*Note : I’m going to be writing a few simple equations. It has been noted that, recently, the Substack app on phones is not rendering these equations at all and you just get a blank box. I think it’s true for the email version of the post too. So, unless it’s been fixed, if you want to see the equations you’ll have to view this on a PC I think.
Popping something is an old fashioned slang term for pawning something.
A working man or woman in the north of England would need their clogs until they died, unlike their overcoat or Sunday clothes that could be pawned on a Monday and redeemed on a Friday.
So Pop Goes the Weasel means pawning one’s Sunday coat (weasel & stoat) to buy the half pound of tuppenny rice.
But you could only pop your clogs if you no longer needed them - that is if you were dead.
Well, thank you for that lesson. Want to hear something "funny"?
We use statistics and models in pol-sci and economics, and in pedagogy too. Can you imagine trying to quantify and pin down variables for such fields? It makes determining if a virus/vaccine is dangerous a doddle.
So what pol-sci, economists and pedagogues do is, they (we, sigh, groan, one cross each line on the left) simplify until the theory fits the data, and vice versa. This is then made into policy and law.
I mention this for two reasons:
A) If you really want to know how a virus, bacteria, vaccine, other works, you can find out within a pretty good margin. There will be outliers, just like there's people the natural body temperature of whom is 35C, but those will be rare and methods for their inclusion/exclusion are easy to create.
B) Knowing that this is how pol-sci, econ and pedagogy actually works means never having to wonder [Why] what seems easy, empirically speaking, is, are and will be such flusterclucks as we have been witnessing for ca 25 years now; the fields named switched over from empiricism to models in the early-to-mid 1990s.
I was reminded of the Monty Hall problem, but maybe this is a bit far-fetched.
There are three doors. Behind one of them is a SCUM, and behind two are HEROes. Choose a door. If you find the SCUM, you get a free booster.
After you chose a door, the M.V. (master of vaccination) opens one of the two remaining doors, and there is a LIMBO behind. You are allowed to switch doors. Should you?
Yes, you should. My favourite proof: make it more complicated. There are now two candidates, always starting with the same door. Candidate no. 1 never switches, candidate 2 always does. Candidate no. 1 finds the SCUM with probability 1/3. Since either candidate 1 or candidate 2 will find the SCUM (one door is always ruled out by the M.V.), the probability for candidate 2 must be 2/3.
You know, if you want to amuse yourself, RR, you can just make up bizarre idioms of your own and many of us will believe that’s how Brits actually talk.
Popping something is an old fashioned slang term for pawning something.
A working man or woman in the north of England would need their clogs until they died, unlike their overcoat or Sunday clothes that could be pawned on a Monday and redeemed on a Friday.
So Pop Goes the Weasel means pawning one’s Sunday coat (weasel & stoat) to buy the half pound of tuppenny rice.
But you could only pop your clogs if you no longer needed them - that is if you were dead.
Just reporting that the equations rendered properly when reading the email of this article on my iPhone.
Thanks!
Well, thank you for that lesson. Want to hear something "funny"?
We use statistics and models in pol-sci and economics, and in pedagogy too. Can you imagine trying to quantify and pin down variables for such fields? It makes determining if a virus/vaccine is dangerous a doddle.
So what pol-sci, economists and pedagogues do is, they (we, sigh, groan, one cross each line on the left) simplify until the theory fits the data, and vice versa. This is then made into policy and law.
I mention this for two reasons:
A) If you really want to know how a virus, bacteria, vaccine, other works, you can find out within a pretty good margin. There will be outliers, just like there's people the natural body temperature of whom is 35C, but those will be rare and methods for their inclusion/exclusion are easy to create.
B) Knowing that this is how pol-sci, econ and pedagogy actually works means never having to wonder [Why] what seems easy, empirically speaking, is, are and will be such flusterclucks as we have been witnessing for ca 25 years now; the fields named switched over from empiricism to models in the early-to-mid 1990s.
I was reminded of the Monty Hall problem, but maybe this is a bit far-fetched.
There are three doors. Behind one of them is a SCUM, and behind two are HEROes. Choose a door. If you find the SCUM, you get a free booster.
After you chose a door, the M.V. (master of vaccination) opens one of the two remaining doors, and there is a LIMBO behind. You are allowed to switch doors. Should you?
Yes, you should. My favourite proof: make it more complicated. There are now two candidates, always starting with the same door. Candidate no. 1 never switches, candidate 2 always does. Candidate no. 1 finds the SCUM with probability 1/3. Since either candidate 1 or candidate 2 will find the SCUM (one door is always ruled out by the M.V.), the probability for candidate 2 must be 2/3.
Very good. Looking forward to part 2.
You know, if you want to amuse yourself, RR, you can just make up bizarre idioms of your own and many of us will believe that’s how Brits actually talk.