I think it's a valid analogy to illustrate different kinds of prediction, but I want to add that there are systems where , if you average over one period , you get A. If you average over another period, you get B. And B is too far from A. And if you scale that up to larger periods, you get the same problem. Some systems have difficult "averaging out" behaviour. They 'switch regimes'. They don't need outside intervention for that.
It's a pity that some of the doomesday flavor of nuclear bombs rubs off on dirty bombs.
How many people do you think a dirty bomb is going to kill? People are killed by radioactive cobalt because they keep it around. They 're not careful because they don't suspect danger. The trouble with a dirty bomb is you chase people away. They wash afterwards. If mass murderers get together, they won't mention it. They don't want to be considered an amateur.
I won't say it's no problem. It will scare the shit out of people if it happens. It may have much more emotional impact than classical explosives even if not many(or no) people die(in the short run). There is a huge medical followup cost. Some real estate may be declared inhabitable. Expensive cleanup. All kinds of stuff.
- you don't have to do it yourself. It's possible to ask somebody who can do it
- there is a tradeoff between memory and calculation. If you have a lot of precalculated data to work with, Calculation is much shorter. At one stage, practical decryption of DES used 100GB of stored data. Later this was reduced to 1.4GB or two CD's. I recall site somewhere that demonstrates decrypting passwords in about 10 seconds.
The high cost of energy from wind turbines is the main factor that slows down deployment. It is high because of two reasons
- very high maintenance cost. This cost is expected to decrease to an acceptable level though, and the ratio of turbines that are 'down' will improve at the same time.
- you need expensive overcapacity of conventional sources, to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. You have to build the same capacity (well probably less) with flexible generators that can easily stop and start. So not nuclear. When the wind blows too hard you have excess energy for which you often don't get a good price.
but as for their environmental effect I'd say, bad for birds, good for fish.
One thing about solar energy: making solar cells is like making computer chips: generally highly polluting. That may change...
It's remarkable news. That they're able to control the tumors now is quite an advance compared to a few years ago. Last I heard was interferon treatment, which didn't work all that well(by itself).
Melanomas metastatize very easily and kill you effectively. But since they're on the skin(mostly), they can be spotted early. Only, (and i'm not a doctor)
- they are often allowed to evolve for a long time. It's just a little spot that 'changes' a bit, and you 'd feel ridiculous if you go to a doctor with it.
- I think the width of a melanome is not such a big factor for assessing risk, but the thickness is. The signal to go to a dermatologist is a nevus that "changes".
- not all skin cancers are melanoma. Most skin cancers are a spinocellular carcinome, less lethal, and basocellular carcinome , which eats away locally but does not 'travel'. You really need a lot of dedication to have that last one kill you.
If something goes by such a derogatory name surely it must be easy to see through it. I think often that is not true.
Most people who dismiss out of hand claims like the RNG stuff above(or even come up with arguments against it), mainly recognize some style attributes, know themselves backed by some authoritative sources and proceed on that. I agree that if "they go through the trouble of finding out for themselves" (without consulting parties like CSICOP) a lot of the literature in that sector really can make them doubt. Or believe.
But it's not because the literature uncovers some deep truth and sceptics are blind to it. Crackpot science tends to drift towards areas where it is difficult to think well, and where people are bound to be wrongfooted. If you make a complicated construction in that area, it's not simple to counter it. One aspect, trying to make sense of a random output really aims for our achilles heel. We can make sense of anything. In one step: Throw a few coins on the table and you can make a face out of it....or in a series of steps: "This spike's timing is off." "No it's not! It's a premonition!" "This spike is shortly before newyear. Nothing special happened then." "Sure there was something. A big celebration."
I haven't looked into the actual research, but the rednova article looks like a big stinker. I'm not one of those wussy die-hard-prove-it-to-me guys, but I'm diehard allright. I forego my chance to be on the forefront for this. I'll hear it if the story is still around in a year or so:)
Pauses are much less frequent than interruptions. A pause each hour or so is often considered appropriate. Interruptions each few minutes are hell. It's impossible to get anything done.
physical versus intellectual work: intellectual work suffers from constant interruption. Physical work also suffers from interruptions(losing rhythm), but probably less.
Admittedly, whenever i think of "history repeats itself" I have this itch. Allergy of historicism causes that I think.
well, the article suggests the attempt to multitask averages out performance. Smart girls(and guys too) perform average then, while average girls(and other sexes) still perform average.
