Showing posts with label mockery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mockery. Show all posts

Sunday, March 03, 2019

What Could Possibly Go Wrong (1840s Edition)

Wow.

Also, look at the follow-up tweet in response.

(What could possibly go wrong? 1840s edition)



(Tip of the cap to Sydney Padua.)

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Country Tourism Slogans: Bring on the Mockery

The tourism slogans of most countries merit mockery (and some really merit mockery). For example, under the circumstances, I think the US may seriously want to change its slogan (of which I was not previously aware) of "All within your reach"...

I think my "favorites" are ones like "Tourism for Everybody" (Algeria) — though perhaps this one isn't quite so bad before it's translated? — and ones that rely on pure geographical location, such as Portugal's "Europe's West Coast". Also, Spain deserves special mockery for including a hashtag, and Uzbekhistan just missed a chance to contact the estate of Robert Palmer for some serious endorsement opportunities.

Also, I am seriously into maps with such ripe opportunities for snark.

(Tip of the cap to George Takei.)

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Tales from the ArXiv: arXiv vs snarXiv

OK, arXiv vs snarXiv is officially the best website ever. Wow, this is awesome!

(Tip of the cap to Anna Lewis. My PhD students send me the best things!)

Update: Wow, this is my 7th post of the day. This might actually be a record...

Friday, January 22, 2010

Tales from the arXiv: Apparently, Congress is a Sandpile

It's this type of research that gives complex systems a bad name. The authors "model" Congress using the sandpile model from self-organized criticality, and they even have a few lines mentioning Al Gore's praising of the sandpile model as evidence in their favor. I call bullshit. This is yet another one of those articles that makes me react with a resounding 'So what?'. Anyway, here are the details of the article:


Title: Stochastic modeling of Congress

Authors: M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury

Abstract: We analyze the dynamics of growth of the number of congressmen supporting the resolution HR1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. The plot of the total number of co-sponsors as a function of time is of "Devil's staircase" type. The distribution of the numbers of new co-sponsors joining during a particular day (step height) follows a power law. The distribution of the length of intervals between additions of new co-sponsors (step length) also follows a power law. We use a modification of Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld sandpile model to simulate the dynamics of Congress and obtain a good agreement with the data.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Deconstructing Mason?

Once again, somebody seems to be trying to put some sort of philosophical interpretation on one of my articles. To wit, consider the following description:

"Porter, Mason, et al. Communities in Networks. Notices of the AMS. 56/9, 2009. In consideration, Oxford University mathematician Porter, along with Jukka-Pekka Onnela, a Helsinki University physicist lately at Harvard, and from the University of North Carolina, mathematician Peter Mucha, might themselves be imagined as agents interlinked in local and global neural-like webs that they study. By this view, Mindkind’s historic learning process may just be reaching critical robustness in such exemplary works, together with many other articles posted herewith (e.g., Barrat, et al above). As the quote cites, statistical physics and complex systems science are realizing they engage the same phenomena in different ways so a merger is underway, still largely unbeknownst. But viola, a revolutionary new kind of materiality is being revealed. Both an independent, implicate network geometry and dynamics that involves such node/link, modular, weighted clusters becomes evident, which then explicates into universally repetitive, nested occurrence from biosphere to blogosphere, from protein webs to international scientific collaborations. In a natural genesis, such a vista could appear as a parent to child genetic code."

The following text is a quote from my article that is included below the blurb above:

Graphs can represent either man-made or natural constructs, such as the World Wide Web or neuronal synaptic networks in the brain. Agents in such networked systems are like particles in traditional statistical mechanics that we all know and (presumably) love, and the structure of interactions between agents reflects the microscopic rules that govern their behavior.


The text that really confounds me is the following: But viola, a revolutionary new kind of materiality is being revealed. Both an independent, implicate network geometry and dynamics that involves such node/link, modular, weighted clusters becomes evident, which then explicates into universally repetitive, nested occurrence from biosphere to blogosphere, from protein webs to international scientific collaborations. In a natural genesis, such a vista could appear as a parent to child genetic code.

Comment: What the fuck?


