Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Oh dear. After being unable to say what you thought I didn't understand, you went for condescension and now have stooped to just being sarcastic and bitter.surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not know the drill? SteveO says something indefensible (as we all do) this is pointed out to him and he starts digging and digging and digging, whilst asking unanswerable and irrelevant questions that he demands you answer in one word.briantrumpet said:
I will read the book - promise (though I've got quite a long reading list to get through). And yes, agreed re longer time frames. But that doesn't make all modelling redundant or irrelevant, especially where there's a sharp divergence from previous expectations (or, equally, a close agreement with models revised with new data).Stevo_666 said:
Remember my key point about this applying to longer term time frames. Also, you really should read that book.briantrumpet said:
Indeed it is. You are informing me repeatedly of your interpretation of its implication in a specific instance. But you seem to be under the impression that scientific theories can have only one possible interpretation (in this case, that it supports your conjecture). If that were the case, the Met Office would have only one model to crunch the data coming in. They don't. By comparing the output of various models, not only can they give a probability figure for their forecasts, but they can also refine the models, rather than just accepting all models will always have a degree of uncertainty as an excuse for not refining them and their interpretation of the results.Stevo_666 said:
It's a well established piece of science; all I am doing is informing you. As mentioned, I suspect you don't want to understand because of reasons already stated.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Are you unable or just unwilling to understand Brian? We've been very patient in explaining it to you several times.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Keep saying it Bally, eventually they might understandballysmate said:As I have said, you can't measure something accurately against events in a parallel universe.
Models are in essence someone's best guess.
Perhaps the person who modelled the impact of the new forum could pop along and explain that better than me.
You forgot to mention 'Butterfly effect'.
Just because I don't share your interpretation of its implications doesn't mean that I don't understand its essence. Explaining your view of it several times doesn't make your version any more true.
To get back to the Met Office analogy: the accuracy of today's four-day forecast is as good as the one-day forecasts of forty years ago, because of more data and refined models. The 'butterfly effect' has not changed in that time, but science's ability to allow for it has, even if it's by accepting that some of its forecasts are more reliable than others.
If it helps try and see yourself as sitting on a waltzer at a travelling fair, SteveO is stood on the back, rollup hanging from lower lip, nonchalantly spinning it wildly so you can not get off.
Well done, nearly as sad as when you went all weird and falsely accused me if being a liar and a 'grass' over that leftie bloke who set up the duplicate account to try and troll me
Seems I have got to you..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Do you really not know the drill? SteveO says something indefensible (as we all do) this is pointed out to him and he starts digging and digging and digging, whilst asking unanswerable and irrelevant questions that he demands you answer in one word.briantrumpet said:
I will read the book - promise (though I've got quite a long reading list to get through). And yes, agreed re longer time frames. But that doesn't make all modelling redundant or irrelevant, especially where there's a sharp divergence from previous expectations (or, equally, a close agreement with models revised with new data).Stevo_666 said:
Remember my key point about this applying to longer term time frames. Also, you really should read that book.briantrumpet said:
Indeed it is. You are informing me repeatedly of your interpretation of its implication in a specific instance. But you seem to be under the impression that scientific theories can have only one possible interpretation (in this case, that it supports your conjecture). If that were the case, the Met Office would have only one model to crunch the data coming in. They don't. By comparing the output of various models, not only can they give a probability figure for their forecasts, but they can also refine the models, rather than just accepting all models will always have a degree of uncertainty as an excuse for not refining them and their interpretation of the results.Stevo_666 said:
It's a well established piece of science; all I am doing is informing you. As mentioned, I suspect you don't want to understand because of reasons already stated.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Are you unable or just unwilling to understand Brian? We've been very patient in explaining it to you several times.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Keep saying it Bally, eventually they might understandballysmate said:As I have said, you can't measure something accurately against events in a parallel universe.
Models are in essence someone's best guess.
Perhaps the person who modelled the impact of the new forum could pop along and explain that better than me.
You forgot to mention 'Butterfly effect'.
Just because I don't share your interpretation of its implications doesn't mean that I don't understand its essence. Explaining your view of it several times doesn't make your version any more true.
To get back to the Met Office analogy: the accuracy of today's four-day forecast is as good as the one-day forecasts of forty years ago, because of more data and refined models. The 'butterfly effect' has not changed in that time, but science's ability to allow for it has, even if it's by accepting that some of its forecasts are more reliable than others.
