Today I Learned

[fresh_42]

$1,800,000,000

German proverb: An old lady has to knit for a long time to get that.

 

[pinball1970]

$1,800,000,000

German proverb: An old lady has to knit for a long time to get that.

This is nuts
Who on earth do they expect to enter, edit and agree on the info that goes on the page?
Discussing that off site was obviously going to happen.
Greg, members and mentors all had ideas about that and I cannot see any other way of that happening.

 

[Haborix]

To be fair, it sounds like I could edit the page as a mere member, but maybe not. The conflict of interest angle seems a little redundant if statements have to include references to sources. Also, it relies on a user to self-report this conflict (or as in @fresh_42's case, using the same username so it could be discovered). Eh, Wikipedia schmikipedia .

 

[jack action]

@fresh_42 , @PeterDonis , @pinball1970 :

I find it funny that people in a forum that is obsessive about having reliable sources about anything discussed on its website complain about other websites that have the same type of requirements, just like members considered crackpots or conspiracists on PF.

Note that what is important is not who writes the article but what you can show as your sources for notability (emphasis NOT mine):

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

 

[fresh_42]

To be fair, it sounds like I could edit the page as a mere member, but maybe not. The conflict of interest angle seems a little redundant if statements have to include references to sources. Also, it relies on a user to self-report this conflict (or as in @fresh_42's case, using the same username so it could be discovered). Eh, Wikipedia schmikipedia .

As I said there:

1. The existence of a Wikipedia page for PF was a requirement of Wikipedia in order to merely get listed on category pages for internet websites.
2. Fact: They listed (aka promote) a professional website worth $1,800,000,000 ...
3. ... and do not see a conflict of interests.
4. Fact: They listed (aka promote) a commercial online magazine, financed by commercials, ...
5. ... and do not see a conflict of interests.
6. They assume a conflict of interest in a clearly non-profit but nevertheless professional website whose only goal it was to get listed ...
7. ... and did not answer my question about whom they expect to write such a Wikipedia page.

I'm wondering on which side of the table the real corruption sits!

 

[fresh_42]

Anyway. I will find open sources other than Wikipedia to quote. That might require a bit more effort but I'm all of a sudden motivated. There are some red lines I will not cross. Taking part in corruption is one of them. nLab here I come!

 

[gmax137]

nLab here I come!

Thanks! I have never heard of nLab before this thread.

 

[PeterDonis]

a forum that is obsessive about having reliable sources about anything discussed on its website

When what we're discussing is mainstream science, yes. That's because of PF's explicit purpose.

other websites that have the same type of requirements,

Wikipedia's policy under discussion here has nothing whatever to do with "reliability" of sources. It has to do with what they perceive (or claim to perceive) as a conflict of interest. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, the only people who should be writing their articles about anything are people who are not involved in it. Which seems odd, but that appears to be their policy.

what is important is not who writes the article but what you can show as your sources for notability

"Notability" is yet another requirement that has nothing to do with reliability of sources. It's just Wikipedia's (rather vague) policy about what things are worth having articles about. In that regard, @fresh_42's objections seem justified to me: as far as I can tell, PF is just as "notable", by Wikipedia's definition, as the two other sites he asked Wikipedia about, which have articles. So if "notability" is what's important, PF should have an article just as those other two sites do--and if it's not important who writes the article, why is Wikipedia not allowing PF staff to do it?

 

[fresh_42]

Fact is, by imposing the requirement of an existing Wikipedia site in order to be mentioned on very general lists while simultaneously making it impossible (or to cheat: damn I should have asked my Nephews in MI to do the job) to get such an article, and therewith imposing an untakeable hurdle, leads to the question: How did the others manage to get there? And good old money is the only variable left I can think of. Sure, nobody will admit that. However, I read an article about the intransparent policy of Wikipedia in a German magazine (@mfb; Der Spiegel; SPON IIRC) quite some time ago that claimed exactly this: Wikipedia has long stopped being independent. Now I know the price tags. We call that corruption over here.

Too bad I cannot write here what I will call Wikipedia from now on - at least in my German environment.

