There was a story doing the rounds a couple of years ago about a (small, local) study which found that 9-month old infants displayed gender-specific preferences when playing with toys, i.e. girls tended to play with "girl" toys, boys with "boy" toys, with the suggestion that this could be due to innate rather than cultural factors.
This is possibly the case, but I wonder how well the researchers actually controlled for other factors which could influence the outcome. Unfortunately, I can only find journalistic write-ups of this study, and not any actual paper, even when searching the proceedings of the conference where this was supposedly presented.
I know this is is off-topic, but I think one of the main reasons (perhaps the reason) the UK rejected AV is because the No campaign successfully cast it as a Nick Clegg popularity contest after his party's series of policy U-turns.
I think I've binned it now, but I did have a campaign leaflet which said something equivalent to "If you vote Yes to AV then Nick Clegg will get to decide the outcome of every future General Election" (what, even after he's dead?)
I also don't know why Labour campaigned against AV when arguably they would have stood to gain from it.
Which would be funny, except that in the Republic of Ireland, being a republican (in the pro-unification sense) is not at all controversial, and probably the default position of the general populace (or at least among those who care).
Why? How exactly is just ticking the 'no vote' superior to not voting at all?
Because some people want to register their disapproval, and spoiling your ballot can be distinguished from staying at home. Compare the following two hypothetical election results.
In the first example, Candidate C can legitimately claim a strong mandate from the electorate. In the second example, candidate C would still be elected, but I would argue that they cannot claim a strong mandate.
I don't support mandatory voting, but I think that registering an abstention has some value above not voting at all.
Can you name one major project that has come in under budget or ahead of schedule?
Depending on who you believe, the M74 completion opened ahead of schedule and under budget. N.B. This was not a UK government scheme but a joint project between the Scottish government and a few local councils.
Thanks for the explanation. Since we clearly differ on what is meant by terms such as "fact" on "opinion", I'll try and restate my position without using those terms.
Consider Taco Cowboy's claim "over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map". I think you and I agree this is a statement of the "The Higgs Boson exists" type, rather than the "The Higgs Boson is the best Boson" type, i.e. it's an assertion that may be true or false, rather than a subjective assessment. I also agree with you that this assertion is true or false regardless of Taco Cowboy's or my viewpoint. Let's also acknowledge that people can hold points of view over these types of assertion, and express as much, indicating it's their viewpoint, e.g. "I strongly believe the Higgs Boson exists".
The reason I challenged TC's "over 90%" claim, is that he presented this assertion as if it were a commonly-accepted or established truth, ("No wonder that over 90%..."), and finding the claim implausible, I felt it needed some kind of back-up. Now, TC could have presented it as a point of view, (e.g. "I wouldn't be surprised if over 90%..."), and while that wouldn't impact the truth or falsehood of the underlying assertion, I think it does make a difference to the overall message. In particular, it wouldn't have been appropriate to challenge the claim by asking for a citation.
I agree that people don't need citations to back up every claim they make, or what is clearly presented as opinion. But the OP presented one or two extraordinary claims as fact without justification, and in doing so left himself open to challenge.
I don't make a habit of this, but in this instance I was taken aback by the claims and they really seemed to need some kind of support. It doesn't mean the claims are necessarily false, just that I'm unwilling to accept them at face value. I'd say that's critical thinking in action.
And I'd still challenge you to find something to support your claim that a high percentage of US high school grads can't find the USA on a map.
You obviously work with a different definition of the word 'fact' from me. For me, part of the definition of a 'fact' is that it is true. Otherwise it would simply be a 'statement' (possibly true, possibly false).
You're trolling, right? No one is suggesting that The Jerry Springer Show and such are intellectually stimulating, so indeed no citation is needed there.
But the "original conclusion" was that an excess of "entertainment" shows on TV contributes to the downfall of the West. That's an extraordinary claim, so why would I accept it without some supporting evidence or coherent argument to back it up? I don't see how watching 3 minutes of Jerry Springer supports the claim that that specific cause-and-effect relationship exists.
I'm not looking for watertight scientific proof, but the GGP makes an extraordinary claim (i.e. that excess of "entertainment" TV shows causes the downfall of Western nations), and indeed it's possible this is right, just as it's possible the world is run by a secret society of reptilian fascists. However, the GGP presents it as fact, and with no supporting evidence and only an illogical argument and further extraordinary claims to back it up, I see no reason to accept the claim.
