First, the bad news :
"It's quite common now for people to stop and help a turtle across the road rather than run over it," said project co-ordinator, Rick Levick. But a separate study, using dummy rubber turtles and snakes, had also shown that some drivers deliberately tried to hit the animals.
Such people should have their driving licenses permanently revoked and examined for psychological problems.
And then the good news :
The last of the turtle crossings were installed earlier this year - and the study is claiming a major improvement. "The average number of turtles venturing on to the road has dropped by 89% and snake numbers are down 28%," said Chantel Markle, a biologist at McMaster University.
And then more bad news - the good news hasn't been at all easy to achieve :
So rather than urging drivers to be more careful, the big challenge has been stopping turtles getting on to the road in the first place. Culverts were dug below the surface to allow turtles and snakes to cross safely, and fences and barriers were constructed along the road to force them to use these underpasses.
This was not straightforward. In some parts of the road it was sometimes difficult to put in adequate fencing, such as where the land was very marshy. And the study found that partial fencing could be worse than being completely unfenced, with animals in large numbers going through the gaps.
Regular concrete was too cold, so a specially adapted type of warmer polymer material was used, with a design allowing in enough light to make the animals confident that there really was light at the end of the tunnel. They also had to be no more than 150m apart, because any more would be beyond the roaming range of the lumbering turtles. Radio-tagged turtles were followed to find the best combinations of materials and locations.
I predict the next step will be a turtle-seeking drone that lifts the unfortunate animals to safety.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40088879
Wednesday 31 May 2017
Tuesday 30 May 2017
The cost of EU membership put in perspective
The twitter account this comes from has been suspended, but fortunately I was able to download the image from a Google Plus post.
https://twitter.com/lesbonner/status/869457498109087744
Dude, where's my policy ?
Ouch.
Jeremy Corbyn was unable to put a cost on Labour's plan for free childcare for 1.3m youngsters during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour. "It will cost... it will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, before agreeing with host Emma Barnett that the figure was £5.3bn. The stumble came as the Labour leader and Theresa May resumed election campaigning following a live TV debate.
The childcare part of the interview began with Mr Corbyn being asked whether he had the figure for its cost and replying: "Yes, I do." Pressed to give the number, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You don't know it? You're logging into your iPad here - you've announced a major policy and you don't know how much it will cost?" presenter Emma Barnett said.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment, please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters should not trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
[As a rule, you should at least know how much your policy costs on the day you announce it. And if you don't, have the guts to admit that - say you're mind's gone blank, anything, but don't try and fool people so brazenly.]
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40090520
Jeremy Corbyn was unable to put a cost on Labour's plan for free childcare for 1.3m youngsters during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour. "It will cost... it will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, before agreeing with host Emma Barnett that the figure was £5.3bn. The stumble came as the Labour leader and Theresa May resumed election campaigning following a live TV debate.
The childcare part of the interview began with Mr Corbyn being asked whether he had the figure for its cost and replying: "Yes, I do." Pressed to give the number, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You don't know it? You're logging into your iPad here - you've announced a major policy and you don't know how much it will cost?" presenter Emma Barnett said.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment, please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters should not trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
[As a rule, you should at least know how much your policy costs on the day you announce it. And if you don't, have the guts to admit that - say you're mind's gone blank, anything, but don't try and fool people so brazenly.]
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40090520
Monday 29 May 2017
60 million people and these idiots are the best we could manage
Summary of the non-debate between Corbyn and May :
Option A : the Grand High Witch. Doesn't have a clue about anything. Happy to appeal to the stupidity of people who think Brexit is a good idea and we can somehow threaten the EU to just leave. What we're supposed to be threatening them with is anyone's guess.
Option B : a smug sanctimonious git who claims to be straight talking and repeatedly defends statements on the grounds that they shouldn't be taken literally, is probably a terrorist sympathiser, treats everyone like children and thinks that money can just be conjured magically out of the air.
Yippee.
Option A : the Grand High Witch. Doesn't have a clue about anything. Happy to appeal to the stupidity of people who think Brexit is a good idea and we can somehow threaten the EU to just leave. What we're supposed to be threatening them with is anyone's guess.
Option B : a smug sanctimonious git who claims to be straight talking and repeatedly defends statements on the grounds that they shouldn't be taken literally, is probably a terrorist sympathiser, treats everyone like children and thinks that money can just be conjured magically out of the air.
Yippee.
Falsification is over-rated
With all this stuff going around about some angry scientists writing a letter to some other angry scientists about how their science isn't really science, I thought I'd take a look at the popular topic of falsification. Being able to disprove your theory is certainly a good thing. You never make a theory worse if it's possible to disprove it. But is it absolutely essential ? I argue, "no" - and we're already in a era when in insisting on the possibility of falsification does more harm than good, at least in astronomy. "That's all there is to it" is, alas, woefully inadequate.
A simplified example : galaxies in very dense regions tend to have smooth, elliptical shapes, while those in less dense regions tend to be spirals and irregulars. We know there are varying processes which can act to change a galaxy's shape, but which one dominates ? We don't even want to try to falsify which ones happen - because we know they all do - it's just a case of establishing which one has the biggest effect. The effects of the different mechanisms are so complex (and observational errors so large) it's possible we could make any of them work, with enough effort. So which method gives the results closest to reality with the least amount of tweaking ? That's the question we try to answer, which has little or nothing to do with falsifying anything.
Here's another example - a computer claims to have proved an obscure mathematical theorem but its proof is far too long for any human to ever read. By necessity, this proof must be based on logical deductions, but if it's too long to check then is it really a proof ? This isn't really all that novel either - throughout history, stupid people have stubbornly refused to accept the proofs that cleverer people have come up with. Does that mean that clever people aren't being scientific if they can't explain their ideas to the mentally deficient ? With science becoming increasingly complex and requiring increasing amounts of time to fully understand, this is a real problem. And if scientists don't even fully understand their results, well...
Really extreme proponents of falsification often tend to be those of the anti-science ilk. Geology, astronomy and anything else which involves deep time, they say, are not really sciences because we can't actually prove anything - no-one left records for billions of years ago for us to check, and we can't wait around to see how galaxies evolve. In a very strict sense, the evolutionary history of life on Earth and the behaviour of stars over cosmic time really can't be falsified.
Such a way of thinking has many parallels with conspiracy theories. It's not that everyone is lying, exactly, it's just that they are demanding impossibly high standards from the evidence which can never be met. By demanding ludicrously high levels of confidence, by refusing to make even the most basic assumptions and give the data some rudimentary level of trust, in short by refusing to even entertain hypothesis for the sake of it, they prevent themselves from learning anything. And they rarely say why they have such confidence in their own senses, which is bizarre given the complexities and many, many demonstrable fallibilities of the human brain.
[What you want for a proper theory is not that it is falsifiable (though that is always nice) but testable. It should be able to make predictions which are different to other competing theories. Since real data has errors, it's often a case of deciding which model gets most results the closet to the observations, rather than choosing between one model which is right and one which is wrong. If your theory can't be tested against and compared with existing models, it should at least be mathematically rigorous and offer philosophical improvements over other theories. Such a theory would still be scientifically valid, in my view.]
A simplified example : galaxies in very dense regions tend to have smooth, elliptical shapes, while those in less dense regions tend to be spirals and irregulars. We know there are varying processes which can act to change a galaxy's shape, but which one dominates ? We don't even want to try to falsify which ones happen - because we know they all do - it's just a case of establishing which one has the biggest effect. The effects of the different mechanisms are so complex (and observational errors so large) it's possible we could make any of them work, with enough effort. So which method gives the results closest to reality with the least amount of tweaking ? That's the question we try to answer, which has little or nothing to do with falsifying anything.
Here's another example - a computer claims to have proved an obscure mathematical theorem but its proof is far too long for any human to ever read. By necessity, this proof must be based on logical deductions, but if it's too long to check then is it really a proof ? This isn't really all that novel either - throughout history, stupid people have stubbornly refused to accept the proofs that cleverer people have come up with. Does that mean that clever people aren't being scientific if they can't explain their ideas to the mentally deficient ? With science becoming increasingly complex and requiring increasing amounts of time to fully understand, this is a real problem. And if scientists don't even fully understand their results, well...
Really extreme proponents of falsification often tend to be those of the anti-science ilk. Geology, astronomy and anything else which involves deep time, they say, are not really sciences because we can't actually prove anything - no-one left records for billions of years ago for us to check, and we can't wait around to see how galaxies evolve. In a very strict sense, the evolutionary history of life on Earth and the behaviour of stars over cosmic time really can't be falsified.
Such a way of thinking has many parallels with conspiracy theories. It's not that everyone is lying, exactly, it's just that they are demanding impossibly high standards from the evidence which can never be met. By demanding ludicrously high levels of confidence, by refusing to make even the most basic assumptions and give the data some rudimentary level of trust, in short by refusing to even entertain hypothesis for the sake of it, they prevent themselves from learning anything. And they rarely say why they have such confidence in their own senses, which is bizarre given the complexities and many, many demonstrable fallibilities of the human brain.
[What you want for a proper theory is not that it is falsifiable (though that is always nice) but testable. It should be able to make predictions which are different to other competing theories. Since real data has errors, it's often a case of deciding which model gets most results the closet to the observations, rather than choosing between one model which is right and one which is wrong. If your theory can't be tested against and compared with existing models, it should at least be mathematically rigorous and offer philosophical improvements over other theories. Such a theory would still be scientifically valid, in my view.]
I Told You He Was Tricksy
Absolutes are very comforting things : this is right, that is wrong. Once established, no further thought is required - indeed, an absolute fact can be used to refute anything that disagrees with it. This is extremely powerful, but also potentially very dangerous. What if you're just plain wrong about those facts ?
Sunday 28 May 2017
Don't say I didn't warn you
Aaaarrgh. Urrrgh. Good God what the fuck is wrong with this country ? First time in my life I honestly can't decide if the Labour or Tory party would be more dangerous in government. Every time I see Corbyn I get more and more terrified. He's creepy, smug, uber-sanctimonious and weird as hell. He seems to be becoming more and more like Senator Palpatine every day. He literally makes my skin crawl. And people are being persuaded by this man ?!? I just... aaaarghhh.... what the fuck ?!?! NO !
