Era da un po' che F. non era uno spettacolo...
- F., ti ricordi di quando abbiamo fatto quel giro in bici su al lago e abbiamo fatto il picnic?
- No...
- Sicuro? Era qualche anno fa, avrai avuto tre anni, stavi sul seggiolino della bici e io pedalavo, poi siamo arrivati davanti alla galleria, faceva fresco, ci siamo seduti lì e abbiamo mangiato i panini, pane, salame, marmellata, ...
- Ahh, sii, è vero... non me lo ricordo bene, ma un po' sì... è come una fotografia, qui nella mia testa...
- :-) E com'è fatta questa fotografia?
- Siamo io e te sulla bici, io sul seggiolino rosso, e io mi giro e vedo il lago là sotto, dietro di noi...
- Magari un giorno mi fai un disegno...
- Papà, ma perché non me lo ricordo tutto?
S.
Showing posts with label Ricordi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ricordi. Show all posts
Friday, 31 July 2009
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Dialogue on a Midspring's Night Dream in Dagstuhl
Prologue
[Any reference to real people is not casual. You'll recognize yourself if you were there. :) ]
N.B. So what's your proposal about?
K. Yes, describe it to us.
S. You can describe it in several ways. One...
K. Oh no, it can't work.
M. Sure it can't, readers will not behave properly.
N.B. Poor guy, he hasn't started yet. Wait a minute.
S. That's the usual reaction: have an opinion - a strong one - before even trying to understand my model. One: in current scholarly publishing system, the reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I agree.
S. We are all reviewing more and more papers; reviewers are being paid; authors re-submit rejected papers without any change and (different) reviewers have to re-review them. And so on. The more the paper publication rate increases, the more the situation gets worst.
K.: Right. I know that. I've been working on that with Karl Popper, he was a good friend of mine. We wrote a paper on it, actually. But you should consider that if I ask people to review papers, they will do it.
S. You said that you agree that reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I'll give you an example of that. Quite a good example actually. I just asked 150 top scientists to do some reviews, and all of them agreed. None refused.
S. Ok, sure, but we're talking about something different here.
N.B.: Guys, just look at your hands. You can see some body language there. But I don't understand what you're talking about.
S. - Ok, I'll show you some slides (picks up his laptop - a Mac, of course)
N.S. I'll go and grab some cheese. I'm hungry. They did not give us enough food for dinner.
A. I'm not hungry at all.
S. We're eating far too much.
A. I'll have some wine.
Everybody: Me too!
S. So; One: reviewers are a scarce resource. Two: there are a lot of readers out there.
D. Lots of what?
S. Readers. Scientists that read scientific papers, form an opinion about them, and take that opinion in their mind - or maybe share it with a few colleagues. The scientific community as a whole does not benefit from reader's knowledge. The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field could do something similar to Web 2.0 by exploiting the "wisdom of readers": a scholarly paper is refereed by 2, 3, maybe 4 researchers, but it is hopefully read by dozens (10^1), hundreds (10^2), or even thousands (10^3) of researchers. And these researchers usually form an opinion about the paper. And this opinion is usually left inside their mind, or communicated in a very informal manner. We're just using the logarithm of the reading power that we have!
M. Wait wait, log of thousands is 3 not 4, you're cheating!!!
S. Sorry, ok, that's wrong, I had too much cheese... erm, beer, but you should get the whole idea anyway. It's log(x-1)...
M. You're cheating again! log(x-1) is undefined for no readers.
S. Come on... (lifting the middle finger of his right hand - and having some cheese)
D. Jesus these guys are crazy.
M. So what? Who cares? That's bullshit.
N.B. Are you suggesting to use readers judgments?
M. But you have to prove that your system is better than the h-index. The h-index measures researcher quality. I do have a high h-index.
S. Yes and no. Wait a minute and you'll see.
N.B. So you're going to suggest to use readers judgments. Oh no that can't work. I feel like a Strasbourg goose, but I'll have some more cheese anyway.
N.S. Yef cheefe if fey goot. Pfleafe, hafe fome. Gulp. But do you mean that if a student of mine judges my paper as crap I should be penalized for that?
S. To a certain extent yes. But, wait a minute, can I have some cheese?
D. - "Jesus, these guys are crazy."
S. We're eating far too much.
M. I'll go and skype my daughters. As we will see later, that'll be the last serious thing for today.
S. Readers judgments will be weighted on the basis of how good they are.
K. Right. But who decides if I am a good reader? I could, of course, but not anybody can. If you put a cat in a box and ask him to judge your papers, would you be happy? And what if the cat is dead? You know this is a known paradox in Quantum Mechanics, and it has actually been studyed by me and Zeilinger when he was a PhD student of mine. We proved that the cat paradox can be solved if you consider the probabilistic deontic paranormal logic of the unjustified true beliefs.
