On 5, I thought we were pointing out too far; but as bow there was nothing I could do. And anyway we start at 11, so you want to point out a bit. And then the gun went and we had a clean start through the winds to the lengthen to the rhythm all on autopilot really which is how you want it. After about 20 strokes I glanced down and my heart was at 160 which is good for me so I didn't need to put any more in. Past the outflow and all continued well; by first post we were gently dropping City two which was no great surprise as I'd watched their practice start and it was a little tentative and ragged. Around Grassy we were - and this was a surprise - on station with Nines two ahead, despite their double bucket rig and bucket hats. Everything was smooth, all was well, all the nerves had smoothed out. Half way down the reach Nines bumped Robs with us still nearly on station, which bodes well for tomorrow. The eagerly awaited question of this year was settled there, as Nines one had caught Tabs; and for good measure, Robs one, City one. Tabs three had wound down a bit so we pretended to chase to top finish for the over bump and got to a length, which was fun; but City two and three and possibly Nines three behind got confused and continued past bottom finish, forgetting that they are lower table folk. Trace.
Day 2: we were even more blatantly pointed out today, to the extent that Harry had to back down on 10 to try to correct, and I was so distracted that I only squared up on 5. But despite being able to feel the swerve we still got a good start and gained a little. However, we didn't gain enough, and while it felt fine I think we fell victim to that old bumps trap, the waiting game: grinding them down on the Reach as a plan. As it happens we did end up closing to 3/4 by the bridge, but that's not enough, even though it was more of a serious effort than yesterday's finish: my heart went up to 167 which is very close to my red line. Afterwards, general agreement that tomorrow we should hammer FP, the Gut and Plough reach harder, and some genteel conflict between keeping the rate high off the start - which would be my preference - and needing to settle somewhere. We are, we think, better at rowing than them; they are younger and fitter en masse; to capitalise on our advantage I think we need to push the rating up. Trace.
Day 3: much better pointing, and we tried to execute our "somewhat harder off the start" plan but, well, essentially discovered we were already going as hard as we possibly could. What we also rather ominously got to see was Peterboroug bumping City 2 behind us just after FP, which doesn't bode well. We got a whistle earlier, but still only one. On the finish line, Robs very nearly caught but were just a fraction late, which is sad, as it would have been nice to chase someone slower. Trace. The camera is pointed a little more inboard this time so you get to see my grey beard and astonishing biceps. Day 4: rain on the way down - rain when I was marshalling W2 earlier - but not raining during the race. After what seems like days of not being pushed from behind, so much have we got used to it, Peterborough have moved up behind us and seem to be catching City boats quite fast. So the thrill is back. We go off the start fast, and keep the rating high down FP, and ever so slightly to our own surprise this works: not only do P stay on station but we get a whistle on Robs before FP. Sadly that doesn't get any closer but then again neither do P. There's a bit of swerving around a bumped-out Robs on Ditton but our cox handles that well; now there's nothing ahead of us but the Reach and... then it's over, with P distant. After that only a night down the Waterman then City and despite my self-promises too much beer. Trace.
Since you have published on the subject, what do you make of this from Tietsche et al 2011 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030253
"[9] To examine the recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, we simulate the consequences of an ice‐free Arctic Ocean during summer. We set up experiments to start on 1st July from initial conditions that are taken from the reference run, but are perturbed by converting the entire Northern Hemisphere sea ice to water with the same properties as the sea surface water below the ice. Such conversion of relatively fresh sea ice to salty sea water has the advantage of leaving the properties of sea surface water unchanged. The start date is chosen such that the effect of the perturbation is maximal: starting from ice‐free conditions earlier in the year leads to immediate re‐freezing, and hence both earlier and later start dates imply shorter exposure of open water to sunlight, and a less pronounced ice–albedo effect."