I realise I'm being incredibly unsuccessful in trying to persuade anyone, so let's just say : if this man wins, don't you dare say I didn't warn you. Don't you dare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkbmKUiCP2k
I realise I'm being incredibly unsuccessful in trying to persuade anyone, so let's just say : if this man wins, don't you dare say I didn't warn you. Don't you dare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkbmKUiCP2k
Friday 26 May 2017
Sunday 21 May 2017
An air conditioner for your back
Powered by 4 AA batteries and lasts for 8 hours ? I want one.
http://www.japantrendshop.com/kucho-airconditioned-backpack-cooling-pack-p-3931.html
http://www.japantrendshop.com/kucho-airconditioned-backpack-cooling-pack-p-3931.html
Friday 19 May 2017
An open admission of guilt is still not enough
The irony level is now at supersaturation and crystals of terminal honesty are condensing out of the truly bizarre and ungodly concoction.
US President Donald Drumpf told Russian officials that firing FBI director James Comey eased "great pressure" on him, US media report. The New York Times, citing a document summarising last week's meeting, says he called Mr Comey a "real nut job". Mr Comey had been running an inquiry into possible collusion between Russia and Donald Drumpf's election campaign.
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Mr. Drumpf said, according to the report. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
Donald Drumpf called the ongoing Russia investigation a "witch hunt", but reporters have just found a boiling cauldron and a closet full of broomsticks. The key takeaway from these latest blockbuster stories - there have been so many this week it's hard to keep count - is there's now further evidence of Mr Drumpf's intent to dismiss FBI Director James Comey because of his handling of the ongoing Russia investigation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39983257
US President Donald Drumpf told Russian officials that firing FBI director James Comey eased "great pressure" on him, US media report. The New York Times, citing a document summarising last week's meeting, says he called Mr Comey a "real nut job". Mr Comey had been running an inquiry into possible collusion between Russia and Donald Drumpf's election campaign.
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Mr. Drumpf said, according to the report. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
Donald Drumpf called the ongoing Russia investigation a "witch hunt", but reporters have just found a boiling cauldron and a closet full of broomsticks. The key takeaway from these latest blockbuster stories - there have been so many this week it's hard to keep count - is there's now further evidence of Mr Drumpf's intent to dismiss FBI Director James Comey because of his handling of the ongoing Russia investigation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39983257
Net neutrality under threat
Booo ! But it's not done yet :
The vote by the FCC commissioners is the first stage in the process of dismantling the net neutrality regulations. The agency is now inviting public comment on whether it should indeed dismantle the rules. Americans have until mid-August to share their views with the FCC. This call for comments is likely to attract a huge number of responses. Prior to the vote, more than 1 million statements supporting net neutrality were filed on the FCC site.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39973787
The vote by the FCC commissioners is the first stage in the process of dismantling the net neutrality regulations. The agency is now inviting public comment on whether it should indeed dismantle the rules. Americans have until mid-August to share their views with the FCC. This call for comments is likely to attract a huge number of responses. Prior to the vote, more than 1 million statements supporting net neutrality were filed on the FCC site.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39973787
Anything to stop those annoying office colleagues
I wish I could change the displayed photo, because the Isolator - and it certainly deserves a capital I - looks like something from a mad scientist's dungeon. No-one in their right mind would disturb anyone wearing this.
Back in 1925, inventor and science fiction author Hugo Gernsback had an idea to block out annoying ambient noise: a contraption he called ‘the isolator’. This helmet would shut out all sounds, smells, and sights of the outside world. The idea was that the user, looking through two small window holes in the metal hood, could concentrate only on the task right at hand.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170518-curious-contraptions-of-yesterdays-workplaces
Back in 1925, inventor and science fiction author Hugo Gernsback had an idea to block out annoying ambient noise: a contraption he called ‘the isolator’. This helmet would shut out all sounds, smells, and sights of the outside world. The idea was that the user, looking through two small window holes in the metal hood, could concentrate only on the task right at hand.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170518-curious-contraptions-of-yesterdays-workplaces
No longer fringe - our elections are being hacked
The shadowy conspiracy theory becomes mainstream.
A probe into the political use of private data has been opened by the information commissioner. Elizabeth Denham announced the review amid concerns over allegations involving an analytics firm linked to a Brexit campaign. It follows calls for an investigation into claims that Leave.EU had not declared the role of Cambridge Analytica (CA) in its campaign. The Electoral Commission says its powers do not extend beyond the UK.
But Ms Denham said: "Having considered the evidence we have already gathered, I have decided to open a formal investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes. "This will involve deepening our current activity to explore practices deployed during the UK's EU referendum campaign, but potentially also in other campaigns." The probe was sparked by Labour's Stephen Kinnock, a remain campaigner, who called on the Electoral Commission to look into links between Leave.EU and CA.
Claire Bassett, the commission's chief executive, said, while it had "very clear rules" governing the permissibility of donations and printed materials, such as campaign leaflets, it has no power to stop overseas individuals or governments using social media to influence British elections. "At the moment the rules apply to print media - so if you get a leaflet through your door, that should have an imprint on it which makes it clear who's produced that leaflet and where it's come from so you know who's campaigning for your vote," she said. "At the moment those rules don't extend to social media and we've recommended that that should happen."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39946801
A probe into the political use of private data has been opened by the information commissioner. Elizabeth Denham announced the review amid concerns over allegations involving an analytics firm linked to a Brexit campaign. It follows calls for an investigation into claims that Leave.EU had not declared the role of Cambridge Analytica (CA) in its campaign. The Electoral Commission says its powers do not extend beyond the UK.
But Ms Denham said: "Having considered the evidence we have already gathered, I have decided to open a formal investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes. "This will involve deepening our current activity to explore practices deployed during the UK's EU referendum campaign, but potentially also in other campaigns." The probe was sparked by Labour's Stephen Kinnock, a remain campaigner, who called on the Electoral Commission to look into links between Leave.EU and CA.
Claire Bassett, the commission's chief executive, said, while it had "very clear rules" governing the permissibility of donations and printed materials, such as campaign leaflets, it has no power to stop overseas individuals or governments using social media to influence British elections. "At the moment the rules apply to print media - so if you get a leaflet through your door, that should have an imprint on it which makes it clear who's produced that leaflet and where it's come from so you know who's campaigning for your vote," she said. "At the moment those rules don't extend to social media and we've recommended that that should happen."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39946801
Thursday 18 May 2017
Everyone has different priorities, especially this guy
Climate change ? Pah. Donald Trump ? Pffft. North Korea ? Oh, please. No, the real threat to civilisation we should be worried about is, apparently, texting in the cinema.
A Texas man has filed a lawsuit against a woman for the cost of a movie ticket after she texted during their cinema date. Brandon Vezmar, 37, said the woman walked out of the screening of Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 when he complained about her persistent phone use. Mr Vezmar filed the petition in the state capital of Austin last week seeking $17.31 (£13.30), arguing his date's behaviour was "a threat to civilised society".
Mad as clams, the lot of 'em. Especially the cinema that charges $17 for a ticket.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39966675
A Texas man has filed a lawsuit against a woman for the cost of a movie ticket after she texted during their cinema date. Brandon Vezmar, 37, said the woman walked out of the screening of Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 when he complained about her persistent phone use. Mr Vezmar filed the petition in the state capital of Austin last week seeking $17.31 (£13.30), arguing his date's behaviour was "a threat to civilised society".
Mad as clams, the lot of 'em. Especially the cinema that charges $17 for a ticket.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39966675
For the hasty Ent
Next step... grow your own ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/39957804/would-you-drive-a-car-made-from-plants
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/39957804/would-you-drive-a-car-made-from-plants
Super thin holograms will be awesome, probably
"Conventional computer-generated holograms are too big for electronic devices but our ultrathin hologram overcomes those size barriers," Gu said. "Our nano-hologram is also fabricated using a simple and fast direct laser writing system, which makes our design suitable for large-scale uses and mass manufacture. Integrating holography into everyday electronics would make screen size irrelevant - a pop-up 3D hologram can display a wealth of data that doesn't neatly fit on a phone or watch.
But surely the hologram can't appear above the surface of the screen, only below it ?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/ru-wth051617.php
But surely the hologram can't appear above the surface of the screen, only below it ?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/ru-wth051617.php
Wednesday 17 May 2017
Trump (very literally) does not understand what's going on
This makes a lot of sense.
...many columnists lately have been calling President Drumpf a child, or a bull in a china shop. This is, I think, unfair to children, and to bulls. Bulls have done a good job running Wall Street. Sometimes children are not cruel on purpose. Children can sit still and are often unable to stick their feet into their mouths, and sometimes will let you get more ice cream than they get.
He is something more terrifying than a child. Children can learn.
The Drumpf presidency is the discovery that what you thought was a man in a bear suit is just a bear. Suddenly the fact that he wouldn’t play by the rules makes total sense. It wasn’t that he refused to, that he was playing a long game. It was that he was a wild animal who eats fish and climbs trees, and English words were totally unintelligible to him. In retrospect, you should have suspected that after he just straight-up ate a guy. But at the time everyone cheered. It was good TV. Also, he was your bear.
The people in there with him are the people who did not realize that what they had on their hands was an animal. Now they are trying to whisper him, like a horse. Do horses understand whispering? Horses probably think that people are just conspiring against them all the time. Horses are probably quite paranoid and delusional. But at least a horse would not fire the FBI director.
Where's Caligula when you need him ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/05/17/the-president-is-not-a-child-hes-something-worse/?tid=ss_gp&utm_term=.b3ee8b775781
...many columnists lately have been calling President Drumpf a child, or a bull in a china shop. This is, I think, unfair to children, and to bulls. Bulls have done a good job running Wall Street. Sometimes children are not cruel on purpose. Children can sit still and are often unable to stick their feet into their mouths, and sometimes will let you get more ice cream than they get.
He is something more terrifying than a child. Children can learn.
The Drumpf presidency is the discovery that what you thought was a man in a bear suit is just a bear. Suddenly the fact that he wouldn’t play by the rules makes total sense. It wasn’t that he refused to, that he was playing a long game. It was that he was a wild animal who eats fish and climbs trees, and English words were totally unintelligible to him. In retrospect, you should have suspected that after he just straight-up ate a guy. But at the time everyone cheered. It was good TV. Also, he was your bear.