So smart people(and the like) are more dependent on their ability to concentrate.
Turn this around, and you get an interesting question: are smart people smart because they concentrate better?
checklist i made before checking the article. Pity, now i don't have time left to check the article(and complete the checklist)...
- statistically significant vs significant: The first means there is a confirmed difference that could lead to more research, but that can be ignored for all the rest. The second means you can take the difference in account. Usually the two are confused.
- changing the game towards a reward system: supposed you're focused on the task and playing with it with good concentration. Attempting to add a reward system on top of this easily leads to decreasing performance. People (and monkeys) start playing a different game to optimize rewards, and the quality of the work drops.
There is a nice anecdote from R Sprenger on how this effect can be used in a positive way: some youngsters were harassing an old man everyday as he passed. Sprenger offers the kids something like 5$ if they do it again the next day. They harass the old man again, and he pays. He makes a new offer each time, but the price goes down gradually. Pretty soon(i think it was less than 2 weeks) the youngsters quit because they don't consider the reward worthwile anymore.
- divided attention. The previous could lead to divided attention, but anything around you that draws attention could do.
- Last Minute Panic gets things done because you're forced to sit down and concentrate. I doubt if this leads to weak performance.
- concentrated playing around with a challenge. Better performance as the previous? Worse?
suppose coolant circulation is blocked and coolant remains present. Then the coolant loses its cooling function. Now, coolant can be easier to drain than bars, so it would be more safe, relatively.
The main safety factor(i think it is present here, but i'm not sure) is the low density of nuclear material that keeps an uncontrolled reaction from getting out of control.
pebble bed reactors have a low density, so they don't overheat , even when all cooling breaks down. The Tchernobyl reactor did overheat. Then exploded. Then the air could reach the core and start a fire.
The low density approach is actually 50 years old. The first prototype was made in the fifties. The low density track was left behind by the more evolved high density approach. High density reactors got a headstart because compact reactors were needed in submarines. Freeman Dyson describes the history in one of his books.
In what country you're getting off the plane may affect the details but not the general idea. I don't even think the examples are all real. But with the right attitude you can use the feedback of stupid customers to come up with improvements. You don't need a real problem to come up with an improvement.
The pace of deceleration of a car is now decided by the construction of the transmission. The car builder did not choose this pace, but he could. So the question to ask is, suppose you could choose it, what would you do?
Automatic transmission is a good example of an improvement that allows you to ignore the mechanics of the system(to some degree). Ok, so this ignorance can be a problem in some cases.
regardless of how outrageously stupid customers are, a good helpdesk can learn from them. There is a good reason to know traffic(though even there some automation is possible), but why should a person know if the engine is in the front or the back? Just to be nice, imagine the person is from a country far far away, just got off the plane, and wants to rent a car.
ex 1. after you identified yourself, why doesn't your car start automatically? It could offer you to start.
ex 2. If the gas tank is running empty, the car becomes more insisting. It tells you it needs food. Then it tells you it needs food urgently and the nearest place to get it.
ex 3. ignoring cruise control, what decides the pace of deceleration when you let go of the accelerator pedal? It's not chosen, it's just decided by the construction of the engine. The car could start breaking if you let go of the pedal. If you press the pedal a little bit, you get the previous 'breaking on the engine'. The breaking pedal is for extra breaking.
ex 4. Car interface became more complicated than 30 years ago. Implement an 'automated' option so controls can move out of the way, with manual control as an override. This is what is being done with headlights(sensing light/dark ) and wipers(sensing rain).
Each of these ideas can be dismissed. But hey, imagine getting just one real proposal out of 100 customer questions.
get your post right the first time. "mod 'insightful' is underused" actually had to be, that really insightful ideas are often ignored, while vehement agreement translates to 'mod insightful'.
I suppose there are parallels between book sales and karma. To be fair I don't see much wrong with "karma whoring" if it's not excessive.
Since you scored so well with your remark, here is my list with karma tips for beginners. World premiere, since i just made it up.:
- post early and visible so people pay attention to your post. The second visible person to post the same idea will score less than the first person. - make sure your message comes across well and fast. In practice this means bring a new nugget of relevant information, or bring mainstream ideas in a clear way. If your ideas are too difficult, people just stare and pass on. No good points, no bad points. You can't distinguish a brilliant idea that you don't get, from a weak idea. It would score to bring advanced ideas in a simple way, but you have to be good at 3 things: advanced ideas, clear language, and clarifying advanced ideas. It's hard enough bringing mainstream ideas in a clear way. - show explicit opinions, but with respect. People tend to vote up what they agree with, and in a large crowd , 5% who agree is a lot. They usually won't vote down what they disagree with unless given an excuse. Just bringing up arguments without an opinion doesn't trigger much.