In case you're curious, here is link where I found this deconstruction.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Tales from the Arxiv (Spoooooooky Edition)

The following paper just got posted to the arxiv preprint server:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\
arXiv:0710.2537
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:43:48 GMT (232kb)

Title: Spookytechnology and Society
Authors: Charles Tahan
Categories: physics.pop-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci quant-ph
Comments: Comments welcome. Visit http://www.tahan.com/charlie/nanosociety/ for
more and related information
\\
New technologies based on the exploitation of so-called "second order"
quantum phenomena - such as quantum entanglement - deserve a public-friendly,
rational, and sexy name. Spookytechnology is that unifying term. From
historical and motivational perspectives, this name has greater value than the
many variations of quantum this and quantum that presently used. As many
already believe, the pursuit of spookytechnology has profound implications for
the development of the physical and information sciences and ultimately for
society at large. Spookytechnology will find its place in the increasingly
dense line of major technological revolutions of our time: quantum, info, bio,
nano, spooky.
\\ ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2537 , 232kb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure this really needs any commentary --- that's how "awesome" this is. However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to rethink how I phrase my C.V. and grant proposals. Among other things, I guess this implies that the topic of my thesis was not 'quantum chaos' but was instead 'spooky chaos'.

How did this paper get past the posting filters?

Friday, August 31, 2007

Open sore + lemon = win

How's that for a sarcastic equation?

I'm such a champ. I was klutzy when squeezing lemon on my shrimp at lunch today and I accidently nailed a decently-large open sore. Damn, that hurts!

The sad thing is that this is not the first time I've done this to myself (and I'm not referring to the act of squeezing lemons over the paper cut of my sole...).

Friday, July 13, 2007

Baseball Update

I might add more to this entry later tonight. (I want to talk about my fantasy teams, but I'll wait until tonight's updates are in.)

First of all, the Dodgers kicked the Giants' ass today! We scored 6 runs in the 9th inning to turn a close 3-1 game into a 9-1 devouring. Because the Padres lost today to the Diamondbacks, our victory put us back into a first place tie in the NL West. (We have spent quite a few days of the season tied for first with the Padres...)

It's also time for a Nomar vs. Juan Pierre update.

Here are some of Juan Pierre's stats (through tonight's game): .313 on-base percentage, .340 slugging percentage, and .653 OPS (on base + slugging percentage).

Here are some of Nomar Garciaparra's stats: .318 OBP, .332 slugging percentage, and .650 OPS.

Before tonight's game, Nomar held a .653 to .651 lead in OPS, so it looks like this battle of sluggers might last all the way until the end of the season. Juan Pierre's lead in slugging percentage is a bit bigger but still extremely small. This battle is going to be fierce! Stay tuned.


In other good news, today's loss to the Devil Rays dropped the Yankess below .500 again. Oh how I love to see them suffer!

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

A few notes on "awesomeness" (plus a little bit of awesomeness)

Here are a few "awesome" things from yesterday. (I wanted to post them yesterday, but I was busy helping to make ping pong shirts.)

Well, one of them is that my Screamer arrived on Monday. I set it up in the entry room in Sloan Annex. The building's residents just assumed I was the one responsible, so I obviously have the right kind of reputation. Also, Mike Cross is teaching Phys 106, so all the students picking up or turning in homework assignments or exams will be seeing the Screamer every time they do so. (Mike has now officially sanctioned this.) A couple of amusing picture ideas got thrown around yesterday: An 'I love this #%!$ing school' shirt and other Caltech memorabilia will be worn, beer mugs will be held, and at least one person broached the subject of being somewhat tipsy (which apparently only takes half a beer) for the picture. OK, so only two of us were discussing this while we were both avoiding work (yeah, flicking), but if done correctly, I forsee an extremely awesome picture.

Yesterday, I had a work meeting with the prof with whom I'm collaborating on the solitary-wave-through-beads project. This was right before a faculty meeting in which people were slated to officially approve the choice of this guy for the Applied & Computational Math department (with an IST affiliation). My collaborator told me about the meeting and I asked who was decided up. She mentioned the name, so I googled the guy. Check out the picture on his professional web page. It's "awesome." As I told my collaborator, his picture looks like he's trying to get a date, so we had some fun mocking him (keeping in mind that she was going to go cast her vote on him in a faculty meeting in a couple of minutes... so this was all really tactful).

