Texts from nanny

[rubato]

Self government is inherently an experiment. We are always doing research. You just never noticed it. Everything we do is just an experiment. An essay, a trial. The key to success is to admit that we are experimenting and honestly judge the results.


Either we are trying new things and getting better, doing research, or we are falling behind. Dead, but still on our feet.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Big RR]

When the snow falls we plow the streets, we don't pay money to people to send texts to the town citizens telling them to be careful when they're walking or driving, nor do we hire someone to do a sun dance to melt the snow. Oh, we may try a different brand of plow, or a different brand of salt if one is sold as being better for whatever reason, but we do what we expect to work, not try anything and everything in the name of "progress". There are those we charge with doing the research for us--academics, industrial researchers, private firms, while we continue to do what we need to do to solve the current problems.

Likewise, when money is tight, even if some research is done, it will be research calculated to produce a desirable result, not something which we are not sure will (or pretty sure won't) work.

Everything is not an experiment; some things we do are things we know (from past experience, if nothing else) will work.

[Lord Jim]

I completely agree with Big RR. He nailed it perfectly.

[rubato]

When the snow falls we plow the streets, we don't pay money to people to send texts to the town citizens telling them to be careful when they're walking or driving, nor do we hire someone to do a sun dance to melt the snow. Oh, we may try a different brand of plow, or a different brand of salt if one is sold as being better for whatever reason, but we do what we expect to work, not try anything and everything in the name of "progress". ....

Not true at all. Each experiment has led to a new one.

To take your snow example, Atlanta, who has little prior experience to lean on, just did an experiment by telling everyone to go home at the same time. Not good results. They'll try it a different way next time. They will look at the avail. mediums of communication and try to employ them more skillfully and learn to craft their messages better. Perhaps they will learn to anticipate problems better and tell more people not to go to school or work that day.

If you have seen Calif. highways over the past 40+ years you would have seen many long series of experiments and changes in how highways are constructed. We tried seamed concrete roadways until we learned how to pour a continuous slab of specially formulated cement which can expand and contract w/o cracking. The first several times this was used it was an experiment. We have tried different ways of controlling water flow off of roadways and learned from each experiment to improve the next one. Highway 17 iis a notoriously dangerous local road which had no barriers at all in the mid-70s. This led to a lot of crossover accidents and deaths. First they experimented with barriers only at certain corners, which was an improvement, then they went to a complete barrier. Over time they learned that the original barrier design was too easily broken by cars smashing into it so it has been re-designed and re-built with better results. By the late 1990s there were a large number of accidents so both Santa Cruz country and Santa Clara county got together and coordinated more CHP patrols so that accidents were cut to a fraction. When bad weather comes the tow trucks are already 'staged' at different points of the road to speed removal and keep traffic going.

Santa Cruz was the first place in the U.S. to experiment with curbside recycling which has led to a series of smaller experiments to learn the best way to do it. The program today is much easier to use and because they understood from the beginning how important the method of communication was, it is valued by the community and nearly 100% supported.

In the droughts of the 1970s we first began to experiment with ways of encouraging water conservation, especially in drought years. We learned from what worked and have continuously improved the program both in engineering and in the most critical area of communication between the water district and the water users.

Each of the electric cars offered for sale is a different experiment in how to do "electric car" and we will all see the results.

When the snow falls we plow the streets, we don't pay money to people to send texts to the town citizens telling them to be careful when they're walking or driving, nor do we hire someone to do a sun dance to melt the snow. Oh, we may try a different brand of plow, or a different brand of salt if one is sold as being better for whatever reason, but we do what we expect to work, not try anything and everything in the name of "progress". There are those we charge with doing the research for us--academics, industrial researchers, private firms, while we continue to do what we need to do to solve the current problems.

Nothing stands still, except for death. Everything is an experiment, and if we want to be successful then we will use the experiments we are already doing to collect data to design future experiments.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Not true at all. Each experiment has led to a new one.

To take your snow example, Atlanta, who has little prior experience to lean on, just did an experiment by telling everyone to go home at the same time. Not good results. They'll try it a different way next time. They will look at the avail. mediums of communication and try to employ them more skillfully and learn to craft their messages better. Perhaps they will learn to anticipate problems better and tell more people not to go to school or work that day.

An experiment? So the Atlanta government got together and thought, "Hey, let's do a test and see if telling everyone to go home at the same time is a good idea. Afterwards, we will try a few other different ways, collect data and then decide on which method is best."

That wasn't an experiment. It was a bad decision. And if they claim it was an experiment, it was an even worse decision for them to try to experiment with live people in a declared emergency situation.

If you have seen Calif. highways over the past 40+ years you would have seen many long series of experiments and changes in how highways are constructed. We tried seamed concrete roadways....

Experiments are done prior to actually using safety products. Any scientist would know that.

[rubato]

Not true at all. Each experiment has led to a new one.