The people in there with him are the people who did not realize that what they had on their hands was an animal. Now they are trying to whisper him, like a horse. Do horses understand whispering? Horses probably think that people are just conspiring against them all the time. Horses are probably quite paranoid and delusional. But at least a horse would not fire the FBI director.
Where's Caligula when you need him ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/05/17/the-president-is-not-a-child-hes-something-worse/?tid=ss_gp&utm_term=.b3ee8b775781
Russia will definitely tell us the truth, why would they lie ?
The irony level continues to soar to new and ever more dangerous heights.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has waded into the growing row surrounding US President Donald Drumpf and dealings with Russia. US media say Mr Drumpf passed on classified information to Russian officials last week, but Mr Putin says this is not the case. He said he would release a record of the meeting to Congress if requested. The news comes amid reports Mr Drumpf tried to influence an investigation into his team's links with Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39948870
Russian President Vladimir Putin has waded into the growing row surrounding US President Donald Drumpf and dealings with Russia. US media say Mr Drumpf passed on classified information to Russian officials last week, but Mr Putin says this is not the case. He said he would release a record of the meeting to Congress if requested. The news comes amid reports Mr Drumpf tried to influence an investigation into his team's links with Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39948870
Tuesday 16 May 2017
The majesty of nature
From the department of "I cannot brain today. I has the dumb."
http://www.sadanduseless.com/2017/05/majestic-wildlife/
http://www.sadanduseless.com/2017/05/majestic-wildlife/
LET'S GIVE RUSSIA ALL THE THINGS !
Irony knows no upper limit.
US President Donald Drumpf has defended his "absolute right" to discuss sensitive material on terrorism and airline safety at a meeting with Russia's foreign minister. US media reports said he had shared material that was passed on by a partner that had not given permission. The White House refused to comment on reports that Israel was the source. Though not illegal, Mr Drumpf's alleged gaffe is seen as a breach of trust by many in the intelligence community.
Mr Drumpf tweeted: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against [IS] & terrorism."
It is not clear if Mr Drumpf was acknowledging having shared intelligence secrets with the Russian officials, thus contradicting White House statements, or whether he was simply trying to explain what had been discussed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39937258
US President Donald Drumpf has defended his "absolute right" to discuss sensitive material on terrorism and airline safety at a meeting with Russia's foreign minister. US media reports said he had shared material that was passed on by a partner that had not given permission. The White House refused to comment on reports that Israel was the source. Though not illegal, Mr Drumpf's alleged gaffe is seen as a breach of trust by many in the intelligence community.
Mr Drumpf tweeted: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against [IS] & terrorism."
It is not clear if Mr Drumpf was acknowledging having shared intelligence secrets with the Russian officials, thus contradicting White House statements, or whether he was simply trying to explain what had been discussed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39937258
Never tickle a slow loris
All very interesting. My two favourites :
The Slow Loris
Their huge round eyes, adorable faces and almost human-like paws have made slow lorises one of the internet's favourite animals. Being nocturnal, the little primates seem almost docile during the day: when they do move around, they do so slowly and deliberately. When threatened, they tend to freeze. But slow lorises also have a lethal ace up their sleeve, almost literally.
When threatened, a loris will often raise its arms above its head. Far from being a sign of surrender, this is a defensive posture, bringing a gland around its elbow close to its mouth. By combining the oil secreted from the gland with saliva, the loris creates a strong venom, which it then smears onto the top of its head, making it a toxic morsel for any predator.
The loris can also keep the venom inside its mouth, delivering it in a bite. The incisors at the front of the bottom jaw help to conduct the liquid upwards, ensuring it gets into any wound it can inflict. According to Anne-Isola Nekaris of Oxford Brookes University, a bite from a slow loris is "intensely painful". "In extreme cases, bite recipients may enter anaphylactic shock, sometimes resulting in death," Nekaris says.
So, the next time you watch a video of a slow loris being "tickled" with its arms in the air, remember it is not enjoying the experience: it is waiting for a chance to strike.
The Moustache Toad
Moustaches are fun, right? Not when the male who is wearing it is a three-inch-long amphibian from slow-flowing streams in southern China. Each spring, male Emei moustache toads (Leptobrachium boringii) sprout between 10 and 16 spines on their upper lip. Made largely of keratin, the same protein that makes up our nails, the spikes can grow up to 5mm in length.
At the same time, the males develop thicker skin and their forearms bulk out. Then they wrestle, attempting to stab each other with their outrageous facial decorations. "The spines are a bit like a sharpened pencil," says Cameron Hudson, an ecologist at the University of Sydney who has studied the toads. "They are sharp, but you need to put some force behind it to break the skin. The toads scratch your hands while you're holding them, but they aren't sharp enough to cut a human. Toads, on the other hand, occasionally get bruises or puncture wounds on their underbellies and arms from combat."
Their nuptial spines are nothing compared to two other amphibians: the hairy frog and the Spanish ribbed newt. When threatened they break their own bones and shove them through their skin. For the frog, this creates claws like those of the superhero Wolverine, with which it can fend off assailants. Meanwhile, the newt pushes its ribs out of its body to give any predators a nasty mouthful.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170515-the-animals-that-look-helpless-but-are-secretly-fearsome
The Slow Loris
Their huge round eyes, adorable faces and almost human-like paws have made slow lorises one of the internet's favourite animals. Being nocturnal, the little primates seem almost docile during the day: when they do move around, they do so slowly and deliberately. When threatened, they tend to freeze. But slow lorises also have a lethal ace up their sleeve, almost literally.
When threatened, a loris will often raise its arms above its head. Far from being a sign of surrender, this is a defensive posture, bringing a gland around its elbow close to its mouth. By combining the oil secreted from the gland with saliva, the loris creates a strong venom, which it then smears onto the top of its head, making it a toxic morsel for any predator.
The loris can also keep the venom inside its mouth, delivering it in a bite. The incisors at the front of the bottom jaw help to conduct the liquid upwards, ensuring it gets into any wound it can inflict. According to Anne-Isola Nekaris of Oxford Brookes University, a bite from a slow loris is "intensely painful". "In extreme cases, bite recipients may enter anaphylactic shock, sometimes resulting in death," Nekaris says.
So, the next time you watch a video of a slow loris being "tickled" with its arms in the air, remember it is not enjoying the experience: it is waiting for a chance to strike.
The Moustache Toad
Moustaches are fun, right? Not when the male who is wearing it is a three-inch-long amphibian from slow-flowing streams in southern China. Each spring, male Emei moustache toads (Leptobrachium boringii) sprout between 10 and 16 spines on their upper lip. Made largely of keratin, the same protein that makes up our nails, the spikes can grow up to 5mm in length.
At the same time, the males develop thicker skin and their forearms bulk out. Then they wrestle, attempting to stab each other with their outrageous facial decorations. "The spines are a bit like a sharpened pencil," says Cameron Hudson, an ecologist at the University of Sydney who has studied the toads. "They are sharp, but you need to put some force behind it to break the skin. The toads scratch your hands while you're holding them, but they aren't sharp enough to cut a human. Toads, on the other hand, occasionally get bruises or puncture wounds on their underbellies and arms from combat."
Their nuptial spines are nothing compared to two other amphibians: the hairy frog and the Spanish ribbed newt. When threatened they break their own bones and shove them through their skin. For the frog, this creates claws like those of the superhero Wolverine, with which it can fend off assailants. Meanwhile, the newt pushes its ribs out of its body to give any predators a nasty mouthful.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170515-the-animals-that-look-helpless-but-are-secretly-fearsome
A little poem about mechas
Big mechas have little mechas
Upon their backs to ride 'em
And smaller mechas have lesser mechas
And so on ad infinitum.
[Unfortunately I lost the image link, oops !]
Upon their backs to ride 'em
And smaller mechas have lesser mechas
And so on ad infinitum.
[Unfortunately I lost the image link, oops !]
Monday 15 May 2017
Australia's Ugliest Monsters
Following up on Australia's Deadliest Tree with Australia's Ugliest Monsters, especially the football angler (which would probably win the highest ratio of silliest name:most terrifying appearance if such a metric existed).
http://ab.co/2r7j8Sc
http://ab.co/2r7j8Sc
Australia's Deadliest Tree
Thanks Australia !
AUSTRALIA HAS A PARASITE believed to be the largest in the world, a tree whose greedy roots stab victims up to 110m away. The Christmas tree (Nuytsia floribunda) has blades for slicing into the roots of plants to steal their sap. The blades are sharp enough to draw blood on human lips. They cause power failures when the tree attacks buried cables by mistake. Telephone lines get cut as well.
The Christmas tree is indiscriminate, stealing juice from almost anything green – grasses, sedges, carrots, weeds, vines, shrubs, eucalypts. It sometimes attacks its own roots by mistake, and fallen twigs as well. When one of its roots meet another root it forms a collar of tissue around it, like a swollen wedding ring, and a hydraulically operated blade forms inside that. Each tree attaches to hordes of victims.
http://pnw-b.ctx.ly/r/5na0q
AUSTRALIA HAS A PARASITE believed to be the largest in the world, a tree whose greedy roots stab victims up to 110m away. The Christmas tree (Nuytsia floribunda) has blades for slicing into the roots of plants to steal their sap. The blades are sharp enough to draw blood on human lips. They cause power failures when the tree attacks buried cables by mistake. Telephone lines get cut as well.
The Christmas tree is indiscriminate, stealing juice from almost anything green – grasses, sedges, carrots, weeds, vines, shrubs, eucalypts. It sometimes attacks its own roots by mistake, and fallen twigs as well. When one of its roots meet another root it forms a collar of tissue around it, like a swollen wedding ring, and a hydraulically operated blade forms inside that. Each tree attaches to hordes of victims.
http://pnw-b.ctx.ly/r/5na0q
The Leave campaigns were part of a conspiracy
More details are emerging. The Leave campaign was not only a pack of lies and fearmongering, but the organisation(s) were opaque, are beyond the purview of the Electoral Commission, are legally dubious and have credible ties to the current US administration. That's not a free and fair democratic process.