 

[jack action]

How did the others manage to get there? And good old money is the only variable left I can think of. Sure, nobody will admit that.

I really don't understand your frustration and how you can compare PF with SE. Yes, they are worth 1.8 G$. That is pretty important. People outside SE are watching them and are interested in them. Proof can be found in the SO Wikipedia page references:

• The founder was invited to a Google TechTalks about SO;
• The Wall Street Journal writes about them;
• Other media talks about their policies;
• They are studied under different subjects at different universities:
  • Stanford University
  • Singapore Management University
  • Berkeley University
  • University of Maryland

How can you say that SE has to pay Wikipedia to have a page? They are evidently important to other people than the people who work there and to other people than the ones who wrote the Wikipedia page.

Your arguments are certainly not facts.

 

[collinsmark]

I've read and re-read @fresh_42's User Talk on/with Wikipedia, and I get the impression that ... Let me back up ... not a definite impression, but more of a gut feeling ... I get the impression that the others involved the Wikipedia User Talk in question believe that being a staff member (e.g., "Mentor") of Physics Forums (PF) is a high paying job. As in a position of salaried employment. (As if being a Mentor on PF is something you could do as a financial career.)

Maybe I'm wrong. And if I'm not wrong, maybe it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

But I just can't help but wonder if they would change their tune if they better knew how PF worked.

 

[fresh_42]

I really don't understand your frustration and how you can compare PF with SE. Yes, they are worth 1.8 G$. That is pretty important. People outside SE are watching them and are interested in them. Proof can be found in the SO Wikipedia page references:

• The founder was invited to a Google TechTalks about SO;
• The Wall Street Journal writes about them;
• Other media talks about their policies;
• They are studied under different subjects at different universities:
  • Stanford University
  • Singapore Management University
  • Berkeley University
  • University of Maryland

How can you say that SE has to pay Wikipedia to have a page? They are evidently important to other people than the people who work there and to other people than the ones who wrote the Wikipedia page.

Your arguments are certainly not facts.

I did not claim that SE had to pay Wikipedia. I just assumed that they voluntarily did and that the people who were involved had financial interests, 1,800,000,000 many of them.

I only observed the facts that Wikipedia promotes commercial websites whereas it is de facto impossible for a non-profit page like ours to get just mentioned on their general lists of websites. They achieve this by a subtle trick: The list requires a Wikipedia entry first. The Wikipedia entry cannot be achieved by conflict of interest. But who else than members on that page could have an interest in writing an entry at all? However, they obviously ignore any conflict of interest if money is on the table as my two examples demonstrate.

Facit: Commercial websites and financial interests are promoted, and listing a non-profit organization is inhibited. That is the result. I call that corruption. You can call it whatever you like, I don't care. I'm not deep enough into the internal Wikipedia policies to describe their intransparent structures of power. I only evaluate the results. And this is only about the listing of PF as a Q&A website. I can imagine how far corruption, or capriciousness if you like this better, is involved when it comes to e.g. politicians if already such a minor issue causes so much trouble. I do not trust them anymore and will certainly not participate any longer in their actions. There are alternatives. University servers around the world are full of them.

 

[jack action]

But who else than members on that page could have an interest in writing an entry at all?

You have to show outside sources talking about you. It doesn't matter who writes the actual text. Again:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

What are your secondary sources for PF? (Hint: a PF admin is not one of them.)

They achieve this by a subtle trick: The list requires a Wikipedia entry first.

Wikipedia is not a website directory for anyone to list itself. These types of directories are rather useless and just used to create backlinks. It weakens their values for search engines. The strong policies of Wikipedia are what makes YOU want to be on THEIR website. The Difference between a Good and a Bad Web Directory

You cannot have it all.

 

[fresh_42]

You have to show outside sources talking about you. It doesn't matter who writes the actual text. Again:

I call BS. The entire dialogue started after I added ...

What are your secondary sources for PF? (Hint: a PF admin is not one of them.)

https://aelieve.com/rankings/websites/category/science/best-physics-websites/
... as a reference. (Hint: I am not related in any way to Aelieve.com)

Wikipedia is not a website directory for anyone to list itself.