To take your snow example, Atlanta, who has little prior experience to lean on, just did an experiment by telling everyone to go home at the same time. Not good results. They'll try it a different way next time. They will look at the avail. mediums of communication and try to employ them more skillfully and learn to craft their messages better. Perhaps they will learn to anticipate problems better and tell more people not to go to school or work that day.

An experiment? So the Atlanta government got together and thought, "Hey, let's do a test and see if telling everyone to go home at the same time is a good idea. Afterwards, we will try a few other different ways, collect data and then decide on which method is best."

That wasn't an experiment. It was a bad decision. And if they claim it was an experiment, it was an even worse decision for them to try to experiment with live people in a declared emergency situation.

It is an experiment whether you have the wit to call it that or not. Calling it an "experiment" removes the distracting and useless emotional content and allows you to focus on what matters; what worked and should be done again and what didn't and needs to be changed. Calling it a 'bad decision' might be emotionally satisfying (the old "blame someone and turn your brain off" method Rush Limbaugh uses) but does nothing to us understand how to improve things.

If you have seen Calif. highways over the past 40+ years you would have seen many long series of experiments and changes in how highways are constructed. We tried seamed concrete roadways....

Experiments are done prior to actually using safety products. Any scientist would know that.

Some things can be modeled in smaller scale experiments but ultimately the only way to really know that a method of pouring a road bed will work for 40 years in the kind of weather that actually occurs is to pour it and see.

We try to mitigate risk as much as possible, but there are limits. The golden gate bridge is an ongoing experiment in how best to maintain a steel bridge. No one had done this and shown that it would work for 75 years before.

As a successful scientist who makes new products which are in use, I know that.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

It was a stupid decision. Anyone who had cared to do 5 minutes' worth of research would have known what would happen.

[oldr_n_wsr]

what worked and should be done again

When done again, it's no longer an experiment it moves on to a tried and true "practice" or method.

Plowing and sanding roads after a snowstorm is a tried and true practice/method the results of which are known, that the roads will be cleared of snow and safe for drivers.

One may experiment with plow routes to determine what route results in the fastest and most effective clearing of snow, but once the fastest most effective route is determined it is then put into practice and ceases to be an experiment.

I have had a plow on my tractor since 1996. Over the years I have experimented with different ways to plow out the driveway and have come up with 3 different ways to plow depending on how much snow we get, what type of snow (wet and heavy or dry and light) and how much snow is left around from previous snows (the old "running out of places to put it" scenario). No more experimentation, only plowing using a known method.

[Big RR]

Indeed, when we are faced with a problem we have never encountered before, we have to experiment to see what works; when the problem becomes a recurring one, we use the solution that has proven to work in the past. Oh, we may, at times, seek to tweak or improve that solution based on experience (of ourselves or others) and experiment with those improvements, but we do not throw the useful solution out just to try something new or trendy. And when we have limited resources, we will stick with the proven solution, rather than commit funds to try alternatives.

Another example; over the years I have developed many recipes for dishes that I (and others) enjoy. I have experimented with ingredients, seasonings, cooking methods and time, etc. and have arrived at recipes that work for me. When I make those dishes I am not experimenting, I am performing the steps of something I trust will work. I could devote additional time and effort to tweak them further, but I don't think it worth doing. And even when I was experimenting, I always started with what I knew worked--when I was making a potato dish, I started with potatoes, not turnips or ruttabagas or lawn clippings. I didn't have the time or money to try every possible permutation, however ridiculous.

And that's my point with the idea described in the first post; could it work? Possible, but I think most of us at least have a strong belief that nagging leads to more overeating, not less. So I just see it a waste of time and money--kind of like trying to make scalloped grass clippings; it might come out successful, but I doubt it.

[Joe Guy]

It is an experiment whether you have the wit to call it that or not...

Well that settles it then! Are you going to take your wit and go home now?

As a successful scientist who makes new products which are in use, I know that.

And I appreciate your work very much - whatever it is. I imagine that working on an assembly line would be very tedious.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As a successful scientist who makes new products which are in use, I know that.

Once the conclusion of an experiment has been verified and is reproduceable it may go on to being productized. Once productized it ceases to be an experiment. It has become a mass (or limited) produced commodity.

[Lord Jim]

See, now that's what I get for skimming through rube's posts...

I miss hilarious gems like this:

As a successful scientist who makes new products which are in use, I know that.

Thanks Joe and oldr for quoting that; it was my LOL moment for the day...

[rubato]

wip (it means 'work in progress'. We have a 0C storage for material which still needs further processing which is called the "wip".)


An interesting case is to compare two bridges.

This one:


And this one:



The second bridge was built after the first one and an architect who worked on the first one was responsible for a great deal of the final design of the second one. The first one was, in its day, an experiment in a new type of bridge design which used new techniques and materials and is widely acclaimed as an engineering and aesthetic success today. (although there was a lot of 'learning as you go' about worker safety).