On the surface, the two main campaigns, Leave.EU and Vote Leave, hated one other. Their leading lights, Farage and Boris Johnson, were sworn enemies for the duration of the referendum. The two campaigns bitterly refused even to share a platform. But the Observer has seen a confidential document that provides clear evidence of a link between the two campaigns. More precisely, evidence of a close working relationship between the two data analytics firms employed by the campaigns – AggregateIQ, which Vote Leave hired, and Cambridge Analytica, retained by Leave.EU.
British electoral law is founded on the principle of a level playing field and controlling campaign spending is the key plank of that. The law states that different campaigns must not work together unless they declare their expenditure jointly. This controls spending limits so that no side can effectively “buy” an election.
Legally, these two companies – AggregateIQ in Canada and Cambridge Analytica, an American company based in London, have nothing to connect them publicly. But this intellectual property licence shown to the Observer tells a different story. This created a binding “exclusive” “worldwide” agreement “in perpetuity” for all of AggregateIQ’s intellectual property to be used by SCL Elections (a British firm that created Cambridge Analytica with Mercer). The companies may have had different owners but they were legally bound together.
Millar said: “It is appalling that Vote Leave, whose lead campaign status was authorised by the state (and whose campaign was partly funded by the state), does not feel an obligation to give … public answers to the questions you raise.” Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica have responded by telling the Observer that they did no work with each other. Arron Banks, the head of Leave.EU, said it had talked to Cambridge Analytica about working with it “if we won the official designation – but we didn’t”. This directly contradicts his own memoir, The Bad Boys of Brexit. Under the entry for 22 October 2015, Banks writes: “We’ve hired Cambridge Analytica, an American company that uses ‘big data and advanced psychographics’ to influence people.”
All this has taken so long to come to light because the spending returns for the different campaigns were published only in February. Martin Moore, director of the Study of Communication, Media and Power at King’s College London described how he began to investigate the returns back then.
“I went through the invoices when the Electoral Commission uploaded them to its site. And I kept on discovering all these huge amounts going to a company that not only had I never heard of but that there was practically nothing at all about on the internet. More money was spent with AggregateIQ than with any other company in any other campaign in the entire referendum. All I found, at that time, was a one-page website and that was it. It was an absolute mystery.”
The Observer has learned that the Information Commissioner’s Office is actively investigating BeLeave, Vote Leave, Veterans for Britain and the DUP for potential offences, including illegal sharing of data, but it is believed to have the same problem: the evidence is offshore.
Kinnock said: “It’s clear the Electoral Commission, the body which is meant to uphold it, is completely toothless … Even if it finds a problem, it can only impose a fine which is just the cost of doing business.... And there is no way of properly holding anyone to account... There are so many issues. Thousands of pounds of work apparently unaccounted for. Evidence of coordination between multiple campaigns. Multiple breaches of data protection. And this question of foreign influence, of a foreign billionaire buying influence in a British election, goes right to the heart of our entire democratic process.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns
On the surface, the two main campaigns, Leave.EU and Vote Leave, hated one other. Their leading lights, Farage and Boris Johnson, were sworn enemies for the duration of the referendum. The two campaigns bitterly refused even to share a platform. But the Observer has seen a confidential document that provides clear evidence of a link between the two campaigns. More precisely, evidence of a close working relationship between the two data analytics firms employed by the campaigns – AggregateIQ, which Vote Leave hired, and Cambridge Analytica, retained by Leave.EU.
British electoral law is founded on the principle of a level playing field and controlling campaign spending is the key plank of that. The law states that different campaigns must not work together unless they declare their expenditure jointly. This controls spending limits so that no side can effectively “buy” an election.
Legally, these two companies – AggregateIQ in Canada and Cambridge Analytica, an American company based in London, have nothing to connect them publicly. But this intellectual property licence shown to the Observer tells a different story. This created a binding “exclusive” “worldwide” agreement “in perpetuity” for all of AggregateIQ’s intellectual property to be used by SCL Elections (a British firm that created Cambridge Analytica with Mercer). The companies may have had different owners but they were legally bound together.
Millar said: “It is appalling that Vote Leave, whose lead campaign status was authorised by the state (and whose campaign was partly funded by the state), does not feel an obligation to give … public answers to the questions you raise.” Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica have responded by telling the Observer that they did no work with each other. Arron Banks, the head of Leave.EU, said it had talked to Cambridge Analytica about working with it “if we won the official designation – but we didn’t”. This directly contradicts his own memoir, The Bad Boys of Brexit. Under the entry for 22 October 2015, Banks writes: “We’ve hired Cambridge Analytica, an American company that uses ‘big data and advanced psychographics’ to influence people.”
All this has taken so long to come to light because the spending returns for the different campaigns were published only in February. Martin Moore, director of the Study of Communication, Media and Power at King’s College London described how he began to investigate the returns back then.
“I went through the invoices when the Electoral Commission uploaded them to its site. And I kept on discovering all these huge amounts going to a company that not only had I never heard of but that there was practically nothing at all about on the internet. More money was spent with AggregateIQ than with any other company in any other campaign in the entire referendum. All I found, at that time, was a one-page website and that was it. It was an absolute mystery.”
The Observer has learned that the Information Commissioner’s Office is actively investigating BeLeave, Vote Leave, Veterans for Britain and the DUP for potential offences, including illegal sharing of data, but it is believed to have the same problem: the evidence is offshore.
Kinnock said: “It’s clear the Electoral Commission, the body which is meant to uphold it, is completely toothless … Even if it finds a problem, it can only impose a fine which is just the cost of doing business.... And there is no way of properly holding anyone to account... There are so many issues. Thousands of pounds of work apparently unaccounted for. Evidence of coordination between multiple campaigns. Multiple breaches of data protection. And this question of foreign influence, of a foreign billionaire buying influence in a British election, goes right to the heart of our entire democratic process.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns
Saturday 13 May 2017
3D nebulae in your web browser
This is excessively cool (warning : autoplay music) but I would have liked more information about how the 3D structure was generated.
http://www.nebulabliss.com/explore.html
http://www.nebulabliss.com/explore.html
Accidentally stopping malware
The researcher first noticed that the malware was trying to contact a specific web address every time it infected a new computer. But the web address it was trying to contact - iuqerfsodp9ifjaposdfjhgosurijfaewrwergwea.com - had not been registered. MalwareTech decided to register it, and bought it for $10.69 (£8). Owning it would let him see where computers were accessing it from, and give him an idea of how widespread the ransomware was.
But by doing so he triggered part of the ransomware's code that told it to continuing spreading as long as the website iuqerfsodp9ifjaposdfjhgosurijfaewrwergwea.com did not exist. This type of code is known as a "kill switch", which some attackers use to halt the spread of their software if things get out of hand.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39907049
But by doing so he triggered part of the ransomware's code that told it to continuing spreading as long as the website iuqerfsodp9ifjaposdfjhgosurijfaewrwergwea.com did not exist. This type of code is known as a "kill switch", which some attackers use to halt the spread of their software if things get out of hand.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39907049
Thursday 11 May 2017
Stop poverty by giving people money
This sounds worth reading.
Even liberalism, Bregman argues, has become pessimistic, an ideology that is "all but hollowed out," with young people trained to "just be yourself" and "do your thing." That's probably an overstatement and a cliché. But there's probably also some truth to the idea that a lot of the controversies about safe spaces are the end result of a new emphasis on trying to make the individual feel maximally safe and accepted within the larger context of a world we've unconsciously come to accept as essentially unchangeable.
The welfare state is where Bregman sees the ultimate perversion of the utopian instinct. It's become "a grotesque pact between left and right," in which conservatives have spent a generation making sure people getting aid are punished and villainized as lazy and work-averse, while progressives have used public assistance as a way to lever more control over the lives of poor people who aren't trusted to make the right life choices.
Bregman thinks we should just give people money, no questions asked, and let them sort it out. His prescriptions are humorously simple. He quotes economist Charles Kenny, who notes "the reason poor people are poor is because they don't have enough money." And he tells the fascinating true story of that time that Richard Nixon – Richard Nixon! – tried to implement a law guaranteeing a basic family income for all Americans.
He also argues pretty forcefully that working longer hours makes us less productive and also more unhappy. At some point in the arc of industrialized countries, we end up working more and more hours just so we can acquire more and more stuff we don't need. More relaxing, less working and consuming – that's where we should be looking. So he proposes a 15-hour work week. I'm sure people here will hate the idea.
Well... not everyone hates their job. I don't. So a 15 hour work week would be something of a punishment for me. Then again, my working and free time cannot be so easily distinguished.
While I'm strongly opposed to scientists being politicians, I do favour a more scientific approach to politics : that is, evidenced-based and provisional. Do trials of ideas and see if they work. Ideologies often do start for good, sensible reasons, but they become crazy absolutes : maybe once upon a time you did need a militia to protect citizens from the British, maybe universal healthcare really wasn't affordable back in the day. Maybe even the poor really were just layabout scoundrels at one time who just needed a good clobbering. Probably not, but you never know.
Many issues already have a wealth of indirect evidence. Where they don't, such as UBI, conduct trials. Unfortunately this requires much less ideology-driven politics both from the electorate and the politicians themselves. Without getting both groups to accept a) the need for trials and more importantly b) the results of the trials themselves, nothing will happen. Perhaps we should make the search for truth an ideology in itself.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-free-lunch-for-everyone-w481396
Even liberalism, Bregman argues, has become pessimistic, an ideology that is "all but hollowed out," with young people trained to "just be yourself" and "do your thing." That's probably an overstatement and a cliché. But there's probably also some truth to the idea that a lot of the controversies about safe spaces are the end result of a new emphasis on trying to make the individual feel maximally safe and accepted within the larger context of a world we've unconsciously come to accept as essentially unchangeable.
The welfare state is where Bregman sees the ultimate perversion of the utopian instinct. It's become "a grotesque pact between left and right," in which conservatives have spent a generation making sure people getting aid are punished and villainized as lazy and work-averse, while progressives have used public assistance as a way to lever more control over the lives of poor people who aren't trusted to make the right life choices.
Bregman thinks we should just give people money, no questions asked, and let them sort it out. His prescriptions are humorously simple. He quotes economist Charles Kenny, who notes "the reason poor people are poor is because they don't have enough money." And he tells the fascinating true story of that time that Richard Nixon – Richard Nixon! – tried to implement a law guaranteeing a basic family income for all Americans.