Also during the meeting, something fell out of my hair that apparently had fallen in there during lunch time. I need a haircut really badly right now, and this whole thing reminded me of a comment Wendell made many years ago (when my hair was similarly long or even longer) that I shouldn't cut my hair because the family of birds living there would have to find a new nest. The thing falling out of my hair was simultaneously embarrassing and amusing. I told my collaborator to pretend it didn't happen. She agreed to do this as long as I also pretended she hadn't laughed at me hysterically. Clearly, it's a win-win situation. (Hmmm... I almost made a "Wendell" tag because of this paragraph.)

Friday, February 02, 2007

Ratemyprofessor.com

A couple of years ago, two of my research students told me about RateMyProfessors.com, which is a great resource to see which of my colleagues were totally slammed by anonymous students, given chili peppers as a joke (which happens pretty frequently, and it's pretty funny to see how gets them), and so on.

Here are the ratings for Georgia Tech's math department. (Thankfully, nobody put me up there.)

Here is Georgia Tech's physics department.

Here is Caltech.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Best "power law" EVER!

If you ever want an example of the misuse and abuse of "power laws," then look no further.

For a good laugh, check out the beauty on the bottom of page 10 of this document, which was produced by a consulting group that I'm never going to hire.

There are 5 data points (count 'em), and they "fit" (though I hesitate to use the word for 5 data points) a sinusoid (in log-log coordinates) much better than a line segment.

If you ever find a better example of what not to do, let me know...

Garbage like this is what causes me to rant about power laws so often, even though they can be useful on occasion.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Press Release Mad Libs

I was reading a reprinted Caltech press release in Caltech News and it occurred to me that there's probably some skeleton document along the following lines that is used for most new press releases:


[School] Gets [fucking huge amount of money] from [acronym] to [verb] [scientific-sounding buzzword]

[Location]--[Organization] ([acronym]), a component of [another organization] ([acronym]), has awarded a [same fucking huge amount of money as above] grant for creation of a [name of research group] at [school].

According to [name of professor], the [name of benefactor] Professor of [subject] at [school] and principal investigator of the [time period] program, the goal will be to [verb] and [verb] every [scientific object] in [another scientific object]--that is, [terse definition of scientific object whose definition we learned in high school or earlier].

The work will be performed together with co-investigators [name of researcher] and [name of researcher] from the [department, division, or research group on campus], and [name of researcher], an assistant professor of [name of discipline] and [name of discipline].

"We will combine real-time analysis of [scientific thing] on a [size] scale with the ability to [verb] [plural noun] of interest," [name of principal investigator] says.

Initially, the research team will focus on [scientific noun that is much more specific than the one the team is getting money to study], which is ideal for this type of work because of [scientific thing] and its [another scientific thing].

"Our goal is to create [buzzword in single quotes]" [name of one of the other researchers] says. "This will be a computer model of [cheesy analogy] that transforms a/an [noun] into a/an [noun]."

"There will be an enormous payoff in new information about how [noun] works at the [scientific adjective] level," [name of principal investigator] adds.

The researchers will use new "[scientific buzzword]" imaging and [multi-word scientific adjective] tools invented by [name of investigator] and [name of investigator] and new [scientific adjective] methods being developed in the [name of investigator] lab to analyze [multi-word scientific noun] and [noun] in the [adjective] [plural noun]. They will digitize this [adjective] [noun] on a [adjective] scale by capturing [number] of time-lapse videos as the [plural noun] [verb].

Once the approach is worked out on [same test case as above], it will also be applied to the [slightly less trivial test case] to make a "[silly scientific buzzword]," because [adjective] [plural noun] [verb] in a fashion very similar to [what they are actually getting funding to study].