If he had presented it as opinion (which it is), and had omitted the ridiculous reference to the level of geography fail among US high school grads, then I wouldn't have had any cause to challenge it.
No wonder over 500% of Slashdot users post hyperbole without anything to back it up.
Seriously, I don't know if you're joking or not, but your post is just false premises, non-sequiturs and made-up "facts". Analysis:
Excessive entertainment over the tube is one of the lead causes of the downfall of the Western nations.
You need to establish the premise of "the downfall of the Western nations" (whatever that means), then establish a cause-and-effect relationship between "excessive entertainment over the tube" and the former.
Turn on the tube if you don't believe me, flip some channels, see how many of the programs are of any value in the first place?
How are you establishing the "value" of TV programs exactly? By your own judgement as whether it's something you'd like to watch?
No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.
Citation needed. Or an admission that you just made this up.
They have been dumbed down by the entertainment industry.
large enough and sharp enough to do some serious damage
That's the whole point in a weapon.
It's not the whole point in a ceremonial weapon, however, and the design of ceremonial objects can render them impractical for their ostensible purpose. I doubt the FA Cup is very practical as a drinking vessel.
The point I was trying to make was that a Sikh carrying a "proper" capable-of-inflicting-damage kirpan, discreetly, and kept sheathed, shouldn't get hassled by the authorities in the UK, or if they did, then they might be able to claim discrimination by comparing their case with how sgian dubh wearers are treated.
Not in the UK, the most they're allowed to is a tiny toy knife with dull edges which merely resembles a kirpan. In some cases the most that's allowed is a brooch or a pendant with a depiction of the kirpan.
Technically, this may be the case, but I'd imagine that the authorities are pragmatic and tolerant about this. Compare with the sgian dubh, another type of ceremonial dagger worn in the UK for cultural reasons (well, on special occasions anyway), and worn less discreetly than a kirpan would typically be worn.
The common type of sgian dubh is large enough and sharp enough to do some serious damage. I was told by a kilt-salesman that the blade of a sgian dubh is long enough for it to be classed as an offensive weapon, and thus strictly speaking it's illegal to wear it in public, but as long as you keep it sheathed and don't wave it about in public (no jokes please), then the police don't care. Given this, and the fact that wearing the sgian dubh is hardly as much of an imperative as wearing the kirpan is to orthodox Sikhs, it would seem a bit discriminatory to prevent Sikhs from carrying the kirpan (discreetly, and kept sheathed etc.).
I like your post. As a Brit, I'd just like to make a couple of clarifications:
They pay a tax to access the BBC there I believe, and in return they get no advertising.
The "tax" you refer to is the TV license, currently £145 per annum. You have to pay it for the privilege of watching any TV in the UK, not just the BBC, although the BBC scoop all the revenue as their core means of funding. As a result of this, the BBC's funding is pretty high, and, above all, stable, hence the (generally) higher quality of programming and the lack of advertisements or overt product placement on the BBC's main UK channels.
Of course, their series are generally pitifully short for a season (say 6-10 episodes in Britain per season, versus 22 in North America).
This has to do with a cultural difference between the way series are written in the UK vs in the US. A typical British drama or comedy series will be written by a single writer or writing partnership. They're simply unable to write a 22-episode season within the time constraints. A comparable US series on the other hand would typically have a team of writers share the writing duties. Both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. Some British shows use the "team" approach - soap operas being the main example. The BBC sitcom My Family was an exception to the general rule of British sitcoms not having a writing team. IMHO, it is an absolutely awful show (even the actors refused to shoot some episodes because the writing was so bad). God only knows how it managed to keep a prime-time slot on BBC one for a decade.
Still, if that it so you can expect it to continue to be rejected in a way that seems to you unreasonable UNTIL you come up with a plausible mechanism (for charge separation?).
I tried really hard to parse this sentence, truly I did, but I simply couldn't manage it.
Err... no. There simply aren't quant jobs with grad starting salaries of that level, certainly not in London, and I would highly doubt you'd find that level in NY either. Salaries actually went up (and bonuses down in relative terms) after '08-09, but there's still no way you'll get a six-figure (GBP) base for a grad starting position.
Also, timing is pretty bad if you want to land a quant role right now. Front-office hiring patterns tend to be very cyclical and right now they're in a downswing with most banks downsizing their quant teams and only a few hiring. Those that are hiring will much prefer experienced candidates over fresh grads, and competition among grads is fierce at the best of time.
