736 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Jul 2021
    1. There were to be still other surprises. In the middle of the afternoon, the Chicago printer told the Woodbridge team, “One of the most irritating things for me is the fact that you keep delivering paper in 100-inch rolls. My printing press is 95 inches wide. The first thing I do is chop off 5 inches of product, which creates a lot of scrap and an additional labor operation. I’ve been complaining about this for years.” “That’s news to me,” said Woodbridge’s manufacturing vice president, glaring at the sales rep. It seemed that communication gaps also existed at Woodbridge. “It would be worth studying the engineering to see if we could align the width of our machine with yours,” the Woodbridge engineering services manager said. “Our machine, as far as I know, works only for printing and packaging applications, and most of your colleagues must have similar presses. The only reason we made the paper as wide as we did is that it is generally accepted in the industry that the wider the machine, the cheaper it can make the product.” “If the engineering study works out, we could charge you by the usable square yard rather than by the pound as we do today,” the marketing vice president suggested. “I would like that,” the Chicago printer said, beaming. “I sell square inches of printed stuff, not pounds.” The two sketched out the rough parameters of the engineering, the new economics of the redesigned paper machine, and the associated pricing.
  3. Jun 2021
    1. Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4

    1. We just cannot know all that life will throw at us, and if we want our grading contract to be fair and equitable for everyone, we need to reexamine it, reflect on how it has been working for each of us, and perhaps adjust it. 

      This idea of re-evaluating at regular time points can be a very useful and powerful tool in more areas than just writing.

      Society as a whole needs to look carefully at where it is do do this same sort of readjustment as well.

      It's the same sort of negative feedback mechanism which is at work in the scientific method and constantly improving the state-of-the art.

    1. Lynne Kelly's observation that oral cultures revised useful knowledge into their memories appears to me to be a simple precursor to annotation and the idea of the scientific method all in one...

    2. Scholars are likely familiar with the so-called “Great Conversation,” or the idea in Western thought that we collectively participate in an iterative process of knowledge production through reference, review, and refinement. As our conversation continues over time, an ever-expanding network of annotation–through notation, citation, links, and data–traces an interconnected lineage of ideas and insight.

      Again, Dr. Lynne Kelly discusses this sort of process in non-Western and primarily oral cultures as well. Songlines has some interesting discussion of this in the Australian aboriginal cultures.

  4. May 2021
    1. Long before Vannevar Bush, Francis Bacon cited Seneca to describe a similar ambition for his scientific method, which he hoped would “abridge the infinity of individual experience ... and remedy the complaint of vita brevis, ars longa.”
    2. Blair’s previous work demonstrated that the practices of literary reading and writing were central to the rise of scientific method. Focusing on the lawyer and scientist Jean Bodin in the sixteenth century, she meticulously examined how Bodin collected commonplace reading notes and then stored and analyzed them as scientific evidence.

      I really do need to create a historical timeline for commonplace books already.

      Georg Christoph Lichtenberg also did this in the late 1700's and became famous for it after his death and the publication of his Waste Books. Worth looking into who his influences may have been?

    1. Cringing at your own memories does no one any good. On the other hand, systematically reviewing your older work to find the patterns in where you got it wrong (and right!) is hugely beneficial — it’s a useful process of introspection that makes it easier to spot and avoid your own pitfalls.

      This idea is far from new and is roughly what Georg Christoph Lichtenberg was doing with the science portions of his Waste Books in the late 1700's where he was running experiments, noting wins, losses, and making progress using the scientific method.

    1. The scrapbooks reveal a critical and analytical way of thinking and emphasis on experimental evidence in physics, through which he became one of the early founders and advocates of modern scientific methodology. The more experience and experiments are accumulated during the exploration of nature, the more faltering its theories become. It is always good though not to abandon them instantly. For every hypothesis which used to be good at least serves the purpose of duly summarizing and keeping all phenomena until its own time. One should lay down the conflicting experience separately, until it has accumulated sufficiently to justify the efforts necessary to edifice a new theory. (Lichtenberg: scrapbook JII/1602)

      Georg Christoph Lichtenberg used his notebooks as thinking tools with respect to scientific methodology.