He also argues pretty forcefully that working longer hours makes us less productive and also more unhappy. At some point in the arc of industrialized countries, we end up working more and more hours just so we can acquire more and more stuff we don't need. More relaxing, less working and consuming – that's where we should be looking. So he proposes a 15-hour work week. I'm sure people here will hate the idea.
Well... not everyone hates their job. I don't. So a 15 hour work week would be something of a punishment for me. Then again, my working and free time cannot be so easily distinguished.
While I'm strongly opposed to scientists being politicians, I do favour a more scientific approach to politics : that is, evidenced-based and provisional. Do trials of ideas and see if they work. Ideologies often do start for good, sensible reasons, but they become crazy absolutes : maybe once upon a time you did need a militia to protect citizens from the British, maybe universal healthcare really wasn't affordable back in the day. Maybe even the poor really were just layabout scoundrels at one time who just needed a good clobbering. Probably not, but you never know.
Many issues already have a wealth of indirect evidence. Where they don't, such as UBI, conduct trials. Unfortunately this requires much less ideology-driven politics both from the electorate and the politicians themselves. Without getting both groups to accept a) the need for trials and more importantly b) the results of the trials themselves, nothing will happen. Perhaps we should make the search for truth an ideology in itself.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-free-lunch-for-everyone-w481396
Told you so
I did tell y'all some time ago that I don't trust Assange.
Nigel Farage has repeatedly refused to say why he met Wikileaks founder Julian Assange before terminating a heated interview. The former Ukip leader told Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper he visited the Ecuadorian Embassy for “journalistic reasons, not political reasons” in March. “I will not say any more about that,” Mr Farage added. “It has nothing to do with you. It was a private meeting.”
He declined to say whether any kind of article would be published but described the meeting as “very brief” and said he talked “about a lot of things” with Mr Assange. Leaked emails later revealed long-standing contacts between Ukip and the Australian activist, who the party has publicly supported through a sexual assault investigation in Sweden.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-julian-assange-meeting-ecuadorian-embassy-london-wikileaks-russia-today-rt-interview-a7728891.html
Nigel Farage has repeatedly refused to say why he met Wikileaks founder Julian Assange before terminating a heated interview. The former Ukip leader told Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper he visited the Ecuadorian Embassy for “journalistic reasons, not political reasons” in March. “I will not say any more about that,” Mr Farage added. “It has nothing to do with you. It was a private meeting.”
He declined to say whether any kind of article would be published but described the meeting as “very brief” and said he talked “about a lot of things” with Mr Assange. Leaked emails later revealed long-standing contacts between Ukip and the Australian activist, who the party has publicly supported through a sexual assault investigation in Sweden.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-julian-assange-meeting-ecuadorian-embassy-london-wikileaks-russia-today-rt-interview-a7728891.html
Wednesday 10 May 2017
Minority report goes live in... Durham
Police in Durham are preparing to go live with an artificial intelligence (AI) system designed to help officers decide whether or not a suspect should be kept in custody. The system classifies suspects at a low, medium or high risk of offending and has been trialled by the force. It has been trained on five years' of offending histories data.
Data for the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (Hart) was taken from Durham police records between 2008 and 2012. The system was then tested during 2013, and the results - showing whether suspects did in fact offend or not - were monitored over the following two years. Forecasts that a suspect was low risk turned out to be accurate 98% of the time, while forecasts that they were high risk were accurate 88% of the time. This reflects the tool's built in predisposition - it is designed to be more likely to classify someone as medium or high risk, in order to err on the side of caution and avoid releasing suspects who may commit a crime.
The Durham system includes data beyond a suspect's offending history - including their postcode and gender, for example. However, in a submission about the system to a parliamentary inquiry on algorithmic decision-making, the authors express confidence that they have mitigated the risks involved: "Simply residing in a given post code has no direct impact on the result, but must instead be combined with all of the other predictors in thousands of different ways before a final forecasted conclusion is reached."
They also stress that the forecasting model's output is "advisory" and should not remove discretion from the police officer using it. An audit trail, showing how the system arrived at any given decision should scrutiny be required later, will also be accessible, Prof Sherman said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39857645
Data for the Harm Assessment Risk Tool (Hart) was taken from Durham police records between 2008 and 2012. The system was then tested during 2013, and the results - showing whether suspects did in fact offend or not - were monitored over the following two years. Forecasts that a suspect was low risk turned out to be accurate 98% of the time, while forecasts that they were high risk were accurate 88% of the time. This reflects the tool's built in predisposition - it is designed to be more likely to classify someone as medium or high risk, in order to err on the side of caution and avoid releasing suspects who may commit a crime.
The Durham system includes data beyond a suspect's offending history - including their postcode and gender, for example. However, in a submission about the system to a parliamentary inquiry on algorithmic decision-making, the authors express confidence that they have mitigated the risks involved: "Simply residing in a given post code has no direct impact on the result, but must instead be combined with all of the other predictors in thousands of different ways before a final forecasted conclusion is reached."
They also stress that the forecasting model's output is "advisory" and should not remove discretion from the police officer using it. An audit trail, showing how the system arrived at any given decision should scrutiny be required later, will also be accessible, Prof Sherman said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39857645
Tuesday 9 May 2017
Corbyn the Brexiteer
I repeat : this man is dangerous. Seriously frickin' dangerous.
Jeremy Corbyn has said wealthy elites are trying to "hijack" Brexit as he formally launched Labour's campaign. Speaking in Manchester, the Labour leader promised a reckoning for "tax cheats, rip-off bosses and greedy bankers" if Labour wins the election. But in a BBC interview, he declined to say categorically whether he would take Britain out of the EU if elected. Asked by Laura Kuenssberg if he would go through with Brexit if there was a bad deal on the table, he wouldn't say.
In the run-up to Tuesday's speech, Mr Corbyn insisted he would stay on as Labour leader even if the party loses at the general election. He told BuzzFeed: "I was elected leader of this party and I'll stay leader of this party."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39852719
Jeremy Corbyn has said wealthy elites are trying to "hijack" Brexit as he formally launched Labour's campaign. Speaking in Manchester, the Labour leader promised a reckoning for "tax cheats, rip-off bosses and greedy bankers" if Labour wins the election. But in a BBC interview, he declined to say categorically whether he would take Britain out of the EU if elected. Asked by Laura Kuenssberg if he would go through with Brexit if there was a bad deal on the table, he wouldn't say.
In the run-up to Tuesday's speech, Mr Corbyn insisted he would stay on as Labour leader even if the party loses at the general election. He told BuzzFeed: "I was elected leader of this party and I'll stay leader of this party."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39852719
The art of manipulation in the digital age
Required reading, and not just about Brexit or Britain. It has a whiff of crazy conspiracy about it (Google, Trump and Brexit are all connected by a shadowy computing genius billionaire ? It would make a good movie...), but there's more than enough here to wonder if that whiff is actually coming from something more, err, solid. So when I call it "required reading" I do not mean because I think it has all the answers or is even entirely accurate. I mean you should read it and give it your attention, that's all.
Mercer is a brilliant computer scientist, a pioneer in early artificial intelligence, and the co-owner of one of the most successful hedge funds on the planet (with a gravity-defying 71.8% annual return). And, he is also, I discovered, good friends with Nigel Farage. Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s communications director, told me that it was Mercer who had directed his company, Cambridge Analytica, to “help” the Leave campaign.
Facebook was the source of the psychological insights that enabled Cambridge Analytica to target individuals. It was also the mechanism that enabled them to be delivered on a large scale. The company also (perfectly legally) bought consumer datasets – on everything from magazine subscriptions to airline travel – and uniquely it appended these with the psych data to voter files. It matched all this information to people’s addresses, their phone numbers and often their email addresses. “The goal is to capture every single aspect of every voter’s information environment,” said David. “And the personality data enabled Cambridge Analytica to craft individual messages.”... The key is finding emotional triggers for each individual voter.
Is what it is doing any different from any other political consultancy? “It’s not a political consultancy,” says David. “You have to understand this is not a normal company in any way. I don’t think Mercer even cares if it ever makes any money. It’s the product of a billionaire spending huge amounts of money to build his own experimental science lab, to test what works, to find tiny slivers of influence that can tip an election... This is one of the smartest computer scientists in the world. He is not going to splash $15m on bullshit.”
“It’s about exploiting existing phenomenon like nationalism and then using it to manipulate people at the margins. To have so much data in the hands of a bunch of international plutocrats to do with it what they will is absolutely chilling. We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying situation.”
Palantir is a company that is trusted to handle vast datasets on UK and US citizens for GCHQ and the NSA, as well as many other countries. Now though, they are both owned by ideologically aligned billionaires: Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel. The Drumpf campaign has said that Thiel helped it with data. A campaign that was led by Steve Bannon, who was then at Cambridge Analytica.
This story isn’t about cunning Dominic Cummings finding a few loopholes in the Electoral Commission’s rules. Finding a way to spend an extra million quid here. Or (as the Observer has also discovered ) underdeclaring the costs of his physicists on the spending returns by £43,000. This story is not even about what appears to be covert coordination between Vote Leave and Leave.EU in their use of AggregateIQ and Cambridge Analytica. It’s about how a motivated US billionaire – Mercer and his chief ideologue, Bannon – helped to bring about the biggest constitutional change to Britain in a century.
Because to understand where and how Brexit is connected to Drumpf, it’s right here. These relationships, which thread through the middle of Cambridge Analytica, are the result of a transatlantic partnership that stretches back years. Nigel Farage and Bannon have been close associates since at least 2012. Bannon opened the London arm of his news website Breitbart in 2014 to support Ukip – the latest front “in our current cultural and political war”, he told the New York Times.
This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy. Paid for by a US billionaire. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent. This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Mercer is a brilliant computer scientist, a pioneer in early artificial intelligence, and the co-owner of one of the most successful hedge funds on the planet (with a gravity-defying 71.8% annual return). And, he is also, I discovered, good friends with Nigel Farage. Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s communications director, told me that it was Mercer who had directed his company, Cambridge Analytica, to “help” the Leave campaign.