If you really want to go for it, be aware that most houses won't look at you unless you have at least a Masters or equivalent in finance and/or a Doctorate in strongly numerate hard-science subject. You need demonstrable skills in maths (linear algebra, PDEs, probability theory), quant finance theory and software development. Language-wise, C++ is a must-have, knowing R is also good. "Sure I can program: I did some MATLAB as part of my masters" is not looked upon well. Interviews are tough and mostly fair: a mix of technical (maths, finance, programming) and problem-solving, with some interviewers unfortunately throwing in the odd "what-am-I-thinking" type question. Oh, and if the interviewer asks you to explain your doctoral thesis, it's not because they care about the subject: they are testing your skill at communicating complex subject matter succinctly.
Disclaimer: I was a quant in a tier-one European bank for over 6 years, including recruiting experienced hires and grads.
While you're right to point out that there's no "last digit of pi", the following reasoning is flawed:
Mathematically there are an infinite number of points around a circle. Therefore, as pi depends on that, there are an infinite number of decimal places in pi.
If that were valid, by the same argument I could say: Mathematically there are an infinite number of points in a square. Therefore, as square roots depend on that, there are an infinite number of decimal places in any square root. But then 2 = sqrt(4) would violate that.
The reason that there's infinitely many decimal digits isn't because there are infinitely many points on a circle (what would it mean for there not to be infinitely many points in a continuous curve segment?). It's because pi is an irrational number - indeed this means there's infinitely many digits using any integer number base.
Oh, and besides, we should be talking about tau rather than pi.
Slashdot Mirror
Ben Miller? Wikipedia says he started a PhD in Quantum Physics and Cambridge (then abandoned that to go showbiz).
See also Brian May, who completed his Astrophysics PhD after a three-decade hiatus playing guitar in some band.
You mean the one that played keyboards for D:Ream? (Wasn't he the first Hannibal Lector too, or am I getting confused?)
There was a story doing the rounds a couple of years ago about a (small, local) study which found that 9-month old infants displayed gender-specific preferences when playing with toys, i.e. girls tended to play with "girl" toys, boys with "boy" toys, with the suggestion that this could be due to innate rather than cultural factors.
This is possibly the case, but I wonder how well the researchers actually controlled for other factors which could influence the outcome. Unfortunately, I can only find journalistic write-ups of this study, and not any actual paper, even when searching the proceedings of the conference where this was supposedly presented.
I know this is is off-topic, but I think one of the main reasons (perhaps the reason) the UK rejected AV is because the No campaign successfully cast it as a Nick Clegg popularity contest after his party's series of policy U-turns.
I think I've binned it now, but I did have a campaign leaflet which said something equivalent to "If you vote Yes to AV then Nick Clegg will get to decide the outcome of every future General Election" (what, even after he's dead?)
I also don't know why Labour campaigned against AV when arguably they would have stood to gain from it.
Which would be funny, except that in the Republic of Ireland, being a republican (in the pro-unification sense) is not at all controversial, and probably the default position of the general populace (or at least among those who care).
Why? How exactly is just ticking the 'no vote' superior to not voting at all?
Because some people want to register their disapproval, and spoiling your ballot can be distinguished from staying at home. Compare the following two hypothetical election results.
Result 1:
Candidate A: 400 votes
Candidate B: 600 votes
Candidate C: 1800 votes
Spoilt ballots: none
Turnout: 56%
Result 2:
Candidate A: 400 votes
Candidate B: 600 votes
Candidate C: 1800 votes
Spoilt ballots: 2000
Turnout: 96% (including spoilt ballots)
In the first example, Candidate C can legitimately claim a strong mandate from the electorate. In the second example, candidate C would still be elected, but I would argue that they cannot claim a strong mandate.
I don't support mandatory voting, but I think that registering an abstention has some value above not voting at all.
To be fair, some Europeans are very referendum-happy.
Can you name one major project that has come in under budget or ahead of schedule?
Depending on who you believe, the M74 completion opened ahead of schedule and under budget. N.B. This was not a UK government scheme but a joint project between the Scottish government and a few local councils.
Thanks for the explanation. Since we clearly differ on what is meant by terms such as "fact" on "opinion", I'll try and restate my position without using those terms.