So impopular is familiar, so it's ok. Unfamiliar is neutral and not ok(so mod 'insightful' is underused). Offending other posters directly gets you modded down, but a (sincere) putdown of a general group gets you modded up.
Your post puts yourself above the masses. Very serious studies have shown that 86.4% of the people like to feel above the masses, so it's a popular opinion with good chance to be modded up. Well maybe i just made that up, but i would appreciate it if these studies existed.
Don't mod this up. It adds irony if somebody with a low score tells somebody with a high score how to accumulate karma
I followed that a bit, and while there is overlap, it's a more serious issue than Atlanta Nights.
I think the writers of Atlanta Nights proved that this publisher sells books that people want to read, and it makes the buyers feel better about it by telling them things they want to hear.
What makes a book an interesting read is not just quality, not even in the case of highbrow interest.(there is a related/. article about favorite worst movies somewhere) Atlanta Nights is interesting because of the sex scenes, because you wonder if it takes a good writer to write a very bad book, because it shows the "don'ts" for a writer, and because it is funny in its exaggerations. 'Interesting' doesn't mean 'good'. 'Interesting' doesn't even necessarily mean there is a value to it. It just has to press your interest buttons. Atlanta nights does have value.
Sokal showed a disease in social science. My opinion is , that this disease runs much deeper than 'a few rotten apples'. I hope social scientists did more than just stop reading Social Text, and check why they were reading it in the first place.
Anyway, "Belgium" was a replacement for the american edition. It's not in the original. In the english version , the word was a plain 'fuck' which admittedly doesn't have the same frisson to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a valid analogy to illustrate different kinds of prediction, but I want to add that there are systems where , if you average over one period , you get A. If you average over another period, you get B. And B is too far from A. And if you scale that up to larger periods, you get the same problem. Some systems have difficult "averaging out" behaviour. They 'switch regimes'. They don't need outside intervention for that.
It's a pity that some of the doomesday flavor of nuclear bombs rubs off on dirty bombs.
How many people do you think a dirty bomb is going to kill? People are killed by radioactive cobalt because they keep it around. They 're not careful because they don't suspect danger. The trouble with a dirty bomb is you chase people away. They wash afterwards. If mass murderers get together, they won't mention it. They don't want to be considered an amateur.
I won't say it's no problem. It will scare the shit out of people if it happens. It may have much more emotional impact than classical explosives even if not many(or no) people die(in the short run). There is a huge medical followup cost. Some real estate may be declared inhabitable. Expensive cleanup. All kinds of stuff.
Still, "weaponized" eh?
That's very funny. Now how am I going to know whether anyone got the joke?
Ah, nevermind. 42nd president. What a world. I'm off.
get a liff :)
You know . Like, show up.
the 1.4GB storage approach specifically applied to windows passwords, not general DES decryption(and not triple DES either).
- you don't have to do it yourself. It's possible to ask somebody who can do it
- there is a tradeoff between memory and calculation. If you have a lot of precalculated data to work with, Calculation is much shorter. At one stage, practical decryption of DES used 100GB of stored data. Later this was reduced to 1.4GB or two CD's. I recall site somewhere that demonstrates decrypting passwords in about 10 seconds.
The high cost of energy from wind turbines is the main factor that slows down deployment. It is high because of two reasons
- very high maintenance cost. This cost is expected to decrease to an acceptable level though, and the ratio of turbines that are 'down' will improve at the same time.
- you need expensive overcapacity of conventional sources, to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. You have to build the same capacity (well probably less) with flexible generators that can easily stop and start. So not nuclear. When the wind blows too hard you have excess energy for which you often don't get a good price.
but as for their environmental effect I'd say, bad for birds, good for fish.
One thing about solar energy: making solar cells is like making computer chips: generally highly polluting. That may change...
It's remarkable news. That they're able to control the tumors now is quite an advance compared to a few years ago. Last I heard was interferon treatment, which didn't work all that well(by itself).
Melanomas metastatize very easily and kill you effectively. But since they're on the skin(mostly), they can be spotted early. Only, (and i'm not a doctor)
- they are often allowed to evolve for a long time. It's just a little spot that 'changes' a bit, and you 'd feel ridiculous if you go to a doctor with it.