Facebook was the source of the psychological insights that enabled Cambridge Analytica to target individuals. It was also the mechanism that enabled them to be delivered on a large scale. The company also (perfectly legally) bought consumer datasets – on everything from magazine subscriptions to airline travel – and uniquely it appended these with the psych data to voter files. It matched all this information to people’s addresses, their phone numbers and often their email addresses. “The goal is to capture every single aspect of every voter’s information environment,” said David. “And the personality data enabled Cambridge Analytica to craft individual messages.”... The key is finding emotional triggers for each individual voter.
Is what it is doing any different from any other political consultancy? “It’s not a political consultancy,” says David. “You have to understand this is not a normal company in any way. I don’t think Mercer even cares if it ever makes any money. It’s the product of a billionaire spending huge amounts of money to build his own experimental science lab, to test what works, to find tiny slivers of influence that can tip an election... This is one of the smartest computer scientists in the world. He is not going to splash $15m on bullshit.”
“It’s about exploiting existing phenomenon like nationalism and then using it to manipulate people at the margins. To have so much data in the hands of a bunch of international plutocrats to do with it what they will is absolutely chilling. We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying situation.”
Palantir is a company that is trusted to handle vast datasets on UK and US citizens for GCHQ and the NSA, as well as many other countries. Now though, they are both owned by ideologically aligned billionaires: Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel. The Drumpf campaign has said that Thiel helped it with data. A campaign that was led by Steve Bannon, who was then at Cambridge Analytica.
This story isn’t about cunning Dominic Cummings finding a few loopholes in the Electoral Commission’s rules. Finding a way to spend an extra million quid here. Or (as the Observer has also discovered ) underdeclaring the costs of his physicists on the spending returns by £43,000. This story is not even about what appears to be covert coordination between Vote Leave and Leave.EU in their use of AggregateIQ and Cambridge Analytica. It’s about how a motivated US billionaire – Mercer and his chief ideologue, Bannon – helped to bring about the biggest constitutional change to Britain in a century.
Because to understand where and how Brexit is connected to Drumpf, it’s right here. These relationships, which thread through the middle of Cambridge Analytica, are the result of a transatlantic partnership that stretches back years. Nigel Farage and Bannon have been close associates since at least 2012. Bannon opened the London arm of his news website Breitbart in 2014 to support Ukip – the latest front “in our current cultural and political war”, he told the New York Times.
This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy. Paid for by a US billionaire. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent. This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Know thyself, with the help of realtime MRI
Well, now I want my own MRI scanner.
Many of us have our special ways of dealing with our feelings and emotions. Now imagine if you could see what was happening inside your brain as you experienced emotions and sensations such as pain, anxiety, depression, fear, and pleasure – all in real-time. Suddenly, why you feel the way you feel might not be such a mystery, and the effectiveness of the little mental techniques you use to deal with daily life would be clearly visible.
That’s the idea behind a new technique known as “real-time fMRI”. By receiving specific visual feedback about brain activity while executing mental tricks and strategies, we can learn to consciously control our emotions, sensations and cravings as if they were being manipulated by a volume knob on a stereo. Through practice, you can learn to strengthen control over the mind similar to how a weightlifter targets a specific muscle group – and it raises the tantalising possibility of a future where we can train advanced mental abilities far beyond our own today.
The first demonstration that real-time fMRI could be a powerful tool came in 2005, with a study where researchers taught people how to control pain. Importantly, decreases or increases in this neural signal correlated with subjective feelings of pain, as measured by a questionnaire and a 10-point pain scale. Amazingly, in just a single 13-minute session participants learned to easily control the size of the flame and were able to reduce their pain by over 50%.
A 2017 study published in the journal Appetite showed that the training could fight obesity. Another study published this year found that by learning control over the right inferior prefrontal cortex, a brain region that is impaired in those with ADHD, adolescents could decrease ADHD symptoms and improve sustained attention. And a 2016 study found that elderly adults using the technique improved their cognition. A 2015 study with healthy adults showed that neurofeedback training could improve focus and reduce lapses of attention.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170507-the-most-promising-route-to-mental-superpowers
Many of us have our special ways of dealing with our feelings and emotions. Now imagine if you could see what was happening inside your brain as you experienced emotions and sensations such as pain, anxiety, depression, fear, and pleasure – all in real-time. Suddenly, why you feel the way you feel might not be such a mystery, and the effectiveness of the little mental techniques you use to deal with daily life would be clearly visible.
That’s the idea behind a new technique known as “real-time fMRI”. By receiving specific visual feedback about brain activity while executing mental tricks and strategies, we can learn to consciously control our emotions, sensations and cravings as if they were being manipulated by a volume knob on a stereo. Through practice, you can learn to strengthen control over the mind similar to how a weightlifter targets a specific muscle group – and it raises the tantalising possibility of a future where we can train advanced mental abilities far beyond our own today.
The first demonstration that real-time fMRI could be a powerful tool came in 2005, with a study where researchers taught people how to control pain. Importantly, decreases or increases in this neural signal correlated with subjective feelings of pain, as measured by a questionnaire and a 10-point pain scale. Amazingly, in just a single 13-minute session participants learned to easily control the size of the flame and were able to reduce their pain by over 50%.
A 2017 study published in the journal Appetite showed that the training could fight obesity. Another study published this year found that by learning control over the right inferior prefrontal cortex, a brain region that is impaired in those with ADHD, adolescents could decrease ADHD symptoms and improve sustained attention. And a 2016 study found that elderly adults using the technique improved their cognition. A 2015 study with healthy adults showed that neurofeedback training could improve focus and reduce lapses of attention.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170507-the-most-promising-route-to-mental-superpowers
Monday 8 May 2017
Better late than never : the world's most accurate pendulum clock
A possible rare example of a supposed crackpot being vindicated, which is common in myth but rare in reality (http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/07/they-said-i-was-maaaaad.html).
After a 100-day trial, the timepiece known as Clock B – which had been sealed in a clear plastic box to prevent tampering – was officially declared, by Guinness, to be the world’s “most accurate mechanical clock with a pendulum swinging in free air”.
It was an intriguing enough award. But what is really astonishing is that the clock was designed more than 250 years ago by a man who was derided at the time for “an incoherence and absurdity that was little short of the symptoms of insanity”, and whose plans for the clock lay ignored for two centuries.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/19/clockmaker-john-harrison-vindicated-250-years-absurd-claims
After a 100-day trial, the timepiece known as Clock B – which had been sealed in a clear plastic box to prevent tampering – was officially declared, by Guinness, to be the world’s “most accurate mechanical clock with a pendulum swinging in free air”.
It was an intriguing enough award. But what is really astonishing is that the clock was designed more than 250 years ago by a man who was derided at the time for “an incoherence and absurdity that was little short of the symptoms of insanity”, and whose plans for the clock lay ignored for two centuries.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/19/clockmaker-john-harrison-vindicated-250-years-absurd-claims
The best car ever ?
Marvellous. Good for restoring faith in humanity.
https://www.someecards.com/news/so-that-happened/little-tikes-real-car/
https://www.someecards.com/news/so-that-happened/little-tikes-real-car/
Saturday 6 May 2017
Brexit logic is all squiggly
I think that both with Brexit and with Trump, we still haven't got to the heart of the truth about why so many people voted for them. We can go on until the sky falls making rational arguments against them - and we should - but we won't actually persuade the majority to accept they made a colossal mistake in this way. Both results were close when they should have been overwhelming landslides in the other direction. We need some way to break the circular-logic filter bubbles at work here, and rational argument doesn't cut it. Even in the absolute best case, the preference for Remain is now marginal - and that's nowhere near enough. Reason and logic don't work, but emotion-driven narratives don't work either. It's something stronger even than post-truth at this stage; plenty of escape avenues to save face have been offered (we all make mistakes, we accept you weren't all racists and genuinely thought you were doing the right thing) despite the massive asymmetry this requires (treating large numbers of people with a kindness that is seldom reciprocated).
Possibility 1 : Our arguments and methods are basically correct, but aren't getting through to those who need to hear them because of media bias.
Possibility 2 : Our arguments genuinely don't matter, because a large fraction of such people are truly xenophobic and thoughtless but can't bring themselves to admit it.
Fun times.
I find the cases discussed below to be a curiously interesting example of not merely shifting the goalposts, but shifting them around in a circle.
The overall paradigm is, first, a series of claims about how easy and/or beneficial Brexit will be, so we should leave. Then as the claims meet reality they are not abandoned, but used to claim that the EU is punishing Britain, so we should leave. Intellectually, this is completely moribund. No amount of evidence or rational argument can touch it.
What is very much still relevant is that the same hermetically-sealed, evidence-proof and argument-proof logic now drives government policy. And it drives it in one direction only: towards a more and more calamitous form of Brexit. Each time reality demolishes one of their claims (the most ubiquitous, perhaps, and the most absurd, certainly, being that German car makers would ensure a good deal in double quick time) the Brexiters do not acknowledge that they were wrong, but move on to a harder position. So, first, we can somehow be in the single market but with no strings attached. That’s proved wrong. So it will be a trade deal. Now that that is looking increasingly difficult they move to saying that no deal would be perfectly fine. And, in any case, it’s all the EU’s fault and ‘just goes to prove’ that we are right to leave.
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/brexiter-illogic-and-where-it-could.html
Possibility 1 : Our arguments and methods are basically correct, but aren't getting through to those who need to hear them because of media bias.
Possibility 2 : Our arguments genuinely don't matter, because a large fraction of such people are truly xenophobic and thoughtless but can't bring themselves to admit it.
Fun times.
I find the cases discussed below to be a curiously interesting example of not merely shifting the goalposts, but shifting them around in a circle.
The overall paradigm is, first, a series of claims about how easy and/or beneficial Brexit will be, so we should leave. Then as the claims meet reality they are not abandoned, but used to claim that the EU is punishing Britain, so we should leave. Intellectually, this is completely moribund. No amount of evidence or rational argument can touch it.
What is very much still relevant is that the same hermetically-sealed, evidence-proof and argument-proof logic now drives government policy. And it drives it in one direction only: towards a more and more calamitous form of Brexit. Each time reality demolishes one of their claims (the most ubiquitous, perhaps, and the most absurd, certainly, being that German car makers would ensure a good deal in double quick time) the Brexiters do not acknowledge that they were wrong, but move on to a harder position. So, first, we can somehow be in the single market but with no strings attached. That’s proved wrong. So it will be a trade deal. Now that that is looking increasingly difficult they move to saying that no deal would be perfectly fine. And, in any case, it’s all the EU’s fault and ‘just goes to prove’ that we are right to leave.
