Dork Scratchings

I decided to watch Contagion on the telly the other night.  I thought it might be fun to see how Hollywood's idea of a pandemic matched reality....  Anyway, can you spot the glaring mistake in this clip? That's right!  He said math  when he should have said maths .  Math ith a roman catholic thervith! There was another problem too.... In the exponential phase the numbers infected increases by the same factor each day, rather than squaring each day.  Or to put it another way, the sequence should have been $$ x_n = 2^n $$ and not what he said, which was $$ x_n = 2^{2^{n-1}} $$ Dear Hollywood, I am happy to offer my services as on set math(s) consultant.  I am very cheap.

When it comes to getting action on the climate crisis I think no-one has been more successful than Extinction Rebellion .  I remember at a party one time showing the NASA CO2 graph to a lady who didn't believe it could be real.  "If this were true people would be running around in the streets screaming" she told me.  That's why XR's tactics actually work.  You can hear day in day out about the urgency and severity of the crisis, but while people are carrying on as before it's difficult for the information to break out from the intellectual part of your brain, and occupy the bit that can actually make a difference. I don't have an issue with XR's tactics, but I do worry about how we often talk to the public when we do have their ear. The pie chart above is completely made up, but I think it's about right. A tiny proportion of the general public make up their minds by looking up facts and figures; a slightly larger - but still tiny - number ar

[Or was it the editing...?]  At first glance it appears that this recent news article on the BBC is going to be a complete hatchet job on Professor Jem Bendell, author of the Deep Adaptation paper.  The paper is an honest, if uncomfortable appraisal of the likelihood of civilisational collapse caused by the climate crisis, and a blueprint for how we can work together to survive it as best we can. The first indication it's going to be hatchet job is the title: "The 'climate doomers' preparing for society to fall apart" Clearly, calling someone a "doomer" is a way of dismissing their point of view without actually challenging it.  Of course the BBC have taken the approach of distancing themselves from any responsibility by putting 'climate doomers' in quotes.  That's a standard trick for when you want to say what you think without having to justify it. The first paragraph of the article is in bold , and is highly dismissive of Ben

This reminder has been on a wall in my house for ~15 years As a programmer for 22 years I've fixed thousands of bugs, and created many times more.  Very often it appeared that the problem I was trying to fix had multiple independent causes.  However I have found - almost invariably - that if you dig long enough you'll find a single cause for all the problems you are seeing.  In fact the moment you hit on the right theory is often really obvious because it suddenly explains a whole bunch of other things that have been going wrong!  But, I wondered, can this observation be proven mathematically?  It turns out it can! The Debugger's Theorem If a system that usually works currently isn't working, then it is more likely than not that there's just one thing causing all the observed problems. Proof Let $P_0$ be the probability that the system has no problems, $P_1$ be the probability that one independent problem has occurred, $P_{2+}$ the probability that two