This is again an idealization that isn't given. As I said: I should have let my nephew in MI write that entry. This would have been dishonest but in compliance with the rules. And that is exactly what I assume to have happened to the other websites.

These types of directories are rather useless and just used to create backlinks. It weakens their values for search engines.

So? Why the fight then?

The strong policies of Wikipedia are ...

... a propaganda lie.

what makes YOU want to be on THEIR website. The Difference between a Good and a Bad Web Directory

There is no transparency at all. Pretending there was is hypocritical.

You cannot have it all.

Au contraire, I cannot have the least!

Once again and for the last time:

We wanted to get listed as a Q&A and physics website.
This requires a separate Wiki page since even red links are impossible on those lists.
A Website cannot be written for "conflict of interests".
Two websites, one commercial and one with a high market value have been written and listed.
Where was then the "conflict of interest"?
The only difference I can see is the factor of money.

 

[gmax137]

I don't understand any of this. I use Wiki to find information, ie, facts. Things like "what is the formula for volume of a sphere?" "Who was Alger Hiss?" Or even "what is the density of lead?"

I didn't consult Wiki to find PF, and neither did anyone else until a week or so ago (whenever you guys created the PF page there.

I understand their rules regarding secondary sources. Otherwise there would be thousands of self-promoting pages of crap cluttering it up. I can imagine the "Trevor Tweed" page: "Trevor Tweed is an aspiring actor who can be reached at trevor.com" What's the point of that?

 

[jedishrfu]

TIL that Wikipedia is in fact a commercial website and only money counts. Pure politics behind the scenes. Time to quote nLab instead. nLab has a higher scientific value anyway.

In support of your TIL:

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech

https://www.courthousenews.com/google-agrees-to-pay-for-wikipedia-content/

 

[jedishrfu]

I noticed that even phys.org has gone through these types of wikipedia events where some editor wanted to delete the phys.org page. You can see reminents of their discussion on their talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phys.org

I posted an article many years ago about a programming language I used while working at GE. It was a text processing language named TEX (Honeywell) and was quite innovative at the time. In some ways it was comparable to AWK which came out around the same time. I think their lineages were linked by virtue of Multics being developed by GE and ATT prior to ATT pulling out and developing Unix in the aftermath.

An editor wanted to delete the article because they couldn't find anything online. I had to track down references to a 3 part Interface Age article on the language written by Bob Bemer.

Later another editor ruined my examples thinking some of the syntax was wrong as TEX used some funky multicharacter string operators xyz']10 vs xyz]'10 which meant split the string xyz at position 10 and either save the left portion ( '] ) or save the right portion ( ]' ) The editor thought I was missing a single quote and so added them in.

In one news article, I argued against showing the victim's image on the page that it was painful to the family to see this on wikipedia but got pushback because "its news". However, in every other referenced wikipedia page on murder they didn't show the victims face.

After that I stopped posting on Wikipedia.

 

[berkeman]

TIL that in California the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) adjusts the normal 5-year expiration period of driver's licenses from every 5 years to every 4 years for those "lucky" folks where were born on February 29th in leap years. Kind of makes sense I guess.

 

[nsaspook]

Which, of likely many more, cheap Video Doorbells are a security hazard.
https://www.consumerreports.org/hom...or-retailers-have-security-flaws-a2579288796/

On a recent Thursday afternoon, a Consumer Reports journalist received an email containing a grainy image of herself waving at a doorbell camera she’d set up at her back door.

If the message came from a complete stranger, it would have been alarming. Instead, it was sent by Steve Blair, a CR privacy and security test engineer who had hacked into the doorbell from 2,923 miles away.

"Ah, the regular reminder that the S in IoT stands for security."

 

[Borg]

Which, of likely many more, cheap Video Doorbells are a security hazard.
https://www.consumerreports.org/hom...or-retailers-have-security-flaws-a2579288796/

"Ah, the regular reminder that the S in IoT stands for security."

For those who haven't heard of it, Shodan is a site that allows you to find things that are connected to the internet. Since many people stupidly don't change the default passwords on their devices, this provides hackers with an easy way to find your device and check to see if the default password still works.

