What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?

[WWGD]

Why do people use reserved words so carelessly? Likelihood used in its everyday sense when talking about probability, ditto for Force when talking about Physics, function in Mathematics, etc. Are you using your words in an informal or in a technical sense? Please choose one, specify which one and then stick to it.

 

[WWGD]

Do self-rolled cigarettes count?

Not sure, I have never seen a cigarette counting, but I will ask them next time.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Why do people use reserved words so carelessly? Likelihood used in its everyday sense when talking about probability, ditto for Force when talking about Physics, function in Mathematics, etc. Are you using your words in an informal or in a technical sense? Please choose one, specify which one and then stick to it.

The misuse of 'odds' is probably worse in everyday conversation. People who bet know the difference but an awful lot don't.

Function can be tricky given overloading between math and programming. Reminds me -- a friend recently interviewed a candidate who was 'an experienced programmer'. He asked the candidate: What is a function? Blank Stare. (Maybe that is an informal take on a function?)

That Oswald guy could probably give people pointers on this matter

 

[WWGD]

Function can be tricky given overloading between math and programming. Reminds me -- a friend recently interviewed a candidate who was 'an experienced programmer'. He asked the candidate: What is a function? Blank Stare. (Maybe that is an informal take on a function?)

Kind of scary the high percentage of programming interviews that leave interviewees stumped, like a deer staring at headlights. 4+ years of writing programs down the drain.

 

[fresh_42]

Non formal languages as used by people are highly context sensitive. Not really a new information.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Kind of scary the high percentage of programming interviews that leave interviewees stumped, like a deer staring at headlights. 4+ years of writing programs down the drain.

I think it should help to remember that excellent comeback from Guybrush Threepwood -- "I'm Shaking. I'm Shaking."

(provided you know about the monkey island)

 

[WWGD]

Non formal languages as used by people are highly context sensitive. Not really a new information.

No, the problem is when they go back and forth between Formal and Non-Formal ones without caring to indicate which one they are using.

 

[WWGD]

I like these seemingly meaningful phrases that don't really mean anything : " That's like opening a checking account in the West Bank!". They are tricky because if you overdo it , it is clear you are speaking nonsense, and if you under do it they clearly have no meaning, so you have to straddle that narrow gray area.

 

[fresh_42]

No, the problem is when they go back and forth between Formal and Non-Formal ones without caring to indicate which one they are using.

You mean like me saying "I try to drive smoothly"? What I mean is $C^\infty$ but I doubt I'd be understood. At least nobody ever mentioned that it's impossible.

They are tricky because if you overdo it

You can't overdo DADA. I love Dadaism.
https://www.lyrikline.org/de/gedichte/ottos-mops-1232
(Mops = pug, but be careful with the plural: xxx. This is really highly context sensitive. As long as there aren't several pugs around, you better don't use it.)

 

[WWGD]

You mean like me saying "I try to drive smoothly"? What I mean is $C^\infty$ but I doubt I'd be understood. At least nobody ever mentioned that it's impossible.

You can't overdo DADA. I love Dadaism.
https://www.lyrikline.org/de/gedichte/ottos-mops-1232
(Mops = pug, but be careful with the plural: xxx. This is really highly context sensitive. As long as there aren't several pugs around, you better don't use it.)

Yo mama so fat, when she goes to a nude beach -- they ask her for a receipt!

 

[fresh_42]

Yo mama so fat, when she goes to a nude beach -- they ask her for a receipt!

mama is close, mammae would have been closer.
Btw. did anybody understand this:
Lorna Cole (alias Rene Russo): "Close is a lingerie shop without a front window."

 

[WWGD]

mama is close, mammae would have been closer.
Btw. did anybody understand this:
Lorna Cole (alias Rene Russo): "Close is a lingerie shop without a front window."

Not really, but then again, I don't understand more than 90% of what _I_ say.

 

[fresh_42]

Not really, but then again, I don't understand more than 90% of what _I_ say.

You have to read your body language!

 

[WWGD]

You have to read your body language!

How can I read my own BL ? I can't film myself.

 

[WWGD]

Starbucks is jealous. When I go there often I have no trouble logging in and using their Wifi. When I go there after skipping a few days without going to one, I need to spend around 30-40 minutes trying to log in.

 

[WWGD]

I recently saw a recommendation that a backpack should be at most 6% of a person's weight.
I weighed my backpack at the post office * at 19 pounds.
Now I need to decide to either gain 115 lbs or make my back pack 7lbs lighter...

* Though they won't allow me to weigh myself.there . Not anymore.

