Un uomo1 che pedala lentamente per corso Canalchiaro, deserto nelle prime ore della mattina, seguito dal volo di una nuvola di colombi.
1) "Servizio alimentazione volatili comune di Modena"
Friday, April 27, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Racket
This leader of the Economist reminds me of Dino and Luigi Vercotti of a classic Monty Python skit (Army Protection Racket)
"You've got a nice country here, Argentines. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. it would be a shame if...'Cos things break, don't they? International credit breaks, things catch fire..."
One hopes that, in the same fashion, an officer in charge would stand up:
"No, no this is silly. The whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it."
However, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen: after all Dino and Luigi were funny. The article is not.
"You've got a nice country here, Argentines. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. it would be a shame if...'Cos things break, don't they? International credit breaks, things catch fire..."
One hopes that, in the same fashion, an officer in charge would stand up:
"No, no this is silly. The whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it."
However, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen: after all Dino and Luigi were funny. The article is not.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Face(s)Boom: a prophecy
After facebook's IPO, the US stock technological market will tank, 2001 like. This will solve the EU bond crisis. Mark my words.
P.S: For the inquisitive mind: after Facbook paid $1bilion (!!!!!) for instagram, Don Dodge, a Google executive and start-up veteran, has noted that the social network is paying about $30 per user for Instagram, and other social apps have been valued at anywhere from $20 to $50 per user.
Now this is the kind of nonsense that was all the rage in the pre-2001 new economy days. Too bad "FuckedCompany" is no more.
P.S: For the inquisitive mind: after Facbook paid $1bilion (!!!!!) for instagram, Don Dodge, a Google executive and start-up veteran, has noted that the social network is paying about $30 per user for Instagram, and other social apps have been valued at anywhere from $20 to $50 per user.
Now this is the kind of nonsense that was all the rage in the pre-2001 new economy days. Too bad "FuckedCompany" is no more.
A post on Sean Carroll blog.
This was a comment to this post of Sean Carroll's:
@TychaBrahe: "And perhaps then we need to teach that in school as part of the science curriculum. What you have here is Gerber’s. The meat is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
Oh my. This is, plain and simple, how one would define a priest chaste: "True understanding is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
The crux of the problem appears to be that a fairly large portion of scientists are - at heart - positivists, meaning that they think science makes assertions about what is true. (Even if most of them do publicly tell that they are Popper's followers, meaning they believe science makes assertions about what is false, a very different kind of fish).
When - inevitably - some of the previous "truths" is falsified, that turns out not to be good science PR.
A number of people claiming to speak in name of science also goes around making statements about the very small probability of something happening. (This is, by the way, bad methodology: a book called "The Black Swan" explains why.)
When that something happens, (say, Fukushima blows up, the Challenger disintegrates) that also turns out not to be good science PR.
Scientific eschatology can also be called to task as not being a source for good PR, seeing as, these days, it touts as sound a version of the anthropic principle depending on the existence of 10^500 universes created by the vagaries of an inflaton field whose existence is "theoretically testable".
Last, but not least, the attitude of many subscribers to the so called "new atheism" movement (aggressively ridiculing anybody not adhering to their point of view), isn't helping any.
Ideas for better PR, anyone?
@TychaBrahe: "And perhaps then we need to teach that in school as part of the science curriculum. What you have here is Gerber’s. The meat is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
Oh my. This is, plain and simple, how one would define a priest chaste: "True understanding is very far out of reach, but you can get there. And if you aren’t willing to devote your life to getting there, then you do need to take on faith the pronouncements of those who have done so."
The crux of the problem appears to be that a fairly large portion of scientists are - at heart - positivists, meaning that they think science makes assertions about what is true. (Even if most of them do publicly tell that they are Popper's followers, meaning they believe science makes assertions about what is false, a very different kind of fish).
When - inevitably - some of the previous "truths" is falsified, that turns out not to be good science PR.
A number of people claiming to speak in name of science also goes around making statements about the very small probability of something happening. (This is, by the way, bad methodology: a book called "The Black Swan" explains why.)
When that something happens, (say, Fukushima blows up, the Challenger disintegrates) that also turns out not to be good science PR.
Scientific eschatology can also be called to task as not being a source for good PR, seeing as, these days, it touts as sound a version of the anthropic principle depending on the existence of 10^500 universes created by the vagaries of an inflaton field whose existence is "theoretically testable".
Last, but not least, the attitude of many subscribers to the so called "new atheism" movement (aggressively ridiculing anybody not adhering to their point of view), isn't helping any.
Ideas for better PR, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
