What about reports that get squashed because it’s not what the funders want to see? From that right-wing science-denying bastion Newsweek...

And with a 20-30 year time frame before we might even be able to detect what’s being forecast... (Shrug.) There’s no way to check whether it’s right or it’s wrong. Guy got paid to do the model, guy got published, guy will probably be retired before anyone calls him on something he published 30 years ago.

I’ve worked with enough software to understand that modeling is dependent on the data and the computations - and the outcome is probably going to match what the people constructing the model want to see IF the result has no way to be empirically checked against reality.

One guy, one study.

Did I do that? Or did I just repeat what everyone who’s ever taken a basic Comp-Sci class understands at a gut level - that the accuracy of what comes out of a model HAS to be checked, and not blindly accepted as being the equivalent of real-world conditions?

I’ve worked with enough software to understand that modeling is dependent on the data and the computations - and the outcome is probably going to match what the people constructing the model want to see IF the result has no way to be empirically checked against reality.

I’ve worked with enough software to understand that modeling is dependent on the data and the computations - and the outcome is probably going to match what the people constructing the model want to see. You get that in financial forecasts, you get that in political models - and climate models predicting warming have…

Honestly, Gawker’s been blowing it a lot lately.

By punching numbers into modeling software, and changing those numbers until you get the output you want.

Monster cables vs coathanger wire in a blind test, anyone?

My frequency range is such that anything above about 12khz is gone at this point. And the $4 ear buds fit, while more expensive ones won’t. (I’ve got strange ears, I guess.)

Fragile? ‘Flimsy, with delusions of structural adequacy’ might be more on point.

Yeah, but when he does that his feet sink into concrete.

It’d be nice to get a clarification on how near is ‘near a fracking site’.

“Those damn clicks aren’t gonna generate themselves! Get out there and find sensational crap that you can misrepresent!”

It’s actually the 4th guy to do this.

A fitting tribute, I’d say.

Tyler went on to better things, unfortunately. I’m going to miss him - he was exhaustive in his work and one of the most competent journalists Gawker had.

First power reactor, anyway. There were some before that, for the Manhattan project and atomic bomb manufacturing.

Details, details. WW2, Viet Nam era... no real difference. That was back before they were born, so it’s not like it REALLY happened. They didn’t have a website, did they? Then it couldn’t have been important.