Maybe I'm missing something, but the NYT article says they were hauling rocks "to gather samples" (of "fossilized ash deposit" for analysis). The next paragraph explains that they were looking for crystals in the samples because that can help give a timeline for relevant changes in the crystal's environment:
> Ms. Shamloo later analyzed trace crystals in the volcanic leftovers, allowing her to pin down changes before the supervolcano’s eruption. Each crystal once resided within the vast, seething ocean of magma deep underground. As the crystals grew outward, layer upon layer, they recorded changes in temperature, pressure and water content beneath the volcano, much like a set of tree rings.
It's true that this is not sufficient information to allow readers to replicate the analysis at home, but it seems like a good level of introductory detail so people can decide whether they want to follow the link in the NYT article to the volcanology conference.
Hauling rocks doesn't really impart a whole lot of information. If they are going to include a bit about hauling rocks, maybe tell us about it - instead of pretending it's a novel with bison and bears. You know, science journalism.
NYT is a lousy source for science journalism. How about what kind of rock? How about why they were moving rock (heavy?) instead of just taking small samples? Bison, bears, and the hot sun are prose for op-eds and novels, not an article about geology.
Heck, they could have skipped that whole sentence and it'd have been fine. I'm not outraged, it's just lousy science journalism that is an example of their continued low-quality reporting. It's just one more strike against them, so I figured I'd mention it and offer readers a second article - which wasn't much better but you can combine the two and almost have something worth reading.
All the journalist is doing is setting the scene for what it might be like to work in that environment and the sorts of activities the scientists are involved in, for the benefit of a general audience. Some readers might not know much about what it's like to work in a nature reserve, it clarifies that the rocks weren't necessarily taken from drilled samples. It doesn't take away anything from the directly relevant content about the science. I read articles like this with my kids sometimes, but even for me conjuring a sense of place is useful.
Now if the content about the science was wrong, or misleadingly simplified, that would be a valid complaint. The recently linked article on baryonic matter discovered between galaxies didn't clarify that it wasn't talking about dark matter, which a lay reader might have assumed. That was a valid complaint. But this just seems a bit silly to complain about.
I totally understand your point and agree, but these days I'm just glad to get through any article, anywhere, without glaring spelling, grammar and word usage errors.
If a science article in a major newspaper mentions actual methods used in a new line of inquiry at all, I consider it above average.
I'm retired but I am a scientist. I am technically a mathematician, but I still apply the method and use the philosophy of science in many areas of my life.
I say that because I think it gives some color to my next comment.
I have some very, very strong opinions about science journalism and the changes I've seen in the past thirty years. However, I fear my attempt to express those opinions would be sufficiently off-topic and incomplete, as my complaints are many, varied, and long.
There is still good science journalism, it exists. It just isn't all that popular. It is quite possible to have good science journalism that appeals even to moderately educated people. I know this to be true because I have seen it.
I often lament the death of the ideal which is that of the citizen scientist. It is through gritted teeth that I submit the ideal has been suplanted by citizen journalist. That is wonderful, at least in theory. However, it seems that it has resulted in fewer people paying for quality journalism and it also seems likely that this is a primary cause for the reduction in quality.
It doesn't help that the evening news now competes with reality television. In a world where deep thoughts are limited to 140 characters, sensationalism has prospered at the cost of depth.
I ain't even started... I can rant for hours about the state of scientific journalism, or journalism in general. The lack of quality editing only compounds it.
The effect this has had on education and scientific literacy is troubling. We have a populace that can more readily recognize a Kareashian than they can an equation. It isn't limited to one age group, side of the political spectrum, or the population densities of their respective communities. No, no it is not...
However, I suspect that my rant would just be preaching to the choir. I strongly suspect we are in full agreement.
I don't suppose you have a solution?
This is actually edited for brevity. I removed several paragraphs. They digressed too much, even for me.
The term "free-speech zone" is older than that. It goes back at least to 2004, and a similar concept under a different name ("protest zone") is even older.
I have little sympathy. The author decided to pick an "edgy" title to get clicks and it clearly backfired.
If you posted "Motherhood Isn’t Sacrifice, It’s Selfishness" as a comment here it would get flagged to death too. Putting it as a title of an OP-Ed doesn't change that even if the author will slowly break down why that ISN'T true (or more complex/nuanced).
If the author wants to generate legitimate discussion, they should talk to their editor about dropping the faux-controversial titles. Particularly as it sets the tone for the discussion is such a negative way.
From what I can tell, the title unfortunately reflects the article well. Sure, the article does skirt around some interesting thoughts on ingrained societal bias / roles (which has been discussed here quite a bit). But the article struck me as preachy / opinionated, in that the author had a fairly exact idea of what she thought the motherhood of everyone else was.
It sounds line an opinion piece not backed by any discussion. Essentially a blog post that anybody could have written. Why have off-topic blog posts on HN?
That was the nicer way of putting it, he is generally made fun of(or maybe that's my bubble, can't be sure) for oversimplifying philosophical subject matters...
By any chance are you thinking of Antonio Damasio's book _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain_?
Also, this (paywalled, sorry) article seems relevant.