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/brexiter-illogic-and-where-it-could.html
Friday 5 May 2017
Construction for the SABRE engine facility begins
This week, construction began on the new test facility at Westcott Venture Park in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. It will include a propulsion test stand that can accommodate various test engine configurations, an assembly building, workshops, offices and a control room. Support facilities will enable configuration changes to the engine to take place on-site.
The site was originally built as a base for training bomber crews during World War II, but after the war it became a government facility for research into rocket propulsion. The Blue Streak missile and Black Arrow satellite carrier rocket were both tested at Westcott. Testing of the SABRE engine is due to commence in 2020, with testing of the engine’s pre-cooler system expected to take place in 2018.
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/work-begins-uk-rocket-facility
The site was originally built as a base for training bomber crews during World War II, but after the war it became a government facility for research into rocket propulsion. The Blue Streak missile and Black Arrow satellite carrier rocket were both tested at Westcott. Testing of the SABRE engine is due to commence in 2020, with testing of the engine’s pre-cooler system expected to take place in 2018.
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/work-begins-uk-rocket-facility
The War of the Worlds done properly at last ?
Ooooooooohhhh !
Earlier today, the BBC announced a number of new shows, including a three-part series based on H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds. The show is scheduled to go into production next spring, and it appears that, unlike most modern adaptations, it will be set in the Victorian era.
The series will be written by screenwriter Peter Harness, who adapted Susanna Clarke’s Victorian-era fantasy novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell for the network, as well as a handful of Doctor Who episodes. The North-West Evening Mail has some additional details, quoting Mammoth Studios Managing Director of Productions Damien Timmer as saying that while the film has been adapted many times, “no one has ever attempted to follow Wells and locate the story in Dorking at the turn of the last century.” The project was first announced in 2015, and today’s confirmation of production comes only months after the book entered the public domain.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/4/15551306/bbc-the-war-of-the-worlds-tv-series-peter-hartness
Earlier today, the BBC announced a number of new shows, including a three-part series based on H.G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds. The show is scheduled to go into production next spring, and it appears that, unlike most modern adaptations, it will be set in the Victorian era.
The series will be written by screenwriter Peter Harness, who adapted Susanna Clarke’s Victorian-era fantasy novel Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell for the network, as well as a handful of Doctor Who episodes. The North-West Evening Mail has some additional details, quoting Mammoth Studios Managing Director of Productions Damien Timmer as saying that while the film has been adapted many times, “no one has ever attempted to follow Wells and locate the story in Dorking at the turn of the last century.” The project was first announced in 2015, and today’s confirmation of production comes only months after the book entered the public domain.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/4/15551306/bbc-the-war-of-the-worlds-tv-series-peter-hartness
The Political Drake Equation
In which I try to numerically quantify which party I'm voting for and why. Based on a discussion yesterday, it seems to me that voting preference is not dissimilar to the Drake Equation : you have in mind (at least I do) many different criteria which you don't add when considering who to vote for, you multiply them. This means that you can agree 100% with a party based on their policies, but if your trust in them is zero then you're not going to vote for them. It's quite a useful exercise, I think, to try and quantify how much you agree with different aspects of each party - it should at least try and get you to analyse your own choice, if not actually make one initially.
Key points :
- This is a self-analysis. You can use it to analyse your own choices, explain them to others, and set out which areas you need convincing in to change your mind. But you can't claim that these values are objective (except for policies) so it's of limited use in making an initial decision.
- I assume that all parameters deserve equal weight, which is too simple, but what to do when someone thinks a parameter is irrelevant I'm not sure.
- Tactical voting is very difficult for account for in this system.
- You should try as much as possible to independently evaluate each parameter, otherwise you won't get anything useful from this at all.
- This is just an off-the-cuff idea I had that I thought would be worth exploring, and might be totally pointless or wrong-headed.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-political-drake-equation.html
Key points :
- This is a self-analysis. You can use it to analyse your own choices, explain them to others, and set out which areas you need convincing in to change your mind. But you can't claim that these values are objective (except for policies) so it's of limited use in making an initial decision.
- I assume that all parameters deserve equal weight, which is too simple, but what to do when someone thinks a parameter is irrelevant I'm not sure.
- Tactical voting is very difficult for account for in this system.
- You should try as much as possible to independently evaluate each parameter, otherwise you won't get anything useful from this at all.
- This is just an off-the-cuff idea I had that I thought would be worth exploring, and might be totally pointless or wrong-headed.
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-political-drake-equation.html
Thursday 4 May 2017
Angry frog
Screaming frog is not impressed with your shenanigans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh6avD4UZws&feature=share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh6avD4UZws&feature=share
No, morons, I don't like Corbyn and I'm NOT a Tory
I take a very strong objection to being labelled as a Tory supporter because I won't vote for someone I honestly see as being equally bad. That is just my opinion and I might be wrong, but it is a carefully-considered opinion that I did not reach as a knee-jerk anti-Corbyn reaction. If that was the case, I'd completely deserve a good kick in the teeth for wanton stupidity.
However, in fact I supported Corbyn for a very long time after his first leadership election, but I eventually come to the conclusion that I am morally opposed not to his policies but to the man himself. Rightly or wrongly, I genuinely believe him to be a danger to democratic government, at least as much as the Tories are. For that reason I cannot and will not vote for Labour with him in charge. Thus, for me, "anyone but Corbyn" is an entirely sensible reason - I do not believe his Labour offers anything better than the Tories.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as who has the best policies. Labour's policies are commendable, perhaps the best they've been in decades - they win hands down over just about everyone else. But alas, when I look at Labour today I do not see a party I can trust : I see a shadow cabinet of goons, thugs, and idiots. I do not want them in government not because I don't like their policies, but because I fundamentally don't trust either their credibility or competence. I wish it were not the case, but Labour have already succeeded in convincing me that they are not remotely fit to govern despite their many fine policies. Given their behaviour in opposition, the prospect of putting these people in government leaves me genuinely worried.
Without trust, policies mean nothing. Corbyn's Labour is not my Labour - I don't believe he really stands for my principles at all, even if his policies are much more closely aligned with mine than any other recent Labour leader. The thing is, I will not choose to elect a Marxist dictator instead of
Special edition of PASP on astronomy data visualisation
Chock full of fun stuff.
Astrophysics continues to be a leader in the data sciences, with innovative methods being developed to handle new analysis challenges. The higher rates of data acquisition in both observational and theoretical astrophysics demand innovative solutions in scientific visualization. The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (PASP) has published a special focus issue titled Techniques and Methods for Astrophysical Data Visualization. Refereed submissions for this issue cover a wide variety of visualization topics, including new software packages, visualization techniques, software from other industries, and new science results. These methods and techniques can serve as a complement to data analysis software, stand on their own for data exploration, or inspire with impressive visuals for science, technology, education, mathematics (STEM) and public outreach. A number of articles from our special focus issue feature videos and tutorials as well as interactive 3D content.
http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1538-3873/page/Techniques-and-Methods-for-Astrophysical-Data-Visualization
Astrophysics continues to be a leader in the data sciences, with innovative methods being developed to handle new analysis challenges. The higher rates of data acquisition in both observational and theoretical astrophysics demand innovative solutions in scientific visualization. The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (PASP) has published a special focus issue titled Techniques and Methods for Astrophysical Data Visualization. Refereed submissions for this issue cover a wide variety of visualization topics, including new software packages, visualization techniques, software from other industries, and new science results. These methods and techniques can serve as a complement to data analysis software, stand on their own for data exploration, or inspire with impressive visuals for science, technology, education, mathematics (STEM) and public outreach. A number of articles from our special focus issue feature videos and tutorials as well as interactive 3D content.
http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1538-3873/page/Techniques-and-Methods-for-Astrophysical-Data-Visualization
Wednesday 3 May 2017
The real purpose of Brexit ? Privatisation so the rich can get richer
I don't necessarily agree 100% with all points, but I do endorse the sentiment completely.
And above all: the Brexiters who used lies and manipulations to get 37% of the electorate to vote Leave have a very particular reason for stealing the UK out of the EU. It is that they want to make it a low-tax, low-regulation economy where they and they alone can flourish. Such an economy will not have resources for the NHS, a good state education system, a welfare net, or environmental protection. It will strip away consumer and employee rights: Brexiters have stated in public their intention to make a ‘bonfire of regulations’ to make money-making easier. And that is the key. It will make things easy only for money – money and nothing else.
The only people who do not need an NHS because they have private medical insurance, the only people who do not need a state education system because their children go to private schools, the only people who will never need a welfare net because they are too rich to care, the only people who do not need clean city air and clean beaches in the UK because they have country houses and take their holidays abroad, are the rich.
Brexit is a con in the interests of the rich: and it is no surprise that the campaign in favour was funded by some of richest men in the UK, none of them accountable to anyone or anything but their own desire for yet more money. Remember all this. And keep fighting against Brexit.
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-3-reasons-may-called-an-election-and-the-reasons-you-should-thwart-her-plan-1-5000292?platform=hootsuite
And above all: the Brexiters who used lies and manipulations to get 37% of the electorate to vote Leave have a very particular reason for stealing the UK out of the EU. It is that they want to make it a low-tax, low-regulation economy where they and they alone can flourish. Such an economy will not have resources for the NHS, a good state education system, a welfare net, or environmental protection. It will strip away consumer and employee rights: Brexiters have stated in public their intention to make a ‘bonfire of regulations’ to make money-making easier. And that is the key. It will make things easy only for money – money and nothing else.
The only people who do not need an NHS because they have private medical insurance, the only people who do not need a state education system because their children go to private schools, the only people who will never need a welfare net because they are too rich to care, the only people who do not need clean city air and clean beaches in the UK because they have country houses and take their holidays abroad, are the rich.
Brexit is a con in the interests of the rich: and it is no surprise that the campaign in favour was funded by some of richest men in the UK, none of them accountable to anyone or anything but their own desire for yet more money. Remember all this. And keep fighting against Brexit.
