Following a(n old) comment by @JDHamkins on MathOverflow (mathoverflow.net/a/42998/17064), I realized something about the “dangerous bend” sign that's used by Donald Knuth to draw attention to difficult parts in a textbook. 🧵⤵️ •1/6
The Americans will think it's a European sign, and the Europeans will think it's an American sign. Why? Well, It's Complicated™. •2/6
The dangerous bend inside the sign was introduced by Bourbaki (and made its way into Unicode as U+2621 CAUTION SIGN; here's one: ☡). •3/6
But this is NOT what “dangerous bend” signs in contemporary European road signage look like. They look like this (this is the French sign, but most European signs should look pretty similar): •4/6
European countries, following the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals use triangular shapes to denote danger signs. Furthermore, the Bourbaki sign is derived from the old version of this sign, which looked like this [source: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Born…]: •5/6
But Knuth took this (old French) “dangerous bend” symbol from Bourbaki and added an American-style warning sign around it, namely a yellow diamond. The closest actual American road sign seems to be this: •6/6
Slight correction: tweet 4/6 above, I should maybe have used this sign instead, which means “dangerous bends” rather than just “dangerous bend”. I'm not sure if the older signage had both versions or just one. But in any case, both shape and content differ. •7/(6+1)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
À quoi ressemblera l'impact du variant ο en Europe? Je n'en sais rien, et donc je ne vais pas prétendre vous le dire. Mais je vais quand même dire deux-trois choses, à commencer par le fait que les gens qui disent savoir ou prévoir sont des charlatans. •1/25
On ne sait pas quelle est la sévérité relative de ο par rapport à δ. Les nouvelles d'Afrique du Sud sont PLUTÔT bonnes, mais on ne sait pas si ça se transposera en Europe. En Europe on n'a pas assez de recul donc on ne peut juste rien dire. •2/25
De toute façon, en 2020 on n'a jamais réussi à savoir quelle était la létalité de la forme ancestrale de covid (les estimations variaient du simple au double ou pire), donc imaginez pour calculer le rapport entre deux variants. •3/25
This thread is interesting, but I also have to share my irritation with @OurWorldInData here: HOW do I find the graph on their site knowing its title (“cumulative number of deaths from all causes […] per million people”)? I wasn't able to find similar ones but not the exact one!
I was able to find “cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projection based on previous years” which is ALMOST the same, but not “per million people”, so it looks very different (and it's not very interesting): ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumula…
And this “cumulative deaths from all causes compared to projection based on previous years” which is based on p-scores and expressed as a not-entirely-clear percentage, closer but still not the exact graph quoted above: ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumula…
I'm seeing a lot of discussions on the question on whether it's worse to have a pathogen that's x% more lethal or one that's x% more transmissible (with respect to some baseline). The only valid answer here is: IT DEPENDS ON MANY THINGS. 🧵⤵️ •1/15
One argument that definitely DOES NOT hold is “x% more transmissible will overgrow x% more lethal because the former is a factor inside the exponential while the latter is outside and the exponential will dominate it” which I see a lot. •2/15
Yes, it IS true mathematically that C₁·exp(c₁·t) will overgrow C₂·exp(c₂·t) (for t→+∞) when c₁>c₂ no matter what C₁,C₂>0 are, but… in a finite population, exponential growth has to stop at some point! •3/15
If for some reason you wanted to see a Loxodes magnus single-celled eukaryote die in real time while listening to a semi-philosophical discussion on the nature of life spoken by a smarmy voice, this video should suit your needs:
“Life is a chemical system that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium.” → discuss!
Also: compare to Jacques Monod's proposed definition of life in his 1970 book ‘Le Hasard et la Nécessité’ (‘Chance and Necessity’), as the conjunction of: teleonomy, autonomous morphogenesis and reproductive invariance.
Est-ce que quelqu'un a des lectures à recommander sur l'histoire des institutions locales en France? Je connais un peu l'histoire des constitutions et institutions nationales, mais essentiellement rien sur l'histoire des communes, départements, etc.
Par exemple, je ne savais même pas à partir de quand les conseils municipaux et généraux ont été élus. Apparemment ça a été mis en place en 1848 puis, de façon durable à partir de 1871 pour les conseils généraux et 1884 (ébauché en 1871) pour les maires et conseils municipaux.
Ce que je trouve fascinant avec les grincheux s'indignant que le “Robert” ait ajouté un nouveau pronom dans son dico, c'est surtout cette image prescriptiviste du dictionnaire qui dirait comment «bien» écrire plutôt que permettre de comprendre ce que les gens écrivent vraiment.
Moi je n'utilise pas le pronom «iel». (Pour la façon dont je conçois l'écriture inclusive, cf.: madore.org/~david/weblog/….) Mais c'est JUSTEMENT pour ça que je suis plutôt content qu'il entre dans le dico: si j'avais un doute sur ce que veulent dire les personnes qui l'utilisent.
Je ne me sens pas menacé dans ma non-utilisation du pronom «iel» par son entrée dans le “Robert” parce que je n'utilise pas les dictionnaires pour savoir comment bien écrire, je les utilise pour savoir ce que veulent dire les gens quand ils écrivent.