I put a Raspberry Pi on the internet for a while and Shodan picked it up within hours. I was tracking access attempts and saw multiple attempts from various European countries over the course of several months. One IP Address resolved to the middle of Red Square. I have no doubt that sites like Shodan make it easy for them to find potential locations to install bots.

Shodan is a search engine that lets users search for various types of servers (webcams, routers, servers, etc.) connected to the internet using a variety of filters.[1] Some have also described it as a search engine of service banners, which are metadata that the server sends back to the client.[2] This can be information about the server software, what options the service supports, a welcome message or anything else that the client can find out before interacting with the server.

 

[pinball1970]

Following on from the G string conversation.

A study on dissonance, turns out we like a little.

@f95toli @symbolipoint
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45812-z

 

[Hornbein]

As a Harvard undergrad I was in a jazz band with trumpeter Ferric Fang, playing ebass for a preppy party where I was exposed to the exotic custom of gatoring. Today I learned that Ferric is a big shot in the unearthing of data fraud. As long as he keeps his mustache he looks pretty much the same.

Ferric Fang

​

 

[phinds]

Today (yesterday, actually) I learned that the peace sign derived from the semaphore flags for N and D, and stands for Nuclear Disarmament. I looked it up on the Internet just to be sure I wasn't having my leg pulled.

 

[pinball1970]

T.I.L. CERN have links to a free on line library

https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/enabling-open-access-books

 

[BillTre]

 

[pinball1970]

T.I.L. Worms at Chernobyl -

I was going to put in Biology but I am getting a few contradictory statements IMO.

From the article https://phys.org/news/2024-03-tiny-worms-tolerate-chornobyl.html

"The researchers were surprised to find that using several different analyses, they could not detect a signature of radiation damage on the genomes of the worms from Chornobyl.

"This doesn't mean that Chornobyl is safe—it more likely means that nematodes are really resilient animals and can withstand extreme conditions,"

So resistant to radiation?

Later on in the article

"Their findings suggest that worms from Chornobyl are not necessarily more tolerant of radiation and the radioactive landscape has not forced them to evolve."

From the paper https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314793121

"Chornobyl isolates were not systematically more resistant than strains from undisturbed habitats. In sum, the absence of mutational signatures does not reflect unique capacity for tolerating DNA damage."

Am I being a bit thick here? I do not have access to the full article so cannot read the conclusions/discussion.

 

[BillTre]

 

[Ibix]

TIL that some light aircraft come with parachutes - not for the crew, for the whole plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System

 

[Ibix]

Should have posted how I found out about it - a recent deployment:

The video is a minute and a half and mostly air traffic control communications, but there's some mobile phone footage at the end of the thing coming down.

 

[BillTre]

TIL:

there are an estimated 2.5 million “modern” ants for each person on the planet, distributed across about 16,000 named species and possibly an equal number of species yet to be described.

 

[BillTre]

Its Pi day:

 

[BillTre]

TIL about the current Mars rover mission in a little review in a Science magazine news report.
It can be found here.
A pdf of a research report is here.
I have a Science subscription (membership actually) so I'm not sure of the current paywall situation, but you used to be able to see one or more articles free/month.

Its basically a remote geological survey of certain areas (river delta flowing into a crater-filling lake of water millions of years ago) on Mars considered to have a higher chance of preserving signs of life in the rocks. Some instruments on the rover can do some examinations, but material is also being cached for later pick-up and return to earth for further examinations in labs.

Decisions will soon have to be made on where the rover goes next, back into the crater of outward to different kinds of rocks. Other budgetary decisions will influence these choices.

 

[dlgoff]

T.I.L Albert Einstein was born on PI day.

 

[BillTre]

 

[Swamp Thing]

TIL that a primitive form of the light emitting diode (LED) was discovered in 1907.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_detector#Discovery_of_the_light_emitting_diode_(LED)

In 1907 British Marconi engineer Henry Joseph Round noticed that when direct current was passed through a silicon carbide (carborundum) point contact junction, a spot of greenish, bluish, or yellowish light was given off at the contact point. Round had constructed a light emitting diode (LED). However he just published a brief two paragraph note about it and did no further research.