If they were converting "relatively fresh sea ice" to water of the same salinity at temperature of sea surface water below the ice, then I could understand that doing so anytime leads to some immediate refreezing. If they have converted to salty sea water, surely there would be greater effect doing this on 21 June and probably more effect on 1st June (even if not on 1 May?). Does this seem odd to you? Does a little bit of pressure beneath the sea ice mean the freezing point of water is lower. Can't see this having much effect but thought I would mention it just in case.
I know you did a much larger perturbation increasing water temperatures to at least 3C down to 200m depth. Given this also recovered and for more limited perturbations, you got similar results, I can't see there is much implications for Tietsche et al paper really but someone is being a plonker making all sorts of claims about the results being nonsense/rebutted and other such silly claims.
William's paper shows 1 June removal having slightly more effect than 1 March removal. 1 Dec and 1 Sept removal having least effect. This suggest to me a maximum effect for timing of removal somewhere between 1 March to 1 June. 1 July seems unlikely and with William's 1 June removal no significant ice formed til November.
This seems sensible and also seems to contradict Tietsche et al's "starting from ice‐free conditions earlier in the year leads to immediate re‐freezing"
OT question for Go masters DBB and WMC: Have you ever played the Crazy Stone Deep Learning Go program? It purports to be based on the same type of deep learning model as Alphago and to have levels to 6d.
In the Japanese rating system there is the amateur ranks, a handicap stone apart, and the professional ranks, said to be a third of a stone apart. I no longer recall how the two system overlap, but I think that the highest rank amateur, 6 Dan, ought to win against a 1 Dan professional.
I haven't played at all this century so surely my rating now has declined. Nor do I have the stamina for a serious game.
@DBB - 10%, Light damage, Schadenfreude becomes main cause of death among Germans and French; 40%, Moderate damage, GDP declines to 1980 levels; 40%, Major damage, England becomes colony of Ghana; 10%, Severe damage, only Brits who survive battle rats for food in garbage dumps.
'Something resembling Hell' 2019 Aug 04 The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/04/how-does-the-rest-of-the-world-currently-view-the-uk-brexit-boris-johnson
Rodin made a famous sculpture, "The Gates of Hell". There is a casting at the Rodin museum and another in the Museum of French Art. Maybe one or the other should be moved to Calais?
I guess it isn't headline news because it isn't that exciting. AFAIK I can't see any of the dox on which the Graun bases its claim; and "promoting search results" is hardly thrilling. Am I missing something?
Crazy Stone has a long history I think; see-also https://senseis.xmp.net/?CrazyStone. I was actively playing Go more than 20 years ago when all progs could be trivially beaten by anyone near dan grade. This appears to have started in 2006, so before my time. Iv'e never played it.
I guess I should point you at Boris Johnson is a tosser. So, has he regained his courage or just run out of excuses? Hard to know. Speaking of which, it is summer, so little is being done. I'm still hopeful that James "the great prognosticator" Annan is correct and it will all fall apart, somehow.
Hmmm. I may have been too quick to agree that the Graun's text reflects reality. Is there actually any evidence that this was done? A quick (ahem) google search doesn't show the expected "how to promote your search results" so I'm now less sure it is even a thing.
OK well found but what does it mean? (a) that's a draft doc so did it even happen? And (b) what does it mean? If it is just std buying adwords, then who cares?
Did it happen? My interpretation is that the document was first created on 11.9.2017. The document gets added to as "Project Spruce" unfolds.
It actually seems to be standard operation procedure for Monsanto. There's more on the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/08/monsanto-roundup-journalist-documents
From that: 'Code names exist for other Monsanto concerns. The company’s efforts to counter litigation over its involvement in PCB contamination was dubbed “Project Chrome”'.
"Promote" to me is a reference as to how search results are prioritised. So, some time ago, Google said they were introducing new algorithms that were going to promote "truthful" websites over websites containing misinformation. I recall WUWT and similar websites feeling this was Orwellian censorship.
