Data Will Help Us | Jonathan Harris 

 Via Olga Subirós ‏@osubiros 

Via Big Bang Data exhibition

Data Will Help Us is a brief manifesto about the promise and perils of data, commissioned by The New York Times.
“Big Data” has become a kind of ubiquitous modern salve that now gets applied to almost any kind of ailment. In fields ranging from education, to government, to healthcare, to advertising, to dating, to science, to war, we’re abandoning timeless decision-making tools like wisdom, morality, and personal experience for a new kind of logic which simply says: “show me the data”.

This project explores the positive and negative possibilities of this data-based logic.

Transistor Devs Q&A - Part 2

I’d like to add a few more key questions I had copied and pasted, and repeat the one transistored was able to log during all the excitement, because it highlights Red’s agency as a character!

Part 1 - logged by transistored
●⊙◍o◐—-▽∇▽—-◐o◍⊙●●⊙◍o◐—-▽∇▽—-◐o◍⊙●

On the Country’s Existence and Boxer
[8:23 PM] saklad5: Is the Country a metaphor or physical location?
[8:24 PM] mossy_toes: *Boxer
[8:24 PM] zhanaeldaiche: Mossy, cut off at “but that’s a”
[8:24 PM] fytransistor: Back!
[8:24 PM] zhanaeldaiche: wb, Lor!
[8:24 PM] mossy_toes: that’s  all inference on my part
[8:24 PM] fytransistor: thanks
[8:24 PM] transistorchat: You can see the same barn at the end during the fight with Royce
[8:24 PM] saklad5: He definitely caused some problem.
[8:24 PM] transistorchat: Perhaps it’s part of the same place>
[8:24 PM] swordhead: I’m back to editing that floatie. Eventually I will see an actual color on the transistor
[8:24 PM] superbashsister: Something I’ve been wondering is if the Country is the “afterlife” or whatever you wanna call it, is that all it is?
[8:24 PM] osiriskun: Does Unnamed speak through the Transistor because he was killed by it, as opposed to killed by the Process and captured with i
[8:25 PM] crou: it makes sense that boxer wouldnt be there during the final fight imo
[8:25 PM] kasavin: @saklad The people of Cloudbank do regard it as a real place where people go.
[8:25 PM] saklad5: Oh.
[8:25 PM] zhanaeldaiche: Osiris, cut off at “and captured with i”
[8:25 PM] saklad5: Not a metaphysical one?
[8:25 PM] crou: hes inside the transistor but theyre inside the transistor but red still has the transistor
[8:25 PM] crou: so many odd loops
[8:25 PM] osiriskun: captured with it
[8:25 PM] saklad5: Wait… what do you mean “regard”?
[8:25 PM] kasavin: @osiris You’re on to something. There’s something special about him.

-the following from Part 1:
fytransistor: and I guess I’m interested why her character decided to continue despite the mentioned uprisings
kasavin: Music was an important part of Red’s life and who she was.

●⊙◍o◐—-▽∇▽—-◐o◍⊙●●⊙◍o◐—-▽∇▽—-◐o◍⊙●

Bỏ qua hết tất cả những lỗi về chọn lựa dữ liệu (hình ảnh chỉ mang tính minh họa) thì sau đây là vài lưu ý cho bản thân cho lần market crash kế tiếp (chắc cũng gần rồi):

  1. Thời gian để thị trường hồi phục sau khi crash sẽ từ 5 - 7 năm (1930 ở Mỹ cũng thế, Nikkei cũng thế). Nếu chơi dưới dạng thức đầu tư, hãy bảo đảm có đủ tiền chi tiêu cho 3-5 năm kế trong tình huống xấu nhất là thất nghiệp.
  2. Chiến thuật tốt nhất khi market crash là đóng bảng đi cong đít kiếm tiền và giữ việc, đợi 3-5 năm sau quay lại, trong trường hợp bảng có tính diversify cao.
  3. Trường hợp ngoại lệ cho ý 2 là nên bán tống bán tháo con nào là nguyên nhân chính dẫn đến market crash (như ở ví dụ trên là BAC - Bank of America) vì lòng tin xuống rất thấp dẫn đến recovery rate của con đó sẽ rất chậm.
  4. Thời gian tốt nhất để ra cho những con ở ý 3 là ngay đợt rớt đầu tiên hay đợt rớt thứ 2 (nếu vẫn còn ngu và ngoan cố không ra ở lần đầu), còn sau đó nữa thì thôi giữ làm đồ đồng nát vẫn còn tốt hơn là bán ra.
  5. Thị trường luôn có một con bị khùng (trong ví dụ là WMT - Walmart) luôn đi lên bất chấp khủng hoảng. Con này là tấm gương sáng cho faith in humanity và nếu bạn đoán trước được là con nào thì bạn đã là tỷ phú rồi chứ không ngồi chơi tumblr nữa.
  6. Lượm được câu này hay: ‘A wise investor will move in with their grandma when market crash before selling out their stocks”
  7. Không biết đánh gì thì đánh index/ Vanguard cho lành. Đánh theo trinity study cũng return ổn định được 4% mà.
  8. Nếu bạn là một người chơi chứng khoán chuyên nghiệp (chơi vì bất kỳ lý do nào ngoại trừ lý do dư tiền không biết làm gì nên đầu tư vào thị trường chứng khoán) thì xin vui lòng bỏ qua điều 1 đến điều 7 và chuẩn bị tinh thần sẵn sàng trở thành Vua Chứng Khoán khi cuối cùng cơ hội trở thành Thạch Sùng cũng đến khi nước lũ dâng cao.
Another star trek theory