 

[WWGD]

I was speaking to some Germans visiting here, telling they were surprised of how people in the US actually seemed to enjoy working, even if over time. They told me the reason why northern Europeans are so efficient is do they can work less and have more free time, vacations, not because they enjoy the search for more efficient ways of doing things.

 

[fresh_42]

I was speaking to some Germans visiting here, telling they were surprised of how people in the US actually seemed to enjoy working, even if over time. They told me the reason why northern Europeans are so efficient is do they can work less and have more free time, vacations, not because they enjoy the search for more efficient ways of doing things.

I'm surprised if I watch Gordon Ramsey or similar shows. There are always so many people in a normal, i.e. not specifically good or crowded restaurant. For every tiny job there seems to be a person doing just this. Restaurants here are run by roughly at most half or even less staff over here.

 

[WWGD]

I'm surprised if I watch Gordon Ramsey or similar shows. There are always so many people in a normal, i.e. not specifically good or crowded restaurant. For every tiny job there seems to be a person doing just this. Restaurants here are run by roughly at most half or even less staff over here.

Maybe that is why they are in Ramsey's show, bleeding money with the extra staff while implementing poorly. Edit : Meaning these restaurants may not be representative of the average US or UK restaurant, but more of the population of poorly run restaurants.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Maybe that is why they are in Ramsey's show, bleeding money with the extra staff while implementing poorly.

I had to do a double take as I thought Fresh said Dave...

- - - -
Speaking of productivity, can you go solve a math challenge problem?

- - - -
edit: it does occur to me that these problems could be viewed as anti-productive because they can devour a ton of time, but still.

 

[fresh_42]

I had to do a double take as I thought Fresh said Dave...

Aga, aga!

- - - -
Speaking of productivity, can you go solve a math challenge problem?

Who said I can solve them?

- - - -
edit: it does occur to me that these problems could be viewed as anti-productive because they can devour a ton of time, but still.

Yep, exercising is always wasted time.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Aga, aga!

Who said I can solve them?

Yep, exercising is always wasted time.

lol, no I was thinking what would gauss do ? He (/ WWGD) could go solve one

 

[StoneTemplePython]

I was speaking to some Germans visiting here, telling they were surprised of how people in the US actually seemed to enjoy working, even if over time. They told me the reason why northern Europeans are so efficient is do they can work less and have more free time, vacations, not because they enjoy the search for more efficient ways of doing things.

btw, I'm not finding quite the ideal charts but these 2 should give a nice look in combination:

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20070804/CIN735.gif
https://www.economist.com/sites/def...size/images/print-edition/20161008_FBC568.png

Unfortunately most people have a habit of repeating things that aren't really true. It's extra bad because a lot people (most?) don't have an even vague idea of what productivity is, or why you would anticipate that the amount of stuff produced (per person) per hour would tend downward when you throw more hours at it.

 

[fresh_42]

btw, I'm not finding quite the ideal charts but these 2 should give a nice look in combination:

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20070804/CIN735.gif
https://www.economist.com/sites/def...size/images/print-edition/20161008_FBC568.png

Unfortunately most people have a habit of repeating things that aren't really true. It's extra bad because a lot people (most?) don't have an even vague idea of what productivity is, or why you would anticipate that the amount of stuff produced (per person) per hour would tend downward when you throw more hours at it.

Yes, but that's also the problem with those charts. It depends a lot on how and what is measured and / or compared to what. It is even more difficult to measure in our modern service oriented societies, where less and less is actually "produced". E.g. are incomes from capital, which (I'm not sure but think they) are covered by the GDP figures, taken into account for the per capita calculation? And there are very differing costs of infrastructure and resources from country to country: if you don't have to pay or just a small amount for fresh water, then figures about farming are simply not comparable. It's far from easy to make sound statements.

 

[WWGD]

Yes, but that's also the problem with those charts. It depends a lot on how and what is measured and / or compared to what. It is even more difficult to measure in our modern service oriented societies, where less and less is actually "produced". E.g. are incomes from capital, which (I'm not sure but think they) are covered by the GDP figures, taken into account for the per capita calculation? And there are very differing costs of infrastructure and resources from country to country: if you don't have to pay or just a small amount for fresh water, then figures about farming are simply not comparable. It's far from easy to make sound statements.

The clearest definition of productivity of an effort towards a goal I have found is that productivity is the extent to which the effort takes you closer to the goal. But this is too abstract and the measurement can be defined in many different,
all reasonable ways.

 

[fresh_42]

It starts even with the hours of work counted: do you take the real working hours, or those scheduled as "usual" by law? E.g. I know that we have a decent amount of (unpaid) working hours: are they counted?

