a technique called near-infrared spectroscopy. They then asked the patients yes-or-no questions such as: "Your husband's name is Joachim?" to train a computer to interpret the brain signals. The system achieved an accuracy of about 75%. It means questions need to be asked repeatedly in order to be certain of a patient's answer.
One man was able to repeatedly refuse permission for his daughter to get married... a daughter wanted the blessing of her completely locked-in father before marrying her boyfriend. But eight times out of 10 the answer came back no. "We don't know why he said no," said Prof Chaudhary. "But they got married… nothing can come between love."
Well, I guess even the totally incapacitated can still be jerks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38761461
Changing the politicians won't help without also changing the network
On why scientists should avoid becoming politicians. We had an interesting discussion about this already; I set my arguments down here just as a more permanent record and not with the intent of poking anyone in the eye about this.
The problem isn't just with the politicians. It's a threefold problem, and without addressing each aspect of it, we are forever doomed to more of the same.
First, there are the politicians themselves. If you have bad rulers the rest is irrelevant. Second is the political system in which those rulers operate. No matter how noble their intentions, if the system of government is itself fundamentally flawed, the politician's aspirations will be rendered impotent or perverted. And third, assuming that we wish to maintain some form of democracy, are the voters themselves. No matter the greatness of the politicians or the suitability of the system of governance, if the voters are a bunch of bigoted idiots, a fair and just society will not result.
Both the political system and the politicians themselves are inherently partisan and it is strongly in the interests of everyone involved to maintain that partisanship. The system of opposing political parties is one that demands enemies, those who are seen as attacking the others not because the facts support their own claims but because it's their political duty to do so... Post-truth happens in part because it genuinely does not matter for a politician what the truth is, because that does not necessarily correlate with them winning elections. And so it behooves the partisan politician to create enemies where none exist.
Scientific knowledge acts as part of a series of critical checks and balances of the system : even the worst politicians are bound to respect the truth at least a little. Political reality is not wholly detached from objective reality so long as we have a fair idea of what the hell objective reality actually is. Now consider what would happen if there were no perceived boundaries between knowledge and politics. Post-truth and alternative facts would be only the beginning, and this is a chilling prospect which should terrify anyone.
Scientists are neither trained nor especially well-suited to leadership or rhetoric; they are very ill-equipped either to reform the political system or inspire the voters. This is a key point I've had to explain to my colleagues many times : in politics you have to be able to inspire and persuade people, to carry them with you - you cannot just act against their will.
What this does not mean is that we're doomed to suffer from corrupt, post-truth politicians forever. It only means that scientists becoming politicians right now is not a magic bullet. The solutions are much more complex than that - if you want to reform politics, you must reform the entire body politic, not just replace the politicians. You have to look not only at the rulers but also the ruling system and the ruled themselves.
Getting the electorate to be more rational obviously isn't easy. Because even when people are well-educated and well-off, they don't necessarily act rationally. Drumpf voters were not particularly impoverished or poorly educated. Tory [Brexit] voters include the very wealthy with (supposedly) literally the best education money can by... It is absolutely essential to recognise the strength of the inherent irrational nature of the human condition, even if it's impossible to fully apprehend it. This is why you cannot simply give people more information or more rational leaders and expect to get a more rational society as a result; ideologies are not so lightly thrown aside.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html
The problem isn't just with the politicians. It's a threefold problem, and without addressing each aspect of it, we are forever doomed to more of the same.
First, there are the politicians themselves. If you have bad rulers the rest is irrelevant. Second is the political system in which those rulers operate. No matter how noble their intentions, if the system of government is itself fundamentally flawed, the politician's aspirations will be rendered impotent or perverted. And third, assuming that we wish to maintain some form of democracy, are the voters themselves. No matter the greatness of the politicians or the suitability of the system of governance, if the voters are a bunch of bigoted idiots, a fair and just society will not result.
Both the political system and the politicians themselves are inherently partisan and it is strongly in the interests of everyone involved to maintain that partisanship. The system of opposing political parties is one that demands enemies, those who are seen as attacking the others not because the facts support their own claims but because it's their political duty to do so... Post-truth happens in part because it genuinely does not matter for a politician what the truth is, because that does not necessarily correlate with them winning elections. And so it behooves the partisan politician to create enemies where none exist.