Consider Taco Cowboy's claim "over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map". I think you and I agree this is a statement of the "The Higgs Boson exists" type, rather than the "The Higgs Boson is the best Boson" type, i.e. it's an assertion that may be true or false, rather than a subjective assessment. I also agree with you that this assertion is true or false regardless of Taco Cowboy's or my viewpoint. Let's also acknowledge that people can hold points of view over these types of assertion, and express as much, indicating it's their viewpoint, e.g. "I strongly believe the Higgs Boson exists".
The reason I challenged TC's "over 90%" claim, is that he presented this assertion as if it were a commonly-accepted or established truth, ("No wonder that over 90% ..."), and finding the claim implausible, I felt it needed some kind of back-up. Now, TC could have presented it as a point of view, (e.g. "I wouldn't be surprised if over 90% ..."), and while that wouldn't impact the truth or falsehood of the underlying assertion, I think it does make a difference to the overall message. In particular, it wouldn't have been appropriate to challenge the claim by asking for a citation.
I agree that people don't need citations to back up every claim they make, or what is clearly presented as opinion. But the OP presented one or two extraordinary claims as fact without justification, and in doing so left himself open to challenge.
I don't make a habit of this, but in this instance I was taken aback by the claims and they really seemed to need some kind of support. It doesn't mean the claims are necessarily false, just that I'm unwilling to accept them at face value. I'd say that's critical thinking in action.
And I'd still challenge you to find something to support your claim that a high percentage of US high school grads can't find the USA on a map.
You obviously work with a different definition of the word 'fact' from me. For me, part of the definition of a 'fact' is that it is true. Otherwise it would simply be a 'statement' (possibly true, possibly false).
You're trolling, right? No one is suggesting that The Jerry Springer Show and such are intellectually stimulating, so indeed no citation is needed there.
But the "original conclusion" was that an excess of "entertainment" shows on TV contributes to the downfall of the West. That's an extraordinary claim, so why would I accept it without some supporting evidence or coherent argument to back it up? I don't see how watching 3 minutes of Jerry Springer supports the claim that that specific cause-and-effect relationship exists.
FTFA:
Editor's note: This post is a satire.
I concur with the sentiment. However, I think you intended to reply to Taco Cowboy's post, rather than mine.
I'm not looking for watertight scientific proof, but the GGP makes an extraordinary claim (i.e. that excess of "entertainment" TV shows causes the downfall of Western nations), and indeed it's possible this is right, just as it's possible the world is run by a secret society of reptilian fascists. However, the GGP presents it as fact, and with no supporting evidence and only an illogical argument and further extraordinary claims to back it up, I see no reason to accept the claim.
If he had presented it as opinion (which it is), and had omitted the ridiculous reference to the level of geography fail among US high school grads, then I wouldn't have had any cause to challenge it.
No wonder over 500% of Slashdot users post hyperbole without anything to back it up.
Seriously, I don't know if you're joking or not, but your post is just false premises, non-sequiturs and made-up "facts". Analysis:
Excessive entertainment over the tube is one of the lead causes of the downfall of the Western nations.
You need to establish the premise of "the downfall of the Western nations" (whatever that means), then establish a cause-and-effect relationship between "excessive entertainment over the tube" and the former.
Turn on the tube if you don't believe me, flip some channels, see how many of the programs are of any value in the first place?
How are you establishing the "value" of TV programs exactly? By your own judgement as whether it's something you'd like to watch?
No wonder over 90% of the American high school graduates can't even pinpoint their own country - the United States of America - on the world map.
Citation needed. Or an admission that you just made this up.
They have been dumbed down by the entertainment industry.
Non-sequitur. Even if you establish two concurrent trends, it doesn't mean there is a connection or cause-and-effect relationship between them.
What a mistake-a to make-a!
large enough and sharp enough to do some serious damage
That's the whole point in a weapon.
It's not the whole point in a ceremonial weapon, however, and the design of ceremonial objects can render them impractical for their ostensible purpose. I doubt the FA Cup is very practical as a drinking vessel.
The point I was trying to make was that a Sikh carrying a "proper" capable-of-inflicting-damage kirpan, discreetly, and kept sheathed, shouldn't get hassled by the authorities in the UK, or if they did, then they might be able to claim discrimination by comparing their case with how sgian dubh wearers are treated.
Not in the UK, the most they're allowed to is a tiny toy knife with dull edges which merely resembles a kirpan. In some cases the most that's allowed is a brooch or a pendant with a depiction of the kirpan.