So …
Star trek next generation is on a lot just before I go to work.
So I’ve been watching it lately.

Riker is the slut of the show. Of all the characters he has the most dates, one night stands, and short term sexual romps.

But it should be noted that though he is a flirt it’s usually the other person who takes the flirting to the next level.

And he seems to really enjoy the wooing process. He doesn’t pretend he likes someone more than he actually does to get laid, he just likes the romance.

I noticed that in Data centric scenes Riker is always the most emotive of the spectators. He smiles at Data really big. When Data’s daughter dies Riker looks like he’s ready to go hug him.

I think Riker spends his entire time on the enterprise trying to figure out how to woo Data. Not just have sex with Data, that’s kinda easy, but actually romance Data out of his pants.

Plankton in the news!

Studying microscopic organisms teaches us critical lessons about our world. The research schooner Tara, which has been traveling the oceans since 2009, is greatly increasing our knowledge of tiny marine organisms, including plankton. This week’s issue of Science magazine features the Tara’s research on plankton and other marine organisms, with lots of beautiful photos! Read more about the Tara here and here. The Exploratorium’s biology lab is also collecting plankton data and photographs from our home at Pier 15, and contributing a piece to the global plankton puzzle.

In another bummer of the week, researchers have announced this week that a highly-touted study about the effectiveness of pro-LGBT canvassing was actually comprised of fake data. 

The study, which was published last December, claimed that “a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage.” What was so striking about the finding was that voters apparently held onto their pro-marriage-equality beliefs even after the conversation, something that doesn’t usually happen when people change their beliefs quickly and because of another person. 

But Donald Green, the study’s senior author, retracted it after learning that co-author Michael LaCour had faked the results. Apparently, canvassers did talk to voters about their opinions on marriage equality, but nobody actually followed up with the voters about how their thoughts had changed. 

The problems came to light after three other researchers tried, and failed, to replicate the study. David Broockman, of Stanford, Joshua Kalla, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Peter Aronow of Yale found eight statistical irregularities in the data set. No one of these would by itself be proof of wrongdoing, they wrote, but all of them collectively suggest that “the data were not collected as described.”

Broockman, Kalla, and Aronow told Green about the paper’s “irregularities” on Saturday, and sent him a summary of their concerns Sunday. According to his retraction letter, Green then contacted Lynn Vavreck, LaCour’s adviser at UCLA, who confronted him on Monday morning. LaCour couldn’t come up with the raw data of his survey results. He claimed that he accidentally deleted the file, but a representative from Qualtrics — the online survey software program he used — told UCLA that there was no evidence of such a deletion. What’s more, according to what Green told Politico, the company didn’t know anything about the project and “denied having the capabilities” to do the survey.

Yesterday, Vavreck asked LaCour for the contact information of the survey respondents. He didn’t have it, and apparently confessed that he hadn’t used any of the study’s grant money to conduct any of the surveys.

This is just awful news, for so many reasons. This study was a huge source of support for the long-known “contact hypothesis,” which posits that "the best way to reduce prejudice against individuals in a minority group is to boost interactions between them and the majority.” Of course, this isn’t the only study to have shown this effect, but it was a big one for our movement.

Not to mention that when one study that appears to show an increase in LGBT support gets retracted, all the vaguely pro-LGBT studies that follow it will be questioned and scrutinized even more heavily by opponents who are already looking for ways to destroy our credibility. This is such a disappointment.