Scientific knowledge acts as part of a series of critical checks and balances of the system : even the worst politicians are bound to respect the truth at least a little. Political reality is not wholly detached from objective reality so long as we have a fair idea of what the hell objective reality actually is. Now consider what would happen if there were no perceived boundaries between knowledge and politics. Post-truth and alternative facts would be only the beginning, and this is a chilling prospect which should terrify anyone.
Scientists are neither trained nor especially well-suited to leadership or rhetoric; they are very ill-equipped either to reform the political system or inspire the voters. This is a key point I've had to explain to my colleagues many times : in politics you have to be able to inspire and persuade people, to carry them with you - you cannot just act against their will.
What this does not mean is that we're doomed to suffer from corrupt, post-truth politicians forever. It only means that scientists becoming politicians right now is not a magic bullet. The solutions are much more complex than that - if you want to reform politics, you must reform the entire body politic, not just replace the politicians. You have to look not only at the rulers but also the ruling system and the ruled themselves.
Getting the electorate to be more rational obviously isn't easy. Because even when people are well-educated and well-off, they don't necessarily act rationally. Drumpf voters were not particularly impoverished or poorly educated. Tory [Brexit] voters include the very wealthy with (supposedly) literally the best education money can by... It is absolutely essential to recognise the strength of the inherent irrational nature of the human condition, even if it's impossible to fully apprehend it. This is why you cannot simply give people more information or more rational leaders and expect to get a more rational society as a result; ideologies are not so lightly thrown aside.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html
Overcoming bias : don't tell people to be impartial, instead tell them to consider the opposite interpretation
At school we had debates in which we were forced to advocate for the side we disagreed with, and it was extremely useful.
The motivational instructions told participants to be "as objective and unbiased as possible", to consider themselves "as a judge or juror asked to weigh all of the evidence in a fair and impartial manner".
The alternative, cognition-focused, instructions were silent on the desired outcome of the participants’ consideration, instead focusing only on the strategy to employ: "Ask yourself at each step whether you would have made the same high or low evaluations had exactly the same study produced results on the other side of the issue." So, for example, if presented with a piece of research that suggested the death penalty lowered murder rates, the participants were asked to analyse the study's methodology and imagine the results pointed the opposite way.
They called this the "consider the opposite" strategy, and the results were striking. Instructed to be fair and impartial, participants showed the exact same biases when weighing the evidence as in the original experiment. Pro-death penalty participants thought the evidence supported the death penalty. Anti-death penalty participants thought it supported abolition. Wanting to make unbiased decisions wasn't enough. The "consider the opposite" participants, on the other hand, completely overcame the biased assimilation effect – they weren't driven to rate the studies which agreed with their preconceptions as better than the ones that disagreed, and didn't become more extreme in their views regardless of which evidence they read.
The finding is good news for our faith in human nature. It isn't that we don't want to discover the truth, at least in the microcosm of reasoning tested in the experiment. All people needed was a strategy which helped them overcome the natural human short-sightedness to alternatives.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170131-why-wont-some-people-listen-to-reason
The motivational instructions told participants to be "as objective and unbiased as possible", to consider themselves "as a judge or juror asked to weigh all of the evidence in a fair and impartial manner".
The alternative, cognition-focused, instructions were silent on the desired outcome of the participants’ consideration, instead focusing only on the strategy to employ: "Ask yourself at each step whether you would have made the same high or low evaluations had exactly the same study produced results on the other side of the issue." So, for example, if presented with a piece of research that suggested the death penalty lowered murder rates, the participants were asked to analyse the study's methodology and imagine the results pointed the opposite way.
They called this the "consider the opposite" strategy, and the results were striking. Instructed to be fair and impartial, participants showed the exact same biases when weighing the evidence as in the original experiment. Pro-death penalty participants thought the evidence supported the death penalty. Anti-death penalty participants thought it supported abolition. Wanting to make unbiased decisions wasn't enough. The "consider the opposite" participants, on the other hand, completely overcame the biased assimilation effect – they weren't driven to rate the studies which agreed with their preconceptions as better than the ones that disagreed, and didn't become more extreme in their views regardless of which evidence they read.
The finding is good news for our faith in human nature. It isn't that we don't want to discover the truth, at least in the microcosm of reasoning tested in the experiment. All people needed was a strategy which helped them overcome the natural human short-sightedness to alternatives.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170131-why-wont-some-people-listen-to-reason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)