- I think the width of a melanome is not such a big factor for assessing risk, but the thickness is. The signal to go to a dermatologist is a nevus that "changes".
- not all skin cancers are melanoma. Most skin cancers are a spinocellular carcinome, less lethal, and basocellular carcinome , which eats away locally but does not 'travel'. You really need a lot of dedication to have that last one kill you.
If something goes by such a derogatory name surely it must be easy to see through it. I think often that is not true.
...or in a series of steps:
:)
Most people who dismiss out of hand claims like the RNG stuff above(or even come up with arguments against it),
mainly recognize some style attributes, know themselves backed by some authoritative sources and proceed on that.
I agree that if "they go through the trouble of finding out for themselves" (without consulting parties like CSICOP) a lot of the literature in that sector really can make them doubt. Or believe.
But it's not because the literature uncovers some deep truth and sceptics are blind to it.
Crackpot science tends to drift towards areas where it is difficult to think well, and where people are bound to be wrongfooted. If you make a complicated construction in that area, it's not simple to counter it. One aspect, trying to make sense of a random output really aims for our achilles heel. We can make sense of anything. In one step:
Throw a few coins on the table and you can make a face out of it.
"This spike's timing is off." "No it's not! It's a premonition!"
"This spike is shortly before newyear. Nothing special happened then." "Sure there was something. A big celebration."
I haven't looked into the actual research, but the rednova article looks like a big stinker. I'm not one of those wussy die-hard-prove-it-to-me guys, but I'm diehard allright. I forego my chance to be on the forefront for this. I'll hear it if the story is still around in a year or so
I can see two relevant differences immediately
Pauses are much less frequent than interruptions. A pause each hour or so is often considered appropriate.
Interruptions each few minutes are hell.
It's impossible to get anything done.
physical versus intellectual work: intellectual work suffers from constant interruption.
Physical work also suffers from interruptions(losing rhythm), but probably less.
Admittedly, whenever i think of "history repeats itself" I have this itch.
Allergy of historicism causes that I think.
well, the article suggests the attempt to multitask averages out performance. Smart girls(and guys too) perform average then, while average girls(and other sexes) still perform average.
So smart people(and the like) are more dependent on their ability to concentrate.
Turn this around, and you get an interesting question: are smart people smart because they concentrate better?
checklist i made before checking the article. Pity, now i don't have time left to check the article(and complete the checklist)...
- statistically significant vs significant: The first means there is a confirmed difference that could lead to more research, but that can be ignored for all the rest. The second means you can take the difference in account. Usually the two are confused.
- changing the game towards a reward system: supposed you're focused on the task and playing with it with good concentration. Attempting to add a reward system on top of this easily leads to decreasing performance. People (and monkeys) start playing a different game to optimize rewards, and the quality of the work drops.
There is a nice anecdote from R Sprenger on how this effect can be used in a positive way: some youngsters were harassing an old man everyday as he passed. Sprenger offers the kids something like 5$ if they do it again the next day. They harass the old man again, and he pays. He makes a new offer each time, but the price goes down gradually. Pretty soon(i think it was less than 2 weeks) the youngsters quit because they don't consider the reward worthwile anymore.
- divided attention. The previous could lead to divided attention, but anything around you that draws attention could do.
- Last Minute Panic gets things done because you're forced to sit down and concentrate. I doubt if this leads to weak performance.
- concentrated playing around with a challenge. Better performance as the previous? Worse?
suppose coolant circulation is blocked and coolant remains present. Then the coolant loses its cooling function. Now, coolant can be easier to drain than bars, so it would be more safe, relatively.
The main safety factor(i think it is present here, but i'm not sure) is the low density of nuclear material that keeps an uncontrolled reaction from getting out of control.
he probably had what Johnny Cash called "ring of fire"
pebble bed reactors have a low density, so they don't overheat , even when all cooling breaks down. The Tchernobyl reactor did overheat. Then exploded. Then the air could reach the core and start a fire.
The low density approach is actually 50 years old. The first prototype was made in the fifties. The low density track was left behind by the more evolved high density approach. High density reactors got a headstart because compact reactors were needed in submarines. Freeman Dyson describes the history in one of his books.
In what country you're getting off the plane may affect the details but not the general idea. I don't even think the examples are all real. But with the right attitude you can use the feedback of stupid customers to come up with improvements. You don't need a real problem to come up with an improvement.
