Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

A college course at University of Washington on "Calling Bullshit". We should invite them to give a lunch lecture at ESA... Our aim in this course is to teach you how to think critically about the data and models that constitute evidence in the social and natural sciences. While Bullshit may reach its apogee in the political domain, this is not a course on political Bullshit. Instead, we will focus on Bullshit that comes clad in the trappings of scholarly discourse. Our learning objectives are straightforward. After taking the course, you should be able to: * Remain vigilant for Bullshit contaminating your information diet. * Recognize said Bullshit whenever and wherever you encounter it. * Figure out for yourself precisely why a particular bit of Bullshit is Bullshit. * Provide a statistician or fellow scientist with a technical explanation of why a claim is Bullshit. * Provide your crystals-and-homeopathy aunt or casually racist uncle with an accessible and persuasive explanation of why a claim is Bullshit. We will be astonished if these skills do not turn out to be among the most useful and most broadly applicable of those that you acquire during the course of your college education.

love it: "Politicians are unconstrained by facts. Science is conducted by press release. Higher education rewards bullshit over analytic thought. Startup culture elevates bullshit to high art. Advertisers wink conspiratorially and invite us to join them in seeing through all the bullshit - and take advantage of our lowered guard to bombard us with bullshit of the second order. The majority of administrative activity, whether in private business or the public sphere, seems to be little more than a sophisticated exercise in the combinatorial reassembly of bullshit. We're sick of it. It's time to do something, and as educators, one constructive thing we know how to do is to teach people. So, the aim of this course is to help students navigate the bullshit-rich modern environment by identifying bullshit, seeing through it, and combating it with effective analysis and argument."

A quick checklist to detect what sort of papers about blockchain are bullshit.

The B report shares the same conclusions and angle ...

One of the authors of the STL (C++'s Standard Template Library) explains generic programming and slams Java.

"I'd rather not even *think* about developing a web application/webservice/web-whatever in standard C++... is it actually possible?? Perhaps with some weird Microsoft solutions... I bet your bank online services are written in Java. Certainly not in PHP+MySQL :)" Doing in C++ would be awesomely crazy, I agree :) But as I see it there are lots of huge websites that operate on PHP, see for instance Facebook. For the banks and the enterprise market, as a general rule I tend to take with a grain of salt whatever spin comes out from them; in the end behind every corporate IT decision there is a little smurf just trying to survive and have the back covered :) As they used to say in the old times, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM". "Industry has chosen Java not because of industrial-corporate marketing bullshit, but because of economics... it enables you develop robustly, reliably, error-prone, modular, well integrated etc... software. And the costs? Well, using java technologies you can set-up enterprise-quality web application servers, get a fully featured development environment (which is better than ANY C/C++/whatever development environment I've EVER seen) at the cost of exactly 0 (zero!) USD/GBP/EUR... Since many years now, the central issue in software development is not implementing algorithms, it's building applications. And that's where Java outperforms many other technologies." Apart from the IDE considerations (on which I cannot comment, since I'm not a IDE user myself), I do not see how Java beats the competition in this regard (again, Python and the huge software ecosystem surrounding it). My impression is that Java's success is mostly due to Sun pushing it like there is no tomorrow and bundling it with their hardware business.

OK, I think there is a bit of everything, wrong and right, but you have to acknowledge that Python is not always the simplest. For info, Facebook uses Java (if you upload picture for instance), and PHP is very limited. So definitely, in company, engineers like you and me select the language, it is not a marketing or political thing. And in the case of fb, they come up with the conclusion that PHP, and Java don't do everything but complement each other. As you say Python as many things around, but it might be too much for simple applications. Otherwise, I would seriously be interested by a study of how to implement a Python-like system on-board spacecrafts and what are the advantages over mixing C, Ada and Java.

Useful tool for managment

Is this bullshit or really useful?

This is the Web 3.0-version of a bullshit generation. Much fun though. Here an article about it: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/20/iwise-is-twitter-for-dead-people/

message from Tamas ... :-)

I am a bit surprised by the number of critical comments to this article there ..

But the comments are not critical, it's just bullshitting.

interesting blog entry

this guy is actually one of the most fervent supporters of open innovation and tries to promote it whereever he can ... his problem is that at least at first view Apple does not confirm his theory ...

lol, the 'about' page is priceless bullshit: http://www.15inno.com/about-15inno/ "Corporate Mind Exchange (CMX) events in which corporate innovation leaders discuss relevant challenges and issues. No academics, consultants or start-ups; just corporate practitioners." We are doing it wrong, Leo. We don't need no stinking Universities! "Network groups in which 12-20 innovation leaders from different companies meet 4-6 times annually to discuss challenges and issues. Workshops and events with thought leaders and practitioners." What the hell are "innovation/thought leaders"?

you know what? if you exclude the title it is not so much bullshit! "Send a robot out into space - allow people to experience space via a virtual environment" I have always loved this idea!

yeah i do but input is always more than welcome =)

"I have always loved this idea!" - me too!!!

what a ACT's exercise should look like...

Maybe, you should propose this exercise to the team. You'll see there is not much imagination, unless, you consider imagination equals craziness (bullshit things ... and the too common blah blah in the act). I think this concept is an imaginative credible concept. "anything we might ever see" explains it well.

well, the article is not very detailed so it can be only "du vent" ! did they actually try if such an airplane can fly ??? what about the engine ??? i find the solar impulse (see post below) much more eco-friendly !!! I agree with Leopold that it's quite boring and stays in the mainstream of the production. I'm sure we can do much better !!! What about some really useful things like pills against the flight sickness, and some really good food in the plane ? haha not soon to happen with all the cost reduction. The future of air transport will be a plane without seats, stewards and perhaps even without pilot !!!