The second bridge had a design feature which was discovered to be a flaw during construction and caused its collapse a few months after opening. No one knew before that it was important to consider aerodynamic forces and the potential to create harmonic motion. But no one knew that when the GGate bridge was built either. It was just luck that the design was not vulnerable to that.

Now both of these were experiments in bridge design in their day. The second one went badly because there was something we didn't know and learned only by doing.

There is a very cool video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw

Worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Nar ... %281940%29


It is impossible to act in the world in a state of perfect knowledge. There are times when we think we know a great deal and might be tempted to think the outcome is certain but there are always stochastic processes involved here and there and we don't know what the gaps in our knowledge are until something goes differently than expected. It is more powerful to acknowledge this by saying these are experiments and we will adapt when we see the outcome.

Also, it acknowledges that to act requires courage. We can only solve our problems if we have the courage to try.


I was hoping to see this on our next trip but It does not appear that we will be near enough for the detour:




yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

what worked and should be done again

When done again, it's no longer an experiment it moves on to a tried and true "practice" or method.

Plowing and sanding roads after a snowstorm is a tried and true practice/method the results of which are known, that the roads will be cleared of snow and safe for drivers.

One may experiment with plow routes to determine what route results in the fastest and most effective clearing of snow, but once the fastest most effective route is determined it is then put into practice and ceases to be an experiment.

I have had a plow on my tractor since 1996. Over the years I have experimented with different ways to plow out the driveway and have come up with 3 different ways to plow depending on how much snow we get, what type of snow (wet and heavy or dry and light) and how much snow is left around from previous snows (the old "running out of places to put it" scenario). No more experimentation, only plowing using a known method.

The city of Atlanta is an ongoing experiment in government. They have to try to understand the answer to the question "What is the optimum number of snowplows and skilled snowplow drivers needed for a city which almost never sees snow?" How much salt should they buy and store? How much sand? If we don't buy plows then what can we do to mitigate the problem by other means? What kinds of planning should we do? Planning takes time and has a cost too.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Here's one for the Stoke-on-Trent suggestion box. Pay people to lose weight.

Anyone interested and who is more than X pounds over weight (using BMI or whatever), comes in and is weighed.

Come back 6 months later, and get a check (cheque?) for one pound for every pound lost. Come back 6 months after that and 50p for every pound you've kept off.

Low tech. Cheap. Experimental.

[rubato]

Here's one for the Stoke-on-Trent suggestion box. Pay people to lose weight.

Anyone interested and who is more than X pounds over weight (using BMI or whatever), comes in and is weighed.

Come back 6 months later, and get a check (cheque?) for one pound for every pound lost. Come back 6 months after that and 50p for every pound you've kept off.

Low tech. Cheap. Experimental.

Ok, I'm hip, so who should do the experiment? An HMO? Medicaid? Is the pricing right? Should we look into the cost savings to H.C. and lost work time for people keeping their weight down and price it based on that? If the cost savings is closer to $100 per pound should we give them $75 per pound? $50 per pound?

The advantage of being a large country is that we can afford to do a lot of experiments on a local scale and then use the successes to expand to a national scale.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Here's one for the Stoke-on-Trent suggestion box. Pay people to lose weight.

Ok, I'm hip, so who should do the experiment? An HMO? Medicaid?

Disconnect.

[rubato]

If there is an efficient way of communicating results to a larger audience doing experiments, even ones which fail, is often less costly than having to hear the same ideas brought up again and again. You can just say 'Look, we tried that and this was the result." As someone who works in a research group it is often the case that it is better to let people go ahead and try something that you think (know) won't work* than to shut them down. And let's face it, you're going to be wrong some significant percentage of the time about what experiments are even worth trying. What we don't know, but think that we do, is often the biggest hindrance. This is especially important when it comes to human behavior as studied by social psychology and economics.


yrs,
rubato

* Just last week I did a compatibility test I 'knew' would fail using mixed-bed ion-exchange resin with one of our polymers. I said it would fail in advance, but did the test anyway. Now this may not matter to someone who joins the company 10 years from now but for this group it is valuable. Especially if they can generalize from this particular case to all cases where this class of polymers are exposed to strong bases. As one of the few good synthetic chemists in the group, I have hope.

[Joe Guy]

....As one of the few good synthetic chemists in the group, I have hope.

Admitting that you are a synthetic chemist is the first step to recovery.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I used to hate it when a prototype worked "right out of the box". I knew there would be problems down the road. My various bosses never understood how I would hope the prototype wouldn't work. I explained that if it didn't work, the prototype would under go more scrutiny and vetting than if it "just worked". More tests would be developed and more knowledge gained getting the prototype to work.
That's not to say I was hoping the design (behind the prototype) would be unworkable. Just that having portions not work then fixed helps one to better understand and learn and prove out and modify the design.
We can't think of every posible scenario.

Sometimes failure is the best teacher.