I would expect that the data on motorcycle crashes would have greater potential for moon-driven variation than other vehicles. A typical four-wheeled vehicle has a much-restricted view of the sky versus a motorcycle (convertibles with the tops retracted excluded, obviously). Therefore, the scope of possibilities for a driver of a roofed vehicle to be distracted by a full moon or a super moon should be much narrower than for a motorcycle driver, who has a much greater expanse of sky to moon-gaze.
An impressive headline in this issue that really had me wondering for a moment. My immediate thought was "She kills people with kindness," and lo and behold, when I reached the image of her billboard, I was impressed with my instinct.
Having co-authored pieces for academic publishers I can vouch for the fact that it is a racket. Never got paid a cent, the books were horrendously expensive; it seemed like the only people who read them were the contributors and a few reviewers. The pressure on academics to publish is enormous, no wonder so much of it is impenetrable. When I was doing a Master's by thesis I read numerous articles about education that did not mention teachers or students at all. How many times did I finish reading a piece and think: what was the point of that? A corrupt and demoralising system.
About the distracted driving, I seem to recall that a few decades ago it was considered a bad idea to plant beds of flowers alongside highways as they would distract drivers, but it transpired that there were fewer accidents, seemingly because drivers who saw something pretty from time to time didn't suffer as much drowsiness and tunnel vision. So I wonder about the distraction factor versus the sleepiness factor.
Those road signs encouraging safe driving are a menace. Not, in my case, because they make me worry, but because they are so wordy. They take one's eyes off the road for a dangerous length of time. Same goes for signs that say, "Construction on Exit 39 ramp between 7:13 PM and 5:39 AM Monday 8/14/23 through Friday 9/8/23. Seek alternative routes."
In my experience with open access journals, many of them know how much money requires institute approval and charge just below that level (e.g. if >$2500 requires approval, they'll charge $2400).
On the (somewhat) plus side, in my own field we have an arrangement with certain journals: https://scoap3.org/
Hello Adam, I am really enojying your articles. But I have trouble reaching https://www.mod171.com/, is it only me or? Thank you for doing what are you doing! :)
I wonder if the crash statistics are activating an implicit social norm for unsafe driving. It would be interesting to do a study of speed before and after people see the sign. If unsafe driving is being cued, we would expect speed to increase after seeing the sign.
We need a better model for disseminating scientific articles. The current model only benefits the publishing houses who don’t even produce paper copies anymore. It makes no sense!
I'm a bit skeptical on the Moon shot polling data. People complaining about the government spending too much money on things is a constant. Without knowing what percentage of those who felt the moon landing was not worth the money would have changed their opinions if it cost 50% or 80% or 20% as much, we can't use those numbers for judging overall enthusiasm. It is also unknowable how, if the questions had been phrased differently, for instance, in reference to deliberate extravagance for impressing the Soviets, answers would have been different.
"What most people don’t know is that 'open-access' often means that the authors paid the journal to make their article freely available. As in, the journal was going to make money charging readers, but it charges the writers instead. And those writers are usually paying with federal grant money. So 'open access' is really “government scientific funding goes directly to for-profit publishers.”?"
It's actually even worse than this -- Open access applies only to the *article*, which means that university libraries don't get a discount from the exorbitant subscription fees publishers charge for journals. That is, if half (or all?) of a journal issue's authors pay for open access, the library still gets NO discount. And journals are bundled like 1990s cable packages; you can't just pay for the journals you want. You'll pay to get Lifetime along with ESPN even if you just want the Food Network. It's an impressive grift.
I've heard fragments of that obtuse song before, but one song is not statistical work. I watched the moon landings. I've never met anyone who didn't think they were a great idea. (I met a waitress who told me the money should have been spent on Earth rather than the moon, and that she didn't like the idea of the space shuttle flying all over the solar system with all them atomic bombs in it, but I'm not a great believer in the idea that the dumb and uninformed have a right to be heard.) When someone is looking to stir up trouble ... they should be ignored.
I would expect that the data on motorcycle crashes would have greater potential for moon-driven variation than other vehicles. A typical four-wheeled vehicle has a much-restricted view of the sky versus a motorcycle (convertibles with the tops retracted excluded, obviously). Therefore, the scope of possibilities for a driver of a roofed vehicle to be distracted by a full moon or a super moon should be much narrower than for a motorcycle driver, who has a much greater expanse of sky to moon-gaze.