S. You are a good reader if you express good judgment.
K. Right. But ...
S. Stop stop stop! If you start again with that we won't get anything. So: the goodness of your judgment depends on the score of the paper after the last reader has read it. Of course you don't have the final paper score at that time; you can approximate it by using the current score. And this approximation will be revised as time goes on and new judgments on the same paper are expressed: this will cause the paper score to change, and the goodness of previous judgments to change as well, and so on. It's complex, but it's recursive, like PageRank, and this animation on my slides shows that...
K. (having some wine) So my judgment is good if it is close to the current paper score.
S. Yes and no.
K. Oh, we're playing quantum logic here. You know that in the 40es when a was a PhD student in Transilvania with Heisenberg we proved that, in quantum mechanics, professors can be old and young at the same time, provided that...
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
D. S., I'm wondering what kind of beer are you drinking?
S. It's not the beer, it the glass. This is the wrong glass for that kind of beer. You'd better drink it from the bottle. Like grappa.
N.S. Grappa? Who said grappa??
A. Friend, he said that, but there's no grappa here.
N.S. He's no more my friend.
M. I've just seen that my h-index is almost as K.'s.
N.B. I do feel like a Strasbourg goose now. I'll go and grab some cheese. And go to bed. It can't work. Democracy is not science.
S. I told you it's not democracy.
Epilogue of the prologue (i.e., after some cheese/wine/beer)
S. BTW, I even published a paper on it.
N. When? Where?
K. Why I don't know it?
S. 2003, On a peer reviewed journal. JASIST.
K. Ok, send me the paper. I'd love to read it.
K. Ok, send me the paper, so you stop saying stupid nonsense bullshit.
N.S. Yes send the paper.
N.S. You're no more my friend.
The cat in the box: meow!
A. Have you seen Copenhagen by M. Frayn?
D. These guys are crazy.
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
C. (just passing by) Guys, we're eating far too much!!
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
References:
S.
[Any reference to real people is not casual. You'll recognize yourself if you were there. :) ]
N.B. So what's your proposal about?
K. Yes, describe it to us.
S. You can describe it in several ways. One...
K. Oh no, it can't work.
M. Sure it can't, readers will not behave properly.
N.B. Poor guy, he hasn't started yet. Wait a minute.
S. That's the usual reaction: have an opinion - a strong one - before even trying to understand my model. One: in current scholarly publishing system, the reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I agree.
S. We are all reviewing more and more papers; reviewers are being paid; authors re-submit rejected papers without any change and (different) reviewers have to re-review them. And so on. The more the paper publication rate increases, the more the situation gets worst.
K.: Right. I know that. I've been working on that with Karl Popper, he was a good friend of mine. We wrote a paper on it, actually. But you should consider that if I ask people to review papers, they will do it.
S. You said that you agree that reviewers are the scarce resource.
K. I'll give you an example of that. Quite a good example actually. I just asked 150 top scientists to do some reviews, and all of them agreed. None refused.
S. Ok, sure, but we're talking about something different here.
N.B.: Guys, just look at your hands. You can see some body language there. But I don't understand what you're talking about.
S. - Ok, I'll show you some slides (picks up his laptop - a Mac, of course)
N.S. I'll go and grab some cheese. I'm hungry. They did not give us enough food for dinner.
A. I'm not hungry at all.
S. We're eating far too much.
A. I'll have some wine.
Everybody: Me too!
S. So; One: reviewers are a scarce resource. Two: there are a lot of readers out there.
D. Lots of what?
S. Readers. Scientists that read scientific papers, form an opinion about them, and take that opinion in their mind - or maybe share it with a few colleagues. The scientific community as a whole does not benefit from reader's knowledge. The scholarly publishing and knowledge dissemination field could do something similar to Web 2.0 by exploiting the "wisdom of readers": a scholarly paper is refereed by 2, 3, maybe 4 researchers, but it is hopefully read by dozens (10^1), hundreds (10^2), or even thousands (10^3) of researchers. And these researchers usually form an opinion about the paper. And this opinion is usually left inside their mind, or communicated in a very informal manner. We're just using the logarithm of the reading power that we have!
M. Wait wait, log of thousands is 3 not 4, you're cheating!!!
S. Sorry, ok, that's wrong, I had too much cheese... erm, beer, but you should get the whole idea anyway. It's log(x-1)...
M. You're cheating again! log(x-1) is undefined for no readers.
S. Come on... (lifting the middle finger of his right hand - and having some cheese)
D. Jesus these guys are crazy.
M. So what? Who cares? That's bullshit.
N.B. Are you suggesting to use readers judgments?