The [school] grant is part of a [large amount of money] grant portfolio awarded by the [original acronym] for funding interdisciplinary work in [scientific adjective] research. The [original acronym] is best known for spearheading the [multi-word scientific adjectve in capital letters] Project, which completely [verb; past tense] the [adjective] [noun] of [plural noun].

Now that the [noun] of the [noun] for [plural noun] and many other [plural noun] has been determined, the challenge ahead is to figure out how the [noun] [verb] during [noun] and [noun] which is the goal of the [yet another acronym] ([what this acronym stands for]) program.

"The [most recent acronym] program is vital to our efforts to apply innovative [adjective] tools and technologies to the study of [adjective] [name of discipline]," said [original acronym] Director [name]. "By fostering collaboration among researchers from many different disciplines, [original acronym] aims to encourage innovation and build a powerful new framework for exploring [adjective] [noun] and [noun]."


If you want to compare this to the original press release, go here.

And if you ever need to write your own press release, I suggest you start with the document here. With this in hand, you'll be well on your way to a career in public relations!

Friday, December 01, 2006

Best sentence in a research article ever

OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the sentence is "awesome." (I can't disclose the identity of the paper because I'm reviewing it. It won't be published any time soon.)

Here is the sentence:

"We will use a useful method [8,9,11,33] to construct the general solution of Eq. (8)."

(To be fair, the authors do go on to give a couple sentences about the method even though they don't elaborate sufficiently. The sentence just sounds awesome when taken out of context. The real problems with the paper lie elsewhere.)

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Tales from the arXiv: the most useless sentence ever

Here's a paper that just got posted on the arXiv:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\Paper: cond-mat/0611448
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:18:52 GMT (7kb)

Title: Statistical properties of the quantum anharmonic oscillator
Authors: Maciej M. Duras
Comments: 9 pages; presented as talk on the conference "Polymorphism in
Condensed Matter International workshop"; November 13th, 2006 - Novemer 17th,
2006; Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden,
Germany (2006)
Subj-class: Statistical Mechanics
\ The random matrix ensembles (RME) of Hamiltonian matrices, e.g. Gaussian
random matrix ensembles (GRME) and Ginibre random matrix ensembles (Ginibre
RME), are applicable to following quantum statistical systems: nuclear systems,
molecular systems, condensed phase systems, disordered systems, and
two-dimensional electron systems (Wigner-Dyson electrostatic analogy). A family
of quantum anharmonic oscillators is studied and the numerical investigation of
their eigenenergies is presented. The statistical properties of the calculated
eigenenergies are compared with the theoretical predictions inferred from the
random matrix theory. Conclusions are derived.
\\ ( http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0611448 , 7kb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Check out the last sentence of the abstract. I'm what you might call "impressed."

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

News from the arXiv

Here is a paper that was recently revised:


Paper (*cross-listing*): quant-ph/0605021
replaced with revised version Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:20:44 GMT (12kb)

Title: Monogamy inequality for distributed Gaussian entanglement
Authors: Tohya Hiroshima, Gerardo Adesso, and Fabrizio Illuminati
Comments: 4 pages, no figures. Several improvements, proof made more
transparent, conclusions enriched
Subj-class: Quantum Physics; Mathematical Physics; Statistical Mechanics;
Optics
\\ ( http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0605021 , 12kb)



First, I am rather curious what exactly constitutes "enriched" conclusions in a "monogamy inequality," especially when "distributed entanglement" is involved. Second, I totally dig the third author's last name. :)


In other news, I got an e-mail this evening indicating that I've already overspent my academic funds. This is bad news, because if this is accurate, I will need to pay for two conferences entirely on my own. D'oh! I wonder if I screwed up a calculation somewhere... I was thinking I would have to do one on my own and would have enough funds for almost all of the other one. Well, I can't get out of the earlier of these two, but I may end up having to bail on the second of these even though that is my most important conference. Damnit. Well, I just have to cross my fingers and hope that this is somebody else's error rather than mine... If I can't get Caltech to pay me this summer (my job expires in mid June, but I'll still be paying rent here for a while after that), I'm going to take a serious financial hit. I'll survive without a problem, but I will be losing a hefty sum from my bank account.