Technically, this may be the case, but I'd imagine that the authorities are pragmatic and tolerant about this. Compare with the sgian dubh, another type of ceremonial dagger worn in the UK for cultural reasons (well, on special occasions anyway), and worn less discreetly than a kirpan would typically be worn.
The common type of sgian dubh is large enough and sharp enough to do some serious damage. I was told by a kilt-salesman that the blade of a sgian dubh is long enough for it to be classed as an offensive weapon, and thus strictly speaking it's illegal to wear it in public, but as long as you keep it sheathed and don't wave it about in public (no jokes please), then the police don't care. Given this, and the fact that wearing the sgian dubh is hardly as much of an imperative as wearing the kirpan is to orthodox Sikhs, it would seem a bit discriminatory to prevent Sikhs from carrying the kirpan (discreetly, and kept sheathed etc.).
I like your post. As a Brit, I'd just like to make a couple of clarifications:
They pay a tax to access the BBC there I believe, and in return they get no advertising.
The "tax" you refer to is the TV license, currently £145 per annum. You have to pay it for the privilege of watching any TV in the UK, not just the BBC, although the BBC scoop all the revenue as their core means of funding. As a result of this, the BBC's funding is pretty high, and, above all, stable, hence the (generally) higher quality of programming and the lack of advertisements or overt product placement on the BBC's main UK channels.
Of course, their series are generally pitifully short for a season (say 6-10 episodes in Britain per season, versus 22 in North America).
This has to do with a cultural difference between the way series are written in the UK vs in the US. A typical British drama or comedy series will be written by a single writer or writing partnership. They're simply unable to write a 22-episode season within the time constraints. A comparable US series on the other hand would typically have a team of writers share the writing duties. Both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. Some British shows use the "team" approach - soap operas being the main example. The BBC sitcom My Family was an exception to the general rule of British sitcoms not having a writing team. IMHO, it is an absolutely awful show (even the actors refused to shoot some episodes because the writing was so bad). God only knows how it managed to keep a prime-time slot on BBC one for a decade.
You didn't specify, so I assume you meant a definite integral over the whole real line. In which case the nicely closed-form answer is \sqrt(\pi).
Are you confusing French with Santa-speak?
Still, if that it so you can expect it to continue to be rejected in a way that seems to you unreasonable UNTIL you come up with a plausible mechanism (for charge separation?).
I tried really hard to parse this sentence, truly I did, but I simply couldn't manage it.
Err ... no. There simply aren't quant jobs with grad starting salaries of that level, certainly not in London, and I would highly doubt you'd find that level in NY either. Salaries actually went up (and bonuses down in relative terms) after '08-09, but there's still no way you'll get a six-figure (GBP) base for a grad starting position.
Also, timing is pretty bad if you want to land a quant role right now. Front-office hiring patterns tend to be very cyclical and right now they're in a downswing with most banks downsizing their quant teams and only a few hiring. Those that are hiring will much prefer experienced candidates over fresh grads, and competition among grads is fierce at the best of time.
If you really want to go for it, be aware that most houses won't look at you unless you have at least a Masters or equivalent in finance and/or a Doctorate in strongly numerate hard-science subject. You need demonstrable skills in maths (linear algebra, PDEs, probability theory), quant finance theory and software development. Language-wise, C++ is a must-have, knowing R is also good. "Sure I can program: I did some MATLAB as part of my masters" is not looked upon well. Interviews are tough and mostly fair: a mix of technical (maths, finance, programming) and problem-solving, with some interviewers unfortunately throwing in the odd "what-am-I-thinking" type question. Oh, and if the interviewer asks you to explain your doctoral thesis, it's not because they care about the subject: they are testing your skill at communicating complex subject matter succinctly.
Disclaimer: I was a quant in a tier-one European bank for over 6 years, including recruiting experienced hires and grads.
While you're right to point out that there's no "last digit of pi", the following reasoning is flawed:
Mathematically there are an infinite number of points around a circle. Therefore, as pi depends on that, there are an infinite number of decimal places in pi.
If that were valid, by the same argument I could say: Mathematically there are an infinite number of points in a square. Therefore, as square roots depend on that, there are an infinite number of decimal places in any square root. But then 2 = sqrt(4) would violate that.
The reason that there's infinitely many decimal digits isn't because there are infinitely many points on a circle (what would it mean for there not to be infinitely many points in a continuous curve segment?). It's because pi is an irrational number - indeed this means there's infinitely many digits using any integer number base.
Oh, and besides, we should be talking about tau rather than pi.