The pace of deceleration of a car is now decided by the construction of the transmission. The car builder did not choose this pace, but he could. So the question to ask is, suppose you could choose it, what would you do?
Automatic transmission is a good example of an improvement that allows you to ignore the mechanics of the system(to some degree). Ok, so this ignorance can be a problem in some cases.
regardless of how outrageously stupid customers are, a good helpdesk can learn from them. There is a good reason to know traffic(though even there some automation is possible), but why should a person know if the engine is in the front or the back? Just to be nice, imagine the person is from a country far far away, just got off the plane, and wants to rent a car.
ex 1. after you identified yourself, why doesn't your car start automatically? It could offer you to start.
ex 2. If the gas tank is running empty, the car becomes more insisting. It tells you it needs food. Then it tells you it needs food urgently and the nearest place to get it.
ex 3. ignoring cruise control, what decides the pace of deceleration when you let go of the accelerator pedal? It's not chosen, it's just decided by the construction of the engine. The car could start breaking if you let go of the pedal. If you press the pedal a little bit, you get the previous 'breaking on the engine'. The breaking pedal is for extra breaking.
ex 4. Car interface became more complicated than 30 years ago. Implement an 'automated' option so controls can move out of the way, with manual control as an override. This is what is being done with headlights(sensing light/dark ) and wipers(sensing rain).
Each of these ideas can be dismissed. But hey, imagine getting just one real proposal out of 100 customer questions.
get your post right the first time. "mod 'insightful' is underused" actually had to be, that really insightful ideas are often ignored, while vehement agreement translates to 'mod insightful' .
I suppose there are parallels between book sales and karma. To be fair I don't see much wrong with "karma whoring" if it's not excessive.
:
Since you scored so well with your remark, here is my list with karma tips for beginners. World premiere, since i just made it up.
- post early and visible so people pay attention to your post. The second visible person to post the same idea will score less than the first person.
- make sure your message comes across well and fast. In practice this means bring a new nugget of relevant information, or bring mainstream ideas in a clear way.
If your ideas are too difficult, people just stare and pass on. No good points, no bad points. You can't distinguish a brilliant idea that you don't get, from a weak idea.
It would score to bring advanced ideas in a simple way, but you have to be good at 3 things: advanced ideas, clear language, and clarifying advanced ideas. It's hard enough bringing mainstream ideas in a clear way.
- show explicit opinions, but with respect.
People tend to vote up what they agree with, and in a large crowd , 5% who agree is a lot.
They usually won't vote down what they disagree with unless given an excuse.
Just bringing up arguments without an opinion doesn't trigger much.
So impopular is familiar, so it's ok. Unfamiliar is neutral and not ok(so mod 'insightful' is underused). Offending other posters directly gets you modded down, but a (sincere) putdown of a general group gets you modded up.
Your post puts yourself above the masses. Very serious studies have shown that 86.4% of the people like to feel above the masses, so it's a popular opinion with good chance to be modded up.
Well maybe i just made that up, but i would appreciate it if these studies existed.
Don't mod this up. It adds irony if somebody with a low score tells somebody with a high score how to accumulate karma
I'm not going to compliment myself by claiming it's insightful, but i agree. I wouldn't use the heavy handed "group think" though.
I followed that a bit, and while there is overlap, it's a more serious issue than Atlanta Nights.
/. article about favorite worst movies somewhere) Atlanta Nights is interesting because of the sex scenes, because you wonder if it takes a good writer to write a very bad book, because it shows the "don'ts" for a writer, and because it is funny in its exaggerations. 'Interesting' doesn't mean 'good'. 'Interesting' doesn't even necessarily mean there is a value to it. It just has to press your interest buttons. Atlanta nights does have value.
I think the writers of Atlanta Nights proved that this publisher sells books that people want to read, and it makes the buyers feel better about it by telling them things they want to hear.
What makes a book an interesting read is not just quality, not even in the case of highbrow interest.(there is a related
Sokal showed a disease in social science. My opinion is , that this disease runs much deeper than 'a few rotten apples'. I hope social scientists did more than just stop reading Social Text, and check why they were reading it in the first place.
Suppose you would ask which astronauts are not willing to take the risk of this mission?
My guess is, there won't be many who refuse. It's not that they don't care about safety.
Nobody ever tells me anything around here :(
Anyway, "Belgium" was a replacement for the american edition. It's not in the original. In the english version , the word was a plain 'fuck' which admittedly doesn't have the same frisson to it.