Antoine Bechara, Antonio R. Damasio, Hanna Damasio, Steven W. Anderson, Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex, Cognition, Volume 50, Issues 1–3, April–June 1994, Pages 7-15, ISSN 0010-0277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3.
(//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010027794900183)
Abstract: Following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, humans develop a defect in real-life decision-making, which contrasts with otherwise normal intellectual functions. Currently, there is no neuropsychological probe to detect in the laboratory, and the cognitive and neural mechanisms responsible for this defect have resisted explanation. Here, using a novel task which simulates real-life decision-making in the way it factors uncertainty of premises and outcomes, as well as reward and punishment, we find that prefrontal patients, unlike controls, are oblivious to the future consequences of their actions, and seem to be guided by immediate prospects only. This finding offers, for the first time, the possibility of detecting these patients' elusive impairment in the laboratory, measuring it, and investigating its possible causes.
It sounds similar but does not comport with the specifics I recall. The patient did not develop short term thinking. They were quite clear that his emotions had vanished
I believe this exactly is the situation that Damasio describes in the book I mentioned -- his patient "Elliot" had no emotions and couldn't make decisions.
>> Public education is under attack around the world, and in response, student protests have recently been held in Britain, Canada, Chile, Taiwan and elsewhere.
>What protests are you referring to? When?
By using the search terms "student protests britain 2012" and varying the third term to "canada", "chile", or "taiwan", I found the following:
Chomsky quotes the following line from the article: "California State University officials announced plans to freeze enrollment at most campuses." By using that string as a search query I found
I can't comment on applications of category theory to computer programming or computer science, but I believe that the book Conceptual Mathematics by Lawvere and Schanuel is a nice introduction to the basic ideas of category theory.
I believe this book has been discussed "recently" on HN, but I couldn't find a thread.
Mathematicians write for multiple audiences, but there are two major mathematical audiences for their works: specialists in the same field and researchers in other fields. Phrases like "relatively little mathematical background" normally signal that a work is intended to be accessible to non-specialists, but it's often safe to assume that it is aimed at research mathematicians. I think if a work actually requires relatively little mathematical background, a mathematician is more likely to say something like "no, really, you don't need to know mathematics to understand this!" even when it's not quite true.
I genuinely think you don't need a math background to get a general understanding of category theory, because it's so high level. A lot of it is just drawings, even, not complicated formulae and proofs. It's not category theory itself that's difficult to understand, it's the examples and vocabulary.
I think you really need no more than high school algebra to understand basically what category theory is about.
The "note to the reader" clarifies things a bit -- he's aiming for requiring "no more mathematical knowledge than might be acquired from an undergraduate degree at an ordinary British university". Though he does not specify whether he has in mind a mathematics degree, I think this can be deduced from the fact that he indicates that the text developed out of a master's-level course.
The text developed from approximately six lectures' worth of the MMath-level 24-lecture Part III Introduction to Category Theory at Cambridge, I believe. (Source: I took that course last year, and was part of a small reading group studying Leinster's Basic Category Theory at that time. We found that book really, really helpful.)
I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one handy. I've read that he wrote about this in a letter but I haven't been able to find it. The closest I've been able to find is (via WP):
> The word [orangutan] comes from Bontius (1631, Hist. Nat. et Med. Ind. Orient.) who claimed that the Javanese had informed him that orang-utans could talk, ‘but do not wish to, lest they should be compelled to labour’.
Dellios, Paulette (2005). A Lexical Odyssey from the Malay World. The Proceedings of the European Integration-Between Tradition and Modernity Congress, Editura Universităţii "Petru Maior", Volume Number 1, 2005, ISSN 1844-2048, pp. 460-463. http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conf...
Bontius's book looks like the sort of thing Descartes would have read, so I'd be interested in reading his reaction.
>Mr. Clerselier has written me that you are expecting from him my Meditations... in order to present them to the queen of the land. ...If I had only been as wise as they say the savages persuaded themselves that the monkeys were, I never would have become known as a maker of books: Since it is said that they imagined that the monkeys could indeed speak, if they wanted to, but that they chose not to so lest they be forced to work. And since I had not the same prudence to abstain from writing, I now have neither as much liesure nor as much peace as I would have had if I had kept quiet. But since the mistake has already been made, and since I am now known by an infinity of people at the academy, who look askance at my writings and scour them for means of harming me, I do have great hope of being known to persons of great merit, whose power and virtue could protect me.
>Letter to Pierre Chanut (Nov. 1, 1646) as quoted by Amir Aczel, Descartes' Secret Notebook (2005) citing René Descartes: Correspondance avec Elizabeth et autres lettres (1989) ed., Jean-Marie and M. Beysaade, pp. 245-246.
> Ms. Shamloo later analyzed trace crystals in the volcanic leftovers, allowing her to pin down changes before the supervolcano’s eruption. Each crystal once resided within the vast, seething ocean of magma deep underground. As the crystals grew outward, layer upon layer, they recorded changes in temperature, pressure and water content beneath the volcano, much like a set of tree rings.
It's true that this is not sufficient information to allow readers to replicate the analysis at home, but it seems like a good level of introductory detail so people can decide whether they want to follow the link in the NYT article to the volcanology conference.