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-3-reasons-may-called-an-election-and-the-reasons-you-should-thwart-her-plan-1-5000292?platform=hootsuite
The ferocious datasaurus
The different configurations of the data points in the gif all have the same mean, median, and standard deviation... yet they're clearly very different. Isn't statistics fun ?
It can be difficult to demonstrate the importance of data visualization. Some people are of the impression that charts are simply "pretty pictures", while all of the important information can be divined through statistical analysis. An effective (and often used) tool used to demonstrate that visualizing your data is in fact important is Anscome's Quartet. Developed by F.J. Anscombe in 1973, Anscombe's Quartet is a set of four datasets, where each produces the same summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, and correlation), which could lead one to believe the datasets are quite similar. However, after visualizing (plotting) the data, it becomes clear that the datasets are markedly different.
Recently, Alberto Cairo created the Datasaurus dataset which urges people to "never trust summary statistics alone; always visualize your data", since, while the data exhibits normal seeming statistics, plotting the data reveals a picture of a dinosaur. Inspired by Anscombe's Quartet and the Datasaurus, we present, The Datasaurus Dozen.
The key insight behind our approach is that while it is relatively difficult to generate a dataset from scratch with particular statistical properties, it is relatively easy to take an existing dataset, modify it slightly, and maintain those statistical properties. We do this by choosing a point at random, moving it a little bit, then checking that the statistical properties of the set haven't strayed outside of the acceptable bounds (in this particular case, we are ensuring that the means, standard deviations, and correlations remain the same to two decimal places.)
https://www.autodeskresearch.com/publications/samestats
It can be difficult to demonstrate the importance of data visualization. Some people are of the impression that charts are simply "pretty pictures", while all of the important information can be divined through statistical analysis. An effective (and often used) tool used to demonstrate that visualizing your data is in fact important is Anscome's Quartet. Developed by F.J. Anscombe in 1973, Anscombe's Quartet is a set of four datasets, where each produces the same summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, and correlation), which could lead one to believe the datasets are quite similar. However, after visualizing (plotting) the data, it becomes clear that the datasets are markedly different.
Recently, Alberto Cairo created the Datasaurus dataset which urges people to "never trust summary statistics alone; always visualize your data", since, while the data exhibits normal seeming statistics, plotting the data reveals a picture of a dinosaur. Inspired by Anscombe's Quartet and the Datasaurus, we present, The Datasaurus Dozen.
The key insight behind our approach is that while it is relatively difficult to generate a dataset from scratch with particular statistical properties, it is relatively easy to take an existing dataset, modify it slightly, and maintain those statistical properties. We do this by choosing a point at random, moving it a little bit, then checking that the statistical properties of the set haven't strayed outside of the acceptable bounds (in this particular case, we are ensuring that the means, standard deviations, and correlations remain the same to two decimal places.)
https://www.autodeskresearch.com/publications/samestats
Tuesday 2 May 2017
Open mouth, insert foot, shoot oneself in said foot
Well how the feckin' hell is that going to help you feckin' twit ?!?! You can't take a tough stance toward people more powerful than you and expect them to cave in, you blithering moron ! You have nothing the EU needs ! Why are you so unforgivably stupid ? AAAAAAAAARRRGHHH.
Theresa May says she will be a "bloody difficult woman" towards European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker during Brexit talks. The PM revived a line used during her Tory leadership campaign to respond to claims the two clashed over dinner. She also declined to commit to settling the issue of expats' rights by June. EU sources claim UK misunderstanding of the talks process, and ignorance about how Brussels works, could lead to no deal being agreed on the UK's exit.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39784170
Theresa May says she will be a "bloody difficult woman" towards European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker during Brexit talks. The PM revived a line used during her Tory leadership campaign to respond to claims the two clashed over dinner. She also declined to commit to settling the issue of expats' rights by June. EU sources claim UK misunderstanding of the talks process, and ignorance about how Brussels works, could lead to no deal being agreed on the UK's exit.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39784170
Blindsight : you don't know what you're aware of
This is seriously weird. Of course, it's well-known that the brain does a lot of extremely clever processing on the signals from your eyes, which is why there are so many possible optical illusions. But it can go much, much further than that. Your conscious mind isn't necessary for those visual signals - if part of your brain is damaged, you can still process the images unconsciously : vision without sight. The question then is, how much of this happens anyway ?
In 2008, Tamietto and Weiskrantz’s team put another blindsight patient through the most gruelling test yet. Unlike Daniel, he was blind across the whole of his visual field, and normally walked with a white cane. But the team took away his cane and then loaded a corridor with furniture that might potentially trip him up, before asking him make his way to the other side. “Despite saying he wasn’t able to see, we saw him shooting by on his very first attempt,” says Tamietto.
Importantly, the participant claimed that not only was he not aware of having seen anything; he was not even aware of having moved out of the way of the objects. He insisted he had just walked straight down the hallway. According to Beatrice de Gelder, who led the work, he was “at a loss to explain or even describe his actions”.
Only in very rare circumstances do they come close to being aware of what they are seeing. For instance, one subject was able to distinguish movement in fast, high-contrast films; he described it as being like “a black shadow moving against a completely black background” – a “sense of knowing” that there was something beyond. But even then, he could not describe the content itself, meaning that his experience lacked almost everything we would normally associate with vision.
Enter the mad scientists :
To test their ideas, scientists can use a form of non-invasive brain stimulation that disrupts different brain regions, in an attempt to induce a reversible form of blindsight in healthy participants. The technique is called “transcranial magnetic stimulation”, which uses a strong magnetic field to scramble the neural activity underneath the skull.
The experiment began with Allen placing a magnet over the back of my skull, just above V1. Next, he began applying the magnetic field for short intervals at increasing strengths. After Allen had found the right power, I sat in front of a computer screen, and he flashed up pictures of arrows for a split second: my job was to say whether they pointed left or right. The pictures were sometimes timed with the TMS signals causing the temporary blindness – and like Daniel in those original experiments, I often saw nothing and felt that I was guessing. Nevertheless, once I had finished, Allen told me that I had answered many more correctly than would be expected by chance alone, suggesting the TMS had succeeded in giving me blindsight.
[I'd also add that this has important epistemological consequences. We usually think of ourselves as "knowing our own minds", that if we think we're happy or sad then no-one can refute this but ourselves. But if we don't even know what we're sensing, then our self-knowledge can be much worse than we'd like to think.]
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150925-blindsight-the-strangest-form-of-consciousness
In 2008, Tamietto and Weiskrantz’s team put another blindsight patient through the most gruelling test yet. Unlike Daniel, he was blind across the whole of his visual field, and normally walked with a white cane. But the team took away his cane and then loaded a corridor with furniture that might potentially trip him up, before asking him make his way to the other side. “Despite saying he wasn’t able to see, we saw him shooting by on his very first attempt,” says Tamietto.
Importantly, the participant claimed that not only was he not aware of having seen anything; he was not even aware of having moved out of the way of the objects. He insisted he had just walked straight down the hallway. According to Beatrice de Gelder, who led the work, he was “at a loss to explain or even describe his actions”.
Only in very rare circumstances do they come close to being aware of what they are seeing. For instance, one subject was able to distinguish movement in fast, high-contrast films; he described it as being like “a black shadow moving against a completely black background” – a “sense of knowing” that there was something beyond. But even then, he could not describe the content itself, meaning that his experience lacked almost everything we would normally associate with vision.
Enter the mad scientists :
To test their ideas, scientists can use a form of non-invasive brain stimulation that disrupts different brain regions, in an attempt to induce a reversible form of blindsight in healthy participants. The technique is called “transcranial magnetic stimulation”, which uses a strong magnetic field to scramble the neural activity underneath the skull.
The experiment began with Allen placing a magnet over the back of my skull, just above V1. Next, he began applying the magnetic field for short intervals at increasing strengths. After Allen had found the right power, I sat in front of a computer screen, and he flashed up pictures of arrows for a split second: my job was to say whether they pointed left or right. The pictures were sometimes timed with the TMS signals causing the temporary blindness – and like Daniel in those original experiments, I often saw nothing and felt that I was guessing. Nevertheless, once I had finished, Allen told me that I had answered many more correctly than would be expected by chance alone, suggesting the TMS had succeeded in giving me blindsight.
[I'd also add that this has important epistemological consequences. We usually think of ourselves as "knowing our own minds", that if we think we're happy or sad then no-one can refute this but ourselves. But if we don't even know what we're sensing, then our self-knowledge can be much worse than we'd like to think.]
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150925-blindsight-the-strangest-form-of-consciousness
Monday 1 May 2017
Something about volcanoes
OK, I didn't read the whole article, because all I could think was... this is the backdrop those duelling polar bears need.
Glass formed by volcanic lightning could be used to study eruptions
Researchers who study volcanoes must get creative: The extreme conditions of an erupting volcano can destroy instruments used to measure the fiery event, making studying the heat, energy, lava flow, and other characteristics of the eruption difficult.
Now, researchers have developed a method to measure one of the most striking and difficult to measure volcanic features – volcanic lightning – using the tiny glass spheres formed by hot volcanic ash.
Volcanic lightning can occur when ash shoots out of a volcano, building up a charge as particles are heated rapidly and rub against each other. When the lightning strikes in the plume, it is hot enough to change ash particles into small glass spheres.
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/04/27/glass-formed-volcanic-lightning-used-study-eruptions/
Glass formed by volcanic lightning could be used to study eruptions
Researchers who study volcanoes must get creative: The extreme conditions of an erupting volcano can destroy instruments used to measure the fiery event, making studying the heat, energy, lava flow, and other characteristics of the eruption difficult.
Now, researchers have developed a method to measure one of the most striking and difficult to measure volcanic features – volcanic lightning – using the tiny glass spheres formed by hot volcanic ash.
Volcanic lightning can occur when ash shoots out of a volcano, building up a charge as particles are heated rapidly and rub against each other. When the lightning strikes in the plume, it is hot enough to change ash particles into small glass spheres.
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/04/27/glass-formed-volcanic-lightning-used-study-eruptions/
Meanwhile, in the Arctic...
Needs Attenborough narration (but then, what doesn't ?).
Found on the internet.
Found on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)