iNow

Ring the bells that still can ring Forget your perfect offering There is a crack in everything That’s how the light gets in

Not everyone is paying attention to reality. While it offers some comic relief for those who are, perhaps in parallel it loops into the fold those who were previously oblivious, intentionally or otherwise. It’s an overly optimistic and hopeful stretch, I know, but maybe a few people will watch and be like, “hmm… hadn’t really thought of it that way before, but this is sort of what’s been happening all around me IRL.” In the end, it’s just a movie, a dark comedy. It’s a way to pass 2 hours and take your mind off your troubles for a little bit.

It’s happening for real right now with the response to the pandemic, at least in the US

Time of life estimates have actually been revised significantly upward because it was so successful/efficient during the stage they just completed, so bravo to the team! This was posted to their social media pages 2 days ago:

Told ya. Broken bot

WTF? And why is this in earth science? This bot is broken.

The mental health benefits of vaccines: We estimate that COVID-19 vaccination reduces anxiety and depression symptoms by nearly 30%. Nearly all the benefits are private benefits, and we find little evidence of spillover effects, that is, increases in community vaccination rates are not associated with improved anxiety or depression symptoms among the unvaccinated. We find that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with larger reductions in anxiety or depression symptoms among individuals with lower education levels, who rent their housing, who are not able to telework, and who have children in their household. The economic benefit of reductions in anxiety and depression are approximately $350 billion. Our results highlight an important, but understudied, secondary benefit of COVID-19 vaccinations. Source

From the JWST FB page 7 hours ago: Here's everything that has taken place since our sunshield pallets successfully opened up on Dec. 28: 1. Yesterday, our team confirmed that we successfully extended our Deployable Tower Assembly (DTA), which creates space between Webb's upper and lower halves. This helps keep the telescope cold and makes room for our upcoming sunshield deployments. 2. This morning, we completed the deployment of our aft (back) momentum flap, which helps balance pressure from solar radiation on Webb's sunshield, much like a trim tab helps stabilize a boat or plane! 3. Our sunshield covers protected the sunshield while it was folded for launch. Today those covers were removed to prep for unfolding the sunshield. Keep up to date through our blog: blogs.nasa.gov/webb Or track Webb's journey here: webb.nasa.gov/whereiswebb

Like this on iOS:

Works for me. And in the spirit of continuous improvement, note that we likely already would have moved on had you not replied to my entirely fair and valid point in this way: Nothing about my actual point was either specious or nonsensical. Cheers

Yes, we completely agree. What you bolded was a quote from ME asking how something was relevant to MY request for confirmation of the premise. Unsure why your response to this was that YOU never said this. Nobody suggested you had. Once again, we’re in violent agreement here. My position was directed toward the OP who suggested an overall trend of increased size over time. As that’s NOT your position, my feedback doesn’t apply to you. And I’d like to see data confirming you’re not merely suffering from a confirmation bias here before we go searching for reasons to explain the proposed size increase. Waxing philosophical about anecdotes doesn’t achieve that. It’d be okay, but entirely irrelevant.

Please elaborate. What didn’t you say? You seem to be pushing back on me for misrepresenting your view. Unsure where you think I’ve done that. I acknowledged this and even confirmed our agreement. I then asked why you find this relevant to my questioning of the premise in the OP. You have yet to reply to this clear and direct question.

Right. That’s all well and good. Hard to disagree with any of that and we’re aligned. Do me this favor, though: Kindly please explain how any of that is even remotely relevant to me asking for confirmation that textbook sizes truly have increased over the years and decades… and pushing for this premise to be confirmed before seeking explanations from us about why they did. Go ahead. I’ll wait… and just so we’re clear, inspired comments about anecdotes aiding in scientific progress throughout history won’t suffice, regardless of how many you introduce.

Why this requires explaining I may never know. You even suggested the correct answer yourself a few posts back… You aggregate data in a spreadsheet or database. The basic structure would be one column for publication year, the additional columns, one each for height, width, depth, weight, and finally page count. Perhaps topic area could offer an interesting dimension against which to slice the data, but isn’t required to address your core question / rebut your opening assertion. You then just ensure a valid sample size, cross section of the entire textbook population, and group details by year or decade to search for possible trends (or confirm their lack). Yes, I see. You agree that a valid answer is possible. You simply want others to do the heavy lifting to help you find it. Others have suggested APIs, which would be a decent place to start IMO. Which is entirely fair and I don’t fault you for it, but this simultaneously means you must begin by asking IF textbooks have changed size over time, not WHY they have as you’ve done here. Gosh. What a relief. I’ll surely sleep better tonight. Duly noted, but my points stand and remain valid. Penicillin wasn't exactly discovered by claiming mold could help us overcome infection and THEN asking how. Returning to my previous example, perhaps YOU would like to explain for us all WHY bananas are all covered in feathers? I suspect you’d be smart enough to first challenge the premise, exactly as I’ve been doing here. This isn’t exactly Marie Curie discovering radioactivity, after all.

Right, which means you’re asking for us to explain a premise which is unfounded and quite likely invalid. You may as well be asking us to explain why all bananas are now covered in feathers. Until you prove they are, in fact, covered in feathers then it’s our time being wasted by you jumping immediately to a request for reasons why this happened. Asking you in return, “well, did it happen?” is hardly unreasonable. That’s how it came across when you asked if this data even exists: Of course it exists. Why wouldn’t it? Books can be measured and pages counted. This isn’t exactly controversial. Thanks for the feedback. I’ll be sure to take that under advisement, but it’s wholly irrelevant to my valid and fair criticism that your core premise is specious and is quite likely based on flawed assumptions and limited… yep, you guessed it… anecdotes. Precisely. Yet here we are, still waiting for you to do so and instead getting comments like this:

Fine. Which of those data then are you suggesting cannot be aggregated and analyzed? I’m pushing back on the absurd suggestion you made that this question cannot be objectively answered. I’m pushing back on the idea that any of us should bother accepting your likely flawed opinions which are themselves based on extremely limited anecdotes.

Are you seriously asking me whether data on the number of pages in textbooks past and present exists or could be collected? Please tell me you’re joking.

You’re free to measure anything you want when you arrive home and publish it to the spreadsheet software of your choosing, but unless your personal library offers a properly representative cross section of the entire global population of textbooks… and more importantly, unless it also offers a valid population to use as a point of comparison between modern sizes versus historical sizes, then you’re wasting your time. Why, you ask? Because you’re still dealing with anecdotes (just a fractionally larger set of them) and any conclusions you draw from such a misguided exercise will remain specious.

Ok. Still OT

Ok. You’re right. The difference between textbooks and reference books is like the difference between potato chips and dirt bikes.

The point you’re apparently missing is one raised only 3 hours ago in an earlier post by Charon. The best textbooks tend to be those which can be used as reference books. You’re asserting some fundamental distinction that doesn’t really exist. You're making a distinction without a difference.

It’s also useful that it’s being stated openly like this with eyes wide open. Others will follow his lead, join the chorus, and assert greater pressure/have greater leverage when they are singing from this same one hymnal.

You’re asserting a distinction without a difference here.

It’s going to take more than you simply asserting this for me to accept the premise as valid. Do you have anything more than mere anecdote confirming this increase in book size (calculus or otherwise) is actually happening?