If you think about it for a nanosecond, there's a lot to be said for comparing Telstra to AT&T.
Where's John Oliver when he's desperately needed?
He did a great job of deconstructing AT&T and its behaviour in relation to OAN.
And yet here we have had Telstra and Foxtel joint venturing away, and of course that brings Sky after dark to mind, and what a pack of raving ratbags that brought into the world …
This is all by way of an elaborate explanation of why the pond is taking a little break.
You see, there was a flash followed by an almighty clap of thunder, and then the full to overflowing intertubes immediately vanished from the pond's life.
Routine maintenance, said Telstra's deftly lying support team.
Of course they lie, it's what they're trained to do.
Hours after the "routine maintenance" was allegedly supposed to end, the grudging liars grudgingly admitted that something had gone wrong.
But by then it had become an NBN problem, and the ghost of Malware hovered into view, clanking chains and howling, as ghosts are wont to do.
It turns out that the NBN works bankers' hours, as you might expect from a company inspired by Malware to deliver the very best world class solutions.
So they graciously suggested they might be able to do something about it by next Monday afternoon …
In the meantime, this note has been posted via a piece of barbed wire connected to a stocking. This is not the way to blog in style, so it's farewell to the reptiles for the moment.
The pond will return by the grace of Telstra and the NBN at some point in the future… in due course, as they say, with a banker's humble attitude, with a Malwarian sensitivity to those not connected to the world ...
Also in due course, there's likely to be a further outage, as the pond changes its supplier, and there's a messy transition phase.
You see, not only do they have the cheek to boast about their "service," Telstra wants to charge more for it.
Well as John Oliver might say, fuck that for a joke, and in the meantime, all the pond can suggest is that readers humbly stay true to the reptile cause of fucking the planet ... because we've made a really good start with a fucked NBN ...
Oh fuckity fuck! They really have it in for you don't they?
ReplyDeleteSo sorry that you, and we are all robbed of quality entertainment while the numbnuts work it out. At least your opprobrium is magnificent:
"In the meantime, this note has been posted via a piece of barbed wire connected to a stocking."
Make the best of the outage. I've already been asked to buy an AFR this morning, that might fold into buying The Oz tomorrow now we've been robbed of you.
dark times indeed,
Missing you already ...
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many times I have had to revert to using mobile because the NBN wireless is out. It's all made far worse by the charade that we have competition, with the "competitors" reselling the same stuff, doing little more than advertising and billing. The problem is always with the NBN infrastructure but you cannot talk directly with them because you are only the 3rd party customer.
ReplyDeleteDP - My Source tells me that the Henry was fully consistent with the broader reptile consensus on the Riddster - really, he won, great victory for freedom, and most of it does not improve with repetition.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the Henry was more careful than many of the scaly lot in looking at what the High Court actually ruled on, but - he had to apply a touch of the stilleto, with this paragraph -
“The finding is all the more significant given the “replicability crisis” that has shaken one area of science after the other, with mounting evidence that a material share of the results published even in highly respected journals cannot be replicated and may have been deliberately falsified.”
The Source and I do not know what quantity a ‘material’ share of results might be in numbers, but problems with replicability are a lot more complicated than the spat between Ridd and just about every other scientist working consistently on the biology of the Great Barrier Reef, and it is a bit glib of the Henry to import that issue into the High Court case - however much it might suit the broader reptile agenda.
Any area of human inquiry that wishes to demonstrate some principle, or ‘prove’ some relationship, will offer statistical analysis to make that case.
We would hope the researcher(s) consult statisticians for guidance from the very beginning of their endeavour - but we know that many do not.
Those that do will be guided to a plan for sampling that should give them a statistical result with an acceptable level of confidence. Note - not a slam dunk incontrovertible proof for the ages - but numbers that tell the researchers, and their readers, that they can be - oh - say 83% confident that what they have observed will occur for another investigator who follows their procedure, and sampling rigour, with a population of subjects - animate or inanimate - that is otherwise broadly comparable.