If it helps try and see yourself as sitting on a waltzer at a travelling fair, SteveO is stood on the back, rollup hanging from lower lip, nonchalantly spinning it wildly so you can not get off.
Are you suggesting there's a pattern?
If you knew how I try to help my pupils learn stuff, you'd know that I'm both patient and persistent. Most of them actually do want to learn, which is always a good starting point...0 -
I dont know sometimes they seem fairly reliable, other times it feels very hit and miss, I notice it more I guess as I try and plan cycle commute days on it, and certainly last week, though Im sure theyd claim storm Brendan made it more difficult to predict accurately, it was all over the place days it forecast sun it rained, days it forecast rain it was just cloudy,and it felt windier on the days they said the wind would die down and not that windy when they were issuing weather warnings.briantrumpet said:
To get back to the Met Office analogy: the accuracy of today's four-day forecast is as good as the one-day forecasts of forty years ago, because of more data and refined models. The 'butterfly effect' has not changed in that time, but science's ability to allow for it has, even if it's by accepting that some of its forecasts are more reliable than others.
last weekend perfect example the Friday forecast said Saturday would be the better weather day sun,low wind etc, actually it was Sunday instead0 -
awavey said:
I dont know sometimes they seem fairly reliable, other times it feels very hit and miss, I notice it more I guess as I try and plan cycle commute days on it, and certainly last week, though Im sure theyd claim storm Brendan made it more difficult to predict accurately, it was all over the place days it forecast sun it rained, days it forecast rain it was just cloudy,and it felt windier on the days they said the wind would die down and not that windy when they were issuing weather warnings.briantrumpet said:
To get back to the Met Office analogy: the accuracy of today's four-day forecast is as good as the one-day forecasts of forty years ago, because of more data and refined models. The 'butterfly effect' has not changed in that time, but science's ability to allow for it has, even if it's by accepting that some of its forecasts are more reliable than others.
last weekend perfect example the Friday forecast said Saturday would be the better weather day sun,low wind etc, actually it was Sunday instead
They do actually calculate a confidence % for their forecasts, but when the Met Office asked the public whether they wanted it published, they said no. (I was told this by their 'Head of Climate' at the time, who's a friend.) You can tend to tell which ones are dodgy by how much they keep changing them. We tend to notice all the times when the forecast is wrong, not all the more numerous boring days when it's accurate.0 -
The money raised should be given to a homeless ness charity. Or - this would be really sweet - to Foreign Aid.capt_slog said:Big Ben striking to mark Brexit.
I don't give a paramecium's poo whether it strikes or not. Like most of the UK, I won't hear it unless it's through a speaker, so it might as well be generated by a speaker if it has to 'chime' at all.
But 500k? really? And the imperative that some people are putting on this.
If they're willing to blow 500k, please put it to better use.
If you put me and Mrs Slog up somewhere nice in London for the night, I'll climb up a ladder and censored the thing with a hammer. You could even afford to chuck in the conductor of the LSO to count me,
Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
My understanding was it would go to Help the HerosBen6899 said:
The money raised should be given to a homeless ness charity. Or - this would be really sweet - to Foreign Aid.capt_slog said:Big Ben striking to mark Brexit.
I don't give a paramecium's poo whether it strikes or not. Like most of the UK, I won't hear it unless it's through a speaker, so it might as well be generated by a speaker if it has to 'chime' at all.
But 500k? really? And the imperative that some people are putting on this.
If they're willing to blow 500k, please put it to better use.
If you put me and Mrs Slog up somewhere nice in London for the night, I'll climb up a ladder and censored the thing with a hammer. You could even afford to chuck in the conductor of the LSO to count me,0 -
People confusing the words tact and tack. Totally trivial, but it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Novels written in the first person.0
-
Walked into that one, didn't I?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.0 -
Both the right tack and right track are correct and have similar meanings.briantrumpet said:People confusing the words tack and track.
0 -
What? You mean you don't slow down and back off to protect their precious cargo? They're the only people clever enough to have produced offspring, I think the correct thing to do is flag them down and congratulate them on their achievement.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.0 -
Well ordinarily of course I would just rearend the car in front, but not if there is a baby on board obviously
The other explanation is that they are offering up an excuse in advance for their sh1te driving..
0 -
People whinging on Twitter about speed traps on residential roads being used as racetracks.
