A whistleblower of another persuasion
DI has a soft spot for whistleblowers, as well it should. I don't mean to make light of that in any way, but TED calls Geert Chatrou, world champion whistler, a whistleblower you haven't heard :
Noteworthy entries.
DI has a soft spot for whistleblowers, as well it should. I don't mean to make light of that in any way, but TED calls Geert Chatrou, world champion whistler, a whistleblower you haven't heard :
You've probably seen collections of stunts before, but this has to be one of the most impressive.
My favorite line in this short video discussing deep field images: These images are all contained in an area as big as a grain of sand at arm's length.
If you are a bicyclist who wants to clear snow. This is for you. The are other, less impressive versions too. And see here.
A recent post on the Good Math blog called "Fuzzy Logic vs Probability" reminded me of a coping skill that I take for granted, yet most people probably don't know about. The post linked above is about the essential difference between probabilities and values in fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic is a sort of analog approach to Boolean logic. Boole constructed a rigid logical framework containing only two values: True and False. In Fuzzy logic, every statement has a rating of how true it is, from 0 to 100%. Decisions can therefore be made when there is not any binary certainty about the input parameters. The result is a degree (or percentage) of how true is the resulting compound statement. But how can this be a coping skill? Let's say a spouse asks if you want to go out for dinner. If you absolutely refuse, or eagerly must, then the answer can be Boolean (Yes or No). But that No might just lead to an argument. A grudging Yes may breed resentment. What if you are tired, but hungry, and not feeling sociable, nor like more driving, but also would like some entree that you are not likely to get at home, yet thinking about the money? You can go either way. One might call it 40% "want to go out". By myself, under half is a "No". But here is the spouse, and the spouse has also had a hard day with different characteristics, and leans toward going out (as indicated by the issuing of the question). She might counter my 40% with a more urgent 80%. This 80% indicates a willingness to stay home, if I really want to. But the average (logical union) of our two values is 60%. So we go out, each understanding how strongly the other one feels about it. If there is a near tie, we cast another ballot. As with a flipping coin in the air, one often has second thoughts about which way we want it to land. It does take a little practice to use percentages in gauging each others desires. But it really saves on arguments.