If I search on “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam" on Google that document indicates that - at least until this became public - two search results giving Monsanto's position had been bumped up to, presumably, the all important page one. I am assuming that the "blog post" and the "website" referred to at different times in the document are separate entities.
I would note that searching on Bing, DuckDuckGo and Google today I get similar search results.
35 comments:
I suppose that if I read English I would understand this but, alas, I only read American.
I think it has something to do with this year's arctic melt. Either that, or Aristotle's politics.
Ignore any intimations that it might have something to do with the arcana of competitive rowing.
Astonishingly, you have penetrated my disguise. I've updated it to include the video, in case anyone is interested. Another view is here.
Very dry Bobs David and Cap are.
Only reason why I come back here. The rowing and the beekeeping.
I prefer the game of Go. Some good players in Cambridge.
@DBB - I've never gotten Connolley to admit his level, but he has hinted that he is strong.
I once played 2 dan, Japanese amateur rating scale.
I have a 3-dan certificate, but it's from 20 years ago... ah yes I'm on the diploma list but not the current list.
So each you guys could give me a dozen stones or so.
Hey, what do you think of your new PM?
Could we perhaps trade Trump for him??
Since you have published on the subject, what do you make of this from Tietsche et al 2011
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030253
"[9] To examine the recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, we simulate the consequences of an ice‐free Arctic Ocean during summer. We set up experiments to start on 1st July from initial conditions that are taken from the reference run, but are perturbed by converting the entire Northern Hemisphere sea ice to water with the same properties as the sea surface water below the ice. Such conversion of relatively fresh sea ice to salty sea water has the advantage of leaving the properties of sea surface water unchanged. The start date is chosen such that the effect of the perturbation is maximal: starting from ice‐free conditions earlier in the year leads to immediate re‐freezing, and hence both earlier and later start dates imply shorter exposure of open water to sunlight, and a less pronounced ice–albedo effect."
If they were converting "relatively fresh sea ice" to water of the same salinity at temperature of sea surface water below the ice, then I could understand that doing so anytime leads to some immediate refreezing. If they have converted to salty sea water, surely there would be greater effect doing this on 21 June and probably more effect on 1st June (even if not on 1 May?). Does this seem odd to you? Does a little bit of pressure beneath the sea ice mean the freezing point of water is lower. Can't see this having much effect but thought I would mention it just in case.
I know you did a much larger perturbation increasing water temperatures to at least 3C down to 200m depth. Given this also recovered and for more limited perturbations, you got similar results, I can't see there is much implications for Tietsche et al paper really but someone is being a plonker making all sorts of claims about the results being nonsense/rebutted and other such silly claims.
Crandles, did you mean this paper?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045698
Yes, sorry about that.
William's paper shows 1 June removal having slightly more effect than 1 March removal. 1 Dec and 1 Sept removal having least effect. This suggest to me a maximum effect for timing of removal somewhere between 1 March to 1 June. 1 July seems unlikely and with William's 1 June removal no significant ice formed til November.
This seems sensible and also seems to contradict Tietsche et al's "starting from ice‐free conditions earlier in the year leads to immediate re‐freezing"
OT question for Go masters DBB and WMC: Have you ever played the Crazy Stone Deep Learning Go program? It purports to be based on the same type of deep learning model as Alphago and to have levels to 6d.
Any opinions on its real strength?
"levels to 6d" meaning?
In the Japanese rating system there is the amateur ranks, a handicap stone apart, and the professional ranks, said to be a third of a stone apart. I no longer recall how the two system overlap, but I think that the highest rank amateur, 6 Dan, ought to win against a 1 Dan professional.
I haven't played at all this century so surely my rating now has declined. Nor do I have the stamina for a serious game.
Now what are the odds on Brexit?
@DBB - 10%, Light damage, Schadenfreude becomes main cause of death among Germans and French; 40%, Moderate damage, GDP declines to 1980 levels; 40%, Major damage, England becomes colony of Ghana; 10%, Severe damage, only Brits who survive battle rats for food in garbage dumps.