* They're parked in a bus stop, it's illegal (not a bus stop)
* They're hiding round the corner (it's the most visible spot on a long straight road)
etc0 -
Similar is "Caution Horses" on the back of horse boxes.Pross said:
What? You mean you don't slow down and back off to protect their precious cargo? They're the only people clever enough to have produced offspring, I think the correct thing to do is flag them down and congratulate them on their achievement.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.
If they're moving them, the horse is their problem, not mine. If it's not able to be moved in a horse box, leave it in the field. I don't have to exercise any more caution than I would for a furniture van.
And as for "Caution, show dogs in transit", just get a life!
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Apparently there was originally an actual purpose - I can't remember the exact details but it was something like a crash where emergency services failed to notice a baby who has got shunted into the footwell, leading to a campaign for the sign.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.
If that is true it makes some kind of sense - although of course it shouldn't be an issue for babies in car seats.0 -
-
Sort of, I agree, but the more common idiom has a clear winner...Pross said:
Both the right tack and right track are correct and have similar meanings.briantrumpet said:People confusing the words tack and track.
We might be in eggcorn territory...
0 -
I refuse to congratulate people for doing what the teenage population of Middlesbrough seem to achieve on a regular basis without much apparent effort.Pross said:
What? You mean you don't slow down and back off to protect their precious cargo? They're the only people clever enough to have produced offspring, I think the correct thing to do is flag them down and congratulate them on their achievement.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That can lead to emergency services or members of the public risking their lives only to find the driver was commuting to work and didn't have the baby with them.bompington said:
Apparently there was originally an actual purpose - I can't remember the exact details but it was something like a crash where emergency services failed to notice a baby who has got shunted into the footwell, leading to a campaign for the sign.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.
If that is true it makes some kind of sense - although of course it shouldn't be an issue for babies in car seats.0 -
I think you will find they are hard at it most of the time.Stevo_666 said:
I refuse to congratulate people for doing what the teenage population of Middlesbrough seem to achieve on a regular basis without much apparent effort.Pross said:
What? You mean you don't slow down and back off to protect their precious cargo? They're the only people clever enough to have produced offspring, I think the correct thing to do is flag them down and congratulate them on their achievement.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.
0 -
I drove like a grandad when I fist had my first born in the car.
Now they love a bit of pedal and metal.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
well I dont think confidence % would be that useful as presumably they dont bother publishing if they arent that confident anywaybriantrumpet said:
They do actually calculate a confidence % for their forecasts, but when the Met Office asked the public whether they wanted it published, they said no. (I was told this by their 'Head of Climate' at the time, who's a friend.) You can tend to tell which ones are dodgy by how much they keep changing them. We tend to notice all the times when the forecast is wrong, not all the more numerous boring days when it's accurate. but the basis we assume is 1 days forecasts are pretty accurate, 4 days are like where we were on the 1 day forecasts decades ago.
but so this week the 4 day forecast was for low temps around 5C, mostly overcast and cloudy, maybe even a bit of rain,which its still resolutely holding for the 1day forecast as well,so reasonably safe biking weather avoiding ice on the roads, yet so far this week its been mostly sunny very clear skies and with correspondingly much lower temps with frost/ice/freezing fog in the mornings & nighttime0 -
I bet you didn't have one of those bumper stickers though.pinno said:I drove like a grandad when I fist had my first born in the car.
Now they love a bit of pedal and metal."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How do i stop notifications, the emails from this thread are killing me 0
-
On my A road commute they sit in the same layby once a month, I think we have come to an understanding. The slightly frustrating thing is that there are miles of excellent overtaking straights, the only really dangerous driving I see is people overtaking on blind corners so I have to stop in the road to avoid them. I can't say someone overtaking me at 80mph has put my life in danger in the same waythistle_(mbnw) said:People whinging on Twitter about speed traps on residential roads being used as racetracks.
* They're parked in a bus stop, it's illegal (not a bus stop)
* They're hiding round the corner (it's the most visible spot on a long straight road)
etc
Obviously that is perceived risk rather than actual0 -
I wouldn't be so bothered by this, apart from when i see people driving dangerously and then see that they have a baby on board sticker.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.0 -
What is the cut off age of passengers and other road users where you can srart to be more blasé about their safety?elbowloh said:
I wouldn't be so bothered by this, apart from when i see people driving dangerously and then see that they have a baby on board sticker.ballysmate said:'Baby on board' car stickers.
Would only be significant if the baby in question was actually driving.
How about people driving dangerously who could potentially hit a car with a baby on board sticker? Do you factor that in?0