There are necessary assumptions in those steps.
And all that assumes that the investigator can adhere to the ideal plan. Ask any field researcher, and they will tell you about the thousand and one things that can affect your sampling plan. Just one example - I had one colleague who found, a year into a doctorate, that the organism she was studying in a convenient inlet in Tasmania - was actually three species.
Even if the idea being tested has been well thought through, and the sample population does not deliver surprises - to set out what your work has demonstrated is not easy. Yes, eventually you must be able to describe the result to a 7-year-old, but to get to that interlocutor you might spend a lot of time with other colleagues discussing just what the several ‘t’ tests actually tell you. John Quiggin writes regularly on the choice of, and understanding of, statistical methods. It is, and always will be, a problem in research, but does not go anywhere near results that have been ‘deliberately falsified’.
To jump from problems in replicability to deliberate falsification is simply reptile speak - or reptile hiss. In this case, it disregards the exchanges between Ridd and others through Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Well, nice summary, Chad; but, butt, the replication crisis is good for science:
DeleteThe replication crisis is good for science
https://theconversation.com/the-replication-crisis-is-good-for-science-103736
Besides, John Ioannidis has been on the case for decades:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
But otherwise, I reckon that Holely Henry has produced just a few 'deliberately falsified' assertions and propositions himself. As indeed all the reptiles do.
Yes, good sources, thank you GB. One quite fundamental problem these days would be the chances of getting funding for an application (in any field) to do no more than try to duplicate the findings of any already published work.
DeleteAlso - I think you were a member of 'Skeptics' at one time. If I have it right, the test of water divining by Dick Smith was funded privately, and seems to be the only test of such rigour ever published. Our local equivalent of 'Yellow pages' still lists water diviners, apparently making a steady living, and even getting 'advertorials' in local newspapers, so we might ask how much of any kind of research ever becomes policy of a government.
Yes, Dick Smith and James Randi and water divining - way back in 1980. I joined the Skeptics a couple of years later and followed Randi's blog for many years as well. Having just done a quick search, there's a video - first shown on Channel 7 apparently - here:
Deletehttps://dicksmithadventure.com.au/water-divining-documentary/
So, water divining is still alive and prospering, like basically all of the nutcase nonsense that Skeptics are still fighting against, though hugely outnumbered. There's still even a Flat Earth Society active, I believe. And a Rosicrucian centre in Ormond which I only just noticed the other day.
So, far more irrationality out there than thee or me or an army of Skeptics could ever
combat. And sadly, in an era with millions of 'scientists' around the world and more 'graduating' every year, there's a growing number in the world of science.
Ioannidis is very much a 'Killer Creighton', or perhaps a Paul Frijters, in his own way. Very disappointing.
While waiting for the return of the Pond, you might like to read this:
ReplyDelete"Climate change is altering these risks. Rising average temperatures are driving weather events to greater extremes, making floods, fires, and heat waves more destructive when they occur. Populations in high-risk areas are also growing, putting more people and property in harm’s way."
https://www.vox.com/22686124/climate-change-insurance-flood-wildfire-hurricane-risk
But that's just America, couldn't happen here, could it.
For a tincture of usual weekend fare, My Source told me that Polonius had sorted out Prince Charles for meddling in Australian politics. Her point was that the Polony was quite ready to rip into Charles, and encourage his followers to do likewise, but no mention of Her Maj being even more critical, and dismissive of alleged leaders who - do not lead.
ReplyDeleteI asked if there were particular passages that I might share here, but received a terse '(Name) - you are asking for extracts from Gerard H in 'The Australian' - get a life!'
I put (Name) because she has thought it a little ambitious of me to be claiming any association with Edwin Chadwick.
To be fair, Chadders, Polonius is a famous republican, though his heart never seemed to be in it when it might have mattered ...
DeleteBesides he's a gentleman, so he'd take the glove to Prince Chuck's cheeky cheek, but spare Queen Liz, no matter her talk of just wishing they'd stop talking and do it ...