    1. lMytilua edulis
    2. Mytilus edulis
    3. Theodoxm fluviatilis,
    4. Ephydatiafluviatilis
    5. Cordylophora caspia
    6. Cyprinodon macularius
    7. Gamrnarus dueben
    8. Cordylophora caspia
    9. Cordytophora caspia
    10. Garnmarus auebeni
    11. Ilomarus americanus
    12. Cor@lophor~: caspia
    13. C. macularius
    14. Cyprinodon macularius
    15. Salmo iridaeus
    16. Theodoxus fluviatilis
    17. Fundu/us heteroditus
    18. Anguilla anguilla
    19. Eriocheir sinensis
    20. Sargus rondelet
    21. Scyllium catulus
    22. Scorpaena porcus
    23. Mytilus eduli
    24. Metridium rnarginatum
    25. Metapenaeus monocero
    26. Palaemonetes varians
    27. O~poda quadrata (albicans
    28. Gammarus dueben
    29. Alderia modesta
    30. Hemigrapsus oregonensi
    31. Potamon edulis
    32. Gammarus locusta
    33. Eriphia spinifrons
    34. Carcinus maena
    35. Nerds diversicolo
    36. Mytilus edulis
    37. Hemigrapsus nudus
    38. Tigriopusfulvus
    39. Pleuronectes platessa
    40. Mytilus edulis
    41. Sesarma cinereum
    42. Sphaeroma hookeri
    43. Gammarus duebeni
    44. poly- chaete Nerds ( Neanthes) diversicolor
    45. Cvprinodon macularius
    46. Nerds (Neanthes) diversicolo
    47. Gammarus duebeni
    48. Carcinus maenas
    49. Fundulus parvipinnis
    50. Mytilus californianus
    51. Littorina littorea
    52. Carcinus maenas
    53. Gammarus dueben
    1. S. hystrix
    2. S. pistillata
    3. S. hystrix
    4. S. ~~stii~a
    5. S. hysttix
    6. S. pi&#utu
    7. . hystrix
    8. S. pistiffut
    9. S. pi~~Zlat
    10. S. hystrix
    11. S. hystrix
    12. S. pistillatu
    13. S. hystrix
    14. S. pistillat
    15. S. hystrix
    16. S. pistiliut
    17. S. hy_~ir
    18. S. pistillat
    19. S. hystrix
    20. S. pistillat
    21. S. hystrix
    22. S. pistilfat
    23. S. hystrix
    24. S. p~t~llat
    25. S. pistillata
    26. S. pistillata
    27. S. pistillata
    28. S. pistillata.
    29. S. pistillata
    30. S. pistillata
    31. S. pistillata
    32. M. annutaris
    33. S. &SO+
    34. S. p~t~Zlfft
    35. S. hystnjc
    36. S. pistiilata
    37. S. hystrix
    38. S. pistillata
    39. S. hystrix
    40. S. pistillata
    41. S. pistillat
    42. S. hystix
    43. S. hystrix)
    44. S. pistillata
    45. S. hystrix)
    46. S. pistillata
    47. S. kq~tnic
    48. S. pistilfata
    49. S. ~~sti~~a
    50. S. hystrix,
    51. S.pistillata
    52. S. hystrix
    53. S. pistiliata
    54. S. Zz~M
    55. S. pistillata
    56. S. pjstiZlat
    57. S. hystrix
    58. S. pistillutu
    59. S. hystrix
    60. S. pistillata
    61. S. hystrix
    62. S. pistillat
    63. S. hystrix
    64. S. pistillatu
    65. S. hystrix
    66. S. pistillutu
    67. S. hystrix
    68. S. pistillata
    69. S. hystrix
    70. S. pistillata
    71. Seriatopora hystrix
    72. ~iy~ophora p~ti~~at
    73. S~ylu~~ffrapj~~jll
    74. ~~f~~~~e~ annuIa~~
    75. Faviu
    76. S. @&ri_
    77. S. pirtiltata
    78. S. hyTn$.
    79. S. pirrillara
    80. S. hystrix
    81. S. pistilZat
    82. S. hystrir
    83. S. pistillat
    84. S. p~~~~~i
    85. Sericztopora hystrix
    86. SryZ~phorap~til~a
    87. S~~fft~p~~~ ~ys~~x
    88. ~ty~~~~u~~ ~~s~~~~



    1. Darren Dahly. (2021, February 24). @SciBeh One thought is that we generally don’t ‘press’ strangers or even colleagues in face to face conversations, and when we do, it’s usually perceived as pretty aggressive. Not sure why anyone would expect it to work better on twitter. Https://t.co/r94i22mP9Q [Tweet]. @statsepi. https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1364482411803906048

    1. Adam Kucharski. (2021, February 6). It’s flattering being asked for your opinion by the media (especially if you have lots of them) but I do think it’s important to defer to others if you’re being asked on as a ‘scientific expert’ and the subject of the interview falls outside your area of research/expertise. [Tweet]. @AdamJKucharski. https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1358050473098571776