Pretty close to what we suggested for "system of systems." Was an excellent exercise in bullshitting, but of course ESA is not innovative enough. Now it's too late, Daimler did it...

not sure they will end up needing a lot of "space" though ...

There is no "space" yet, at least I didn't find any. But that's because they didn't consider specific hardware, but normal mobile phones. The step to include "space" is obvious, though, and I'm sure they thought about this as well...

Francesco pointed out this research one year ago, we dropped it as noone was really considering it ... but in space a low CPU power consumption is crucial!! Maybe we should look back into this?

I don't remember what is the speed factor, but I guess this might do it! Although, I remember when using an IMU that you cannot have the data above a given rate (e.g. 20Hz even though the ADC samples the sensor at a little faster rate), so somehow it is not just the CPU that must be re-thought. When I say qualification I also imply the "hardened" phase.

I don't know if the (promised) one-order-of-magnitude improvements in power efficiency and performance are enough to justify looking into this. For once, it is not clear to me what embracing this technology would mean from an engineering point of view: does this technology need an entirely new software/hardware stack? If that were the case, in my opinion any potential benefit would be nullified. Also, is it realistic to build an entire self-sufficient chip on this technology? While the precision of floating point computations may be degraded and still be useful, how does all this play with integer arithmetic? Keep in mind that, e.g., in the Linux kernel code floating-point calculations are not even allowed/available... It is probably possible to integrate an "accelerated" low-accuracy floating-point unit together with a traditional CPU, but then again you have more implementation overhead creeping in. Finally, recent processors by Intel (e.g., the Atom) and especially ARM boast really low power-consumption levels, at the same time offering performance-boosting features such as multi-core and vectorization capabilities. Don't such efforts have more potential, if anything because of economical/industrial inertia?

Eleven of ESA's 18 Member States are participating in the ExoMars Programme: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, plus Canada. Greece doesn't participate. pfffff national debt, crisis and bullshit

"At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality. A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations."

Leo, do you mean you liked my comment on your question more than Pacome's? Well, the ACT has to evolve and fledge, so no bullshitting anymore, but serious and calculating answers... :-) Sorry Pacome, nothing against you!! I just LOVE this Diigo because it gives me the opportunity for a happy revival of my ACT mood.

haha, today would have been great to show your mood... we had a talk on the connection between mind and matter !!

Here's the link related to one of the lunch time discussions. I recommend it to every single one of you. I promise it will be worth your time. If you're lazy, you have a summary here (good stuff also in the references, have a look at them):      Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M, Bourne PE (2007) Ten Simple Rules for Doing Your Best Research, According to Hamming. PLoS Comput Biol 3(10): e213.

honestly I think that some of these rules actually make sense indeed ... but I am always curious to get a good book recommendation (which book of Copernic would you recommend?) btw Pacome: we are in Paris ... in case you have some time ...

I warmly recommend this book, a bit old but fascinating: The sleepwalkers from Arthur Koestler. It shows that progress in science is not straight and do not obey any rule... It is not as rational as most of people seem to believe today. http://www.amazon.com/Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Universe-Compass/dp/0140192468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294835558&sr=8-1 Otherwise yes I have some time ! my phone number: 0699428926 We live around Denfert-Rochereau and Montparnasse. We could go for a beer this evening ?

A critical view on Prof. Markram's Blue Brain project (in German).

As far as I know it's sort of like "Let's construct an enormous dynamical system and see what happens"... i.e. a waste of taxpayer's money... Able to heal Alzheimer... Yeah... Actually I was on the conference the author is mentioning (FET 2011) and I have seen the presentations of all 6 flagship proposals. Following that I had a discussion with one of my colleagues about the existence of limits of the amount of bullshit politicians are willing to buy from scientists. Will there be a point at which politicians, despite their total ignorance, will realise that scientists simply don't deliver anything they promise? How long will we (scientists) be stuck in the viscous circle of have-to-promise-more-than-predecessors in order to get money? Will we face a situation when we'll be forced to revert to promises which are realistic? To be honest none of the 6 presentations convinced me of their scientific merit (apart from the one on graphene where I have absolutely no expertise to tell). Apparently a huge amount of money is about to be wasted.

It's not just "Let's construct an enormous dynamical system and see what happens", it's worse! Also the simulation of the cosmological evolution is/was a little bit of this type, still the results are very interesting and useful. Why? Neither the whole cosmos nor the human brain at the level of single neurons can be modelled on a computer, that would last aeons on a "yet-to-be-invented-extra-super-computer". Thus one has to make assumptions and simplifications. In cosmology we have working theories of gravitation, thermodynamics, electrodynamics etc. at hand; starting from these theories we can make reasonable assumptions and (more or less) justified simplifications. The result is valuable since it provides insight into a complex system under given, explicit and understood assumptions. Nothing similar seems to exist in neuroscience. There is no theory of the human brain and apparently nobody has the slightest idea which simplifications can be made without harm. Of course, Mr. Markram remains completely unaffected of ''details'' like this. Finally, Marek, money is not wasted, we ''build networks of excellence'' and ''select the brightest of the brightest'' to make them study and work at our ''elite institutions'' :-). I lively remember the stage of one of these "bestofthebest" from Ivy League at the ACT...

here comes Sante's paper .... 

There is another very special old friend of Dario and myself, Lorenzo Iorio...

looks like a nice chap: http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/homepage_of_lorenzo_iorio.htm

The definitive comparison. It is clear that Joris is using an inefficient programming language.

Thanks Jose, I haven't read a good complete bullshit for a while!

Beautiful and inspirational piece.

Thinking about it, probably Open Source today is more faithful to the "scientific method" than most science, as far as the communication and sharing of information is concerned. We badly need to get rid of the dictatorship of journals and assorted bullshit like impact factors...