An impressive headline in this issue that really had me wondering for a moment. My immediate thought was "She kills people with kindness," and lo and behold, when I reached the image of her billboard, I was impressed with my instinct.
Really enjoying your newsletter, Adam.
Having co-authored pieces for academic publishers I can vouch for the fact that it is a racket. Never got paid a cent, the books were horrendously expensive; it seemed like the only people who read them were the contributors and a few reviewers. The pressure on academics to publish is enormous, no wonder so much of it is impenetrable. When I was doing a Master's by thesis I read numerous articles about education that did not mention teachers or students at all. How many times did I finish reading a piece and think: what was the point of that? A corrupt and demoralising system.
About the distracted driving, I seem to recall that a few decades ago it was considered a bad idea to plant beds of flowers alongside highways as they would distract drivers, but it transpired that there were fewer accidents, seemingly because drivers who saw something pretty from time to time didn't suffer as much drowsiness and tunnel vision. So I wonder about the distraction factor versus the sleepiness factor.
Those road signs encouraging safe driving are a menace. Not, in my case, because they make me worry, but because they are so wordy. They take one's eyes off the road for a dangerous length of time. Same goes for signs that say, "Construction on Exit 39 ramp between 7:13 PM and 5:39 AM Monday 8/14/23 through Friday 9/8/23. Seek alternative routes."
In my experience with open access journals, many of them know how much money requires institute approval and charge just below that level (e.g. if >$2500 requires approval, they'll charge $2400).
On the (somewhat) plus side, in my own field we have an arrangement with certain journals: https://scoap3.org/
I love love love that you accompany voiceovers with your articles. Thank you Adam.
Hello Adam, I am really enojying your articles. But I have trouble reaching https://www.mod171.com/, is it only me or? Thank you for doing what are you doing! :)
I think about “you’ll forget most of what you leaned” all the time. Can’t believe it’s been a year!
I immediately thought of the Elvis album, not Dolly: “50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong.”
At what point is a number so high that it becomes an acceptable fate?
I wonder if the crash statistics are activating an implicit social norm for unsafe driving. It would be interesting to do a study of speed before and after people see the sign. If unsafe driving is being cued, we would expect speed to increase after seeing the sign.
We need a better model for disseminating scientific articles. The current model only benefits the publishing houses who don’t even produce paper copies anymore. It makes no sense!
I'm a bit skeptical on the Moon shot polling data. People complaining about the government spending too much money on things is a constant. Without knowing what percentage of those who felt the moon landing was not worth the money would have changed their opinions if it cost 50% or 80% or 20% as much, we can't use those numbers for judging overall enthusiasm. It is also unknowable how, if the questions had been phrased differently, for instance, in reference to deliberate extravagance for impressing the Soviets, answers would have been different.
I'd be interested in seeing your response to Scott Alexander's critique of the moral decline post (https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/is-there-an-illusion-of-moral-decline), personally I found his points about low data quality rather convincing
Thank you for this fascinating article.
"What most people don’t know is that 'open-access' often means that the authors paid the journal to make their article freely available. As in, the journal was going to make money charging readers, but it charges the writers instead. And those writers are usually paying with federal grant money. So 'open access' is really “government scientific funding goes directly to for-profit publishers.”?"
It's actually even worse than this -- Open access applies only to the *article*, which means that university libraries don't get a discount from the exorbitant subscription fees publishers charge for journals. That is, if half (or all?) of a journal issue's authors pay for open access, the library still gets NO discount. And journals are bundled like 1990s cable packages; you can't just pay for the journals you want. You'll pay to get Lifetime along with ESPN even if you just want the Food Network. It's an impressive grift.
I've heard fragments of that obtuse song before, but one song is not statistical work. I watched the moon landings. I've never met anyone who didn't think they were a great idea. (I met a waitress who told me the money should have been spent on Earth rather than the moon, and that she didn't like the idea of the space shuttle flying all over the solar system with all them atomic bombs in it, but I'm not a great believer in the idea that the dumb and uninformed have a right to be heard.) When someone is looking to stir up trouble ... they should be ignored.