I like the idea of surviving Battle Rats.
'Something resembling Hell'
2019 Aug 04
The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/04/how-does-the-rest-of-the-world-currently-view-the-uk-brexit-boris-johnson
Rodin made a famous sculpture, "The Gates of Hell". There is a casting at the Rodin museum and another in the Museum of French Art. Maybe one or the other should be moved to Calais?
'Battle Rats' was a 1989 flick. It was terrible, but one could always storm out...
William, is there any contast on climate policy between Boris & Jo?
Contrast, not contest
Off topic but how is this not headline news on every news organisation out there?
"Monsanto paid Google to promote search results for “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam” that criticized her work."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young
I guess it isn't headline news because it isn't that exciting. AFAIK I can't see any of the dox on which the Graun bases its claim; and "promoting search results" is hardly thrilling. Am I missing something?
> Crazy Stone Deep Learning Go
Crazy Stone has a long history I think; see-also https://senseis.xmp.net/?CrazyStone. I was actively playing Go more than 20 years ago when all progs could be trivially beaten by anyone near dan grade. This appears to have started in 2006, so before my time. Iv'e never played it.
> what do you think of your new PM?
I guess I should point you at Boris Johnson is a tosser. So, has he regained his courage or just run out of excuses? Hard to know. Speaking of which, it is summer, so little is being done. I'm still hopeful that James "the great prognosticator" Annan is correct and it will all fall apart, somehow.
> Tietsche et al 2011
Ha, you accidentally linked to me. Tietsche et al 2011 is this. T et al. got talked about here (well, at scienceblogs), now at the archive close to the time. I recall being a bit sniffy about it, since it was pretty similar to S+C but more popular; TBH I'm not sure I ever read it that carefully.
"promoting search results" is hardly thrilling. Am I missing something?
My world view - formed partly by what I read as a result of Googling - will be distorted by Google in return for cash from the bad guys.
Hmmm. I may have been too quick to agree that the Graun's text reflects reality. Is there actually any evidence that this was done? A quick (ahem) google search doesn't show the expected "how to promote your search results" so I'm now less sure it is even a thing.
I decided to look a bit further.
I found this document:
https://c-7npsfqifvt0x24vtsulx2epsh.g01.msn.com/g00/3_c-7x78x78x78.nto.dpn_/c-7NPSFQIFVT0x24iuuqtx3ax2fx2fvtsul.pshx2fx78q-dpoufoux2fvqmpbetx2f3120x2f19x2fNpotboup-Qspkfdu-Tqsvdf-Dbsfz-Hjmmbn-2.qeg_$/$/$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=2&i10c.dv=14
That contains the line: Paid placement of existing blog post on Carey Gillam when google search “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam"
OK well found but what does it mean? (a) that's a draft doc so did it even happen? And (b) what does it mean? If it is just std buying adwords, then who cares?
Did it happen? My interpretation is that the document was first created on 11.9.2017. The document gets added to as "Project Spruce" unfolds.
It actually seems to be standard operation procedure for Monsanto. There's more on the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/08/monsanto-roundup-journalist-documents
From that: 'Code names exist for other Monsanto concerns. The company’s efforts to counter litigation over its involvement in PCB contamination was dubbed “Project Chrome”'.
"Promote" to me is a reference as to how search results are prioritised. So, some time ago, Google said they were introducing new algorithms that were going to promote "truthful" websites over websites containing misinformation. I recall WUWT and similar websites feeling this was Orwellian censorship.
If I search on “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam" on Google that document indicates that - at least until this became public - two search results giving Monsanto's position had been bumped up to, presumably, the all important page one. I am assuming that the "blog post" and the "website" referred to at different times in the document are separate entities.
I would note that searching on Bing, DuckDuckGo and Google today I get similar search results.
Post a Comment