We have a federal office here which gathers all sorts of statistics. I once tried to figure out how many American immigrants we have each year and quickly ran into many details, even with such a simple question.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Yes, but that's also the problem with those charts. It depends a lot on how and what is measured and / or compared to what. It is even more difficult to measure in our modern service oriented societies, where less and less is actually "produced". E.g. are incomes from capital, which (I'm not sure but think they) are covered by the GDP figures, taken into account for the per capita calculation?

GDP gets at how much 'stuff' is produced. You may be thinking of income here like GNI. I haven't gotten in the weeds of these figures in a while. And yes services can be tricky and yes some of these services (like healthcare in the US) have a lot of rot.

And there are very differing costs of infrastructure and resources from country to country: if you don't have to pay or just a small amount for fresh water, then figures about farming are simply not comparable. It's far from easy to make sound statements.

you'll notice that at least one of the footnotes specify the figures are done at Purchasing Power Parity. This is standard for inter-country comparisons. (You may want to look this up...) I also took it as given that The Economist computed the "average annual % change" correctly as a geometric mean not arithmetic or whatever other kind of mean.

It definitely is not easy. But there are standard tools and techniques that are used and do an ok job. When people say things that are not backed up by any credible data and in fact are directly in opposition to standard figures accepted figures... this is very close to alternative fact territory.

My point is technical-- the claims people make about "productivity" are not about productivity in any standard well defined sense. What they are actually saying is I like the lifestyle of what me (and my group) 'get' vs how many hours worked. This may have little to do with productivity and is a much more expansive topic than 'mere' productivity. For instance, if you think you are getting a great deal on lunch, it may be because someone else is paying for (most of) your lunch. There's also flavorings of inequality, sampling, inspection bias and a lot more. But the point is they say they are talking about "productivity" but in fact are talking about a much larger set of things.
- - - -

edit:

many of these conversations end up like this:

person: I know ____. (my country is amazingly productive or whatever)
me: Actually there are many organizations that track and analyze this. The data and analytics directly contradict your claim.
person: Oh well I want to talk about tons of details in that data because I'm not sure it's right.
me: excuse me, but you're the one who made a huge assertion. Do you have anything approaching evidence backing it?
person: well, no but I want to criticize your data.

 

[WWGD]

btw, I'm not finding quite the ideal charts but these 2 should give a nice look in combination:

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20070804/CIN735.gif
https://www.economist.com/sites/def...size/images/print-edition/20161008_FBC568.png

Unfortunately most people have a habit of repeating things that aren't really true. It's extra bad because a lot people (most?) don't have an even vague idea of what productivity is, or why you would anticipate that the amount of stuff produced (per person) per hour would tend downward when you throw more hours at it.

How so? They are efficient, I never made any claims on what specific way nor comparisons to other countries here.. And, do you object to the definition of productivity I offered? EDIT: Besides, the RT Forum is, by construction, intended to be informal. If I had wanted to make a more technically-precise statement, I would have done so in another forum.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

How so? They are efficient, I never made any claims on what specific way nor comparisons to other countries here.. And, do you object to the definition of productivity I offered? EDIT: Besides, the RT Forum is, by construction, intended to be informal. If I had wanted to make a more technically-precise statement, I would have done so in another forum.

I read a direct comparison between northern europe and US in the post. The pictures are informative. But yes you're right these forums are informal.
- - -
I thought about doing a callback "die Touristen, d..."

but couldn't get myself to do it

 

[fresh_42]

Purchasing Power Parity

But what is purchased? Different goods have very different prices. E.g. energy in Norway is cheap, beer is not, and EU citizens dream of American gas prizes. PPP doesn't say anything, if I look it up or not. The best purchase index is probably still the Big Mac index.

But there are standard tools and techniques that are used and do an ok job.

Sure, but they are not explained with those charts. Even a simple issue as unemployment isn't by any means comparable. As long as the figures are given without an explicit link to the measurement methods, they are as worthless as any unproven statement. It's politics, not sound science.

When people say things that are not backed up by any credible data and in fact are directly in opposition to standard figures accepted figures... this is very close to alternative fact territory.

Which I haven't done. O.k. I mentioned the figures of unpaid work, but this is a fact and easy to support. Quite the opposite is true: I request a proper description of the data taken. A bar diagram is not even close to it. I asked whether capital earnings are part of the data or not, which is a valid question. I assumed they are, and concluded by this assumption, that productivity in terms of GDP per capita might not necessarily result in the same data as without them, and this in return makes comparisons questionable. Alternative facts start with hidden assumptions and ends with diagrams without references.