Comment author: jimrandomh 08 February 2011 01:41:50PM 0 points [-]

Previously I've tried "exercise" with fitness machines, aerobic and resistance both, an hour apiece on both, and it doesn't seem to do anything at all

This suggests a different procedural knowledge gap: how do you tell when exercise is having an effect? Stepping on a scale doesn't give much information, since in the ideal case you're losing fat but replacing it with muscle. Counting weight and reps requires a reproducible routine, which I don't have, and only works for strength training anyways. I tried measuring endurance as "minutes on a treadmill at 6mph", but while there was a detectable upward trend it was nearly drowned out by day-to-day variance.

Comment author: Piglet 08 February 2011 07:00:44PM *  0 points [-]

A good quick-and-dirty test uses the humble push-up. Periodically (every two or three days) just do as many push-ups as you can -- this will likely involve moderate discomfort on the last few -- and track the number you do over time. While there is some day to day variance, I think this is a pretty good rough proxy for general fitness and a few weeks of data would give you decent tracking of the trend, unless you are already in such good shape that marginal improvements are hard to discern.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread June 2010, Part 2
Comment author: billswift 08 June 2010 02:55:59AM 1 point [-]

You are not really going to learn much unless you are interested in wading through lots of technical articles. If you want to learn, you need to wait until it has been digested by relevant experts into books. I am not sure what you think you can learn from this, but there are two good books of related information available now:

Jeff Wheelwright, Degrees of Disaster, about the environmental effects of the Exxon Valdez spill and the clean up.

Trevor Kletz, What Went Wrong?: Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters, which is really excellent. [For general reading, an older edition is perfectly adequate, new copies are expensive.] It has an incredible amount of detail, and horrifying accounts of how apparently insignificant mistakes can (often literally) blow up on you.

Comment author: Piglet 10 June 2010 03:35:18PM *  2 points [-]

Also, Richard Feynman's remarks on the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger are a pretty accessible overview of the kinds of dynamics that contribute to major industrial accidents. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm

[edit: corrected, thx.]

Comment author: [deleted] 07 June 2010 12:45:52PM *  6 points [-]

Many are calling BP evil and negligent, has there actually been any evidence of criminal activities on their part? My first guess is that we're dealing with hindsight bias. I am still casually looking into it, but I figured some others here may have already invested enough work into it to point me in the right direction.

Like any disaster of this scale, it may be possible to learn quite a bit from it, if we're willing.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread June 2010, Part 2
Comment author: Piglet 07 June 2010 04:01:43PM 7 points [-]

It depends on what you mean by "criminal"; under environmental law, there are both negligence-based (negligent discharge of pollutants to navigable waters) and strict liability (no intent requirement, such as killing of migratory birds) crimes that could apply to this spill. I don't think anyone thinks BP intended to have this kind of spill, so the interesting question from an environmental criminal law perspective is whether BP did enough to be treated as acting "knowingly" -- the relevant intent standard for environmental felonies. This is an extremely slippery concept in the law, especially given the complexity of the systems at issue here. Litigation will go on for many years on this exact point.

Comment author: Piglet 21 April 2010 04:56:38PM 5 points [-]

Hi. Long-time lurker since Eliezer was posting at OB (which candidly I find far less interesting these days). I'm 37, and am a practicing lawyer with several small children; this keeps me sufficiently busy that I don't often have time to think hard enough to post here, although the discussions are usually quite interesting. Also, I'm pretty non-quantitative due to misspent undergraduate years. I view this site as place where generally I should be listening, not talking.

Comment author: Piglet 05 April 2010 03:14:01PM 9 points [-]

"Face the facts. Then act on them. It's the only mantra I know, the only doctrine I have to offer you, and it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, don't buy into centuries-old dogma and dead rhetoric. Don't give in to your conditioning or your visions or your fucked-up sense of... whatever. FACE THE FACTS. THEN act."

--- Quellcrist Falconer, speech before the assault on Millsport. (Richard Morgan, Broken Angels)