M. But you have to prove that your system is better than the h-index. The h-index measures researcher quality. I do have a high h-index.
S. Yes and no. Wait a minute and you'll see.
N.B. So you're going to suggest to use readers judgments. Oh no that can't work. I feel like a Strasbourg goose, but I'll have some more cheese anyway.
N.S. Yef cheefe if fey goot. Pfleafe, hafe fome. Gulp. But do you mean that if a student of mine judges my paper as crap I should be penalized for that?
S. To a certain extent yes. But, wait a minute, can I have some cheese?
D. - "Jesus, these guys are crazy."
S. We're eating far too much.
M. I'll go and skype my daughters. As we will see later, that'll be the last serious thing for today.
S. Readers judgments will be weighted on the basis of how good they are.
K. Right. But who decides if I am a good reader? I could, of course, but not anybody can. If you put a cat in a box and ask him to judge your papers, would you be happy? And what if the cat is dead? You know this is a known paradox in Quantum Mechanics, and it has actually been studyed by me and Zeilinger when he was a PhD student of mine. We proved that the cat paradox can be solved if you consider the probabilistic deontic paranormal logic of the unjustified true beliefs.
S. You are a good reader if you express good judgment.
K. Right. But ...
S. Stop stop stop! If you start again with that we won't get anything. So: the goodness of your judgment depends on the score of the paper after the last reader has read it. Of course you don't have the final paper score at that time; you can approximate it by using the current score. And this approximation will be revised as time goes on and new judgments on the same paper are expressed: this will cause the paper score to change, and the goodness of previous judgments to change as well, and so on. It's complex, but it's recursive, like PageRank, and this animation on my slides shows that...
K. (having some wine) So my judgment is good if it is close to the current paper score.
S. Yes and no.
K. Oh, we're playing quantum logic here. You know that in the 40es when a was a PhD student in Transilvania with Heisenberg we proved that, in quantum mechanics, professors can be old and young at the same time, provided that...
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
D. S., I'm wondering what kind of beer are you drinking?
S. It's not the beer, it the glass. This is the wrong glass for that kind of beer. You'd better drink it from the bottle. Like grappa.
N.S. Grappa? Who said grappa??
A. Friend, he said that, but there's no grappa here.
N.S. He's no more my friend.
M. I've just seen that my h-index is almost as K.'s.
N.B. I do feel like a Strasbourg goose now. I'll go and grab some cheese. And go to bed. It can't work. Democracy is not science.
S. I told you it's not democracy.
Epilogue of the prologue (i.e., after some cheese/wine/beer)
S. BTW, I even published a paper on it.
N. When? Where?
K. Why I don't know it?
S. 2003, On a peer reviewed journal. JASIST.
K. Ok, send me the paper. I'd love to read it.
K. Ok, send me the paper, so you stop saying stupid nonsense bullshit.
N.S. Yes send the paper.
N.S. You're no more my friend.
The cat in the box: meow!
A. Have you seen Copenhagen by M. Frayn?
D. These guys are crazy.
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
C. (just passing by) Guys, we're eating far too much!!
M.P. - Spam lovely spaam!
S. Stop stop stop!! Shut up! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!! Shuuuuut uuuuuppppp!!
References:
- Monthy Python Spam video on YouTube; actually I prefer this version with Japanese (?) subtitles
- The paper (in a preprint version)
- A blog (discussing similar themes, and one more), and another post on another blog, and an interesting related project.
S.
Monday, 2 February 2009
GRAPPA!!
I've been participating to an interesting workshop last week. The highlight of the workshop, from my own personal standpoint, was a work meeting I had with other colleagues during the last evening. Here is the record.
The discussion was driven by the Conversational menu (thanks Gloria):
(which also has a back - more understandable later, perhaps)
The main characters (sorry for the low quality of the photos, but as you know the iPh*ne is good for several things, including a decent network connectivity, but not good in taking photos in low light conditions):
The discussion was driven by the Conversational menu (thanks Gloria):
(which also has a back - more understandable later, perhaps)
The main characters (sorry for the low quality of the photos, but as you know the iPh*ne is good for several things, including a decent network connectivity, but not good in taking photos in low light conditions):
- Enrico, pretending to drink tea while linking Italian university situation with the ontological status of the wave functions in quantum physics:
- Joe, involved in deep discussion about the hidden relationship between written and spoken Gaelic
- Matus, devising a useless but novel system to evaluate the quality of Grappa pinot nero on the basis of drinker's judgments and their reputation
- Jim, complaining about network connectivity ("Oh if I only had go*gle here, I could understand this wave function ontological stuff...")
A mistaken photoThe wave function.
- Someone enjoying grappa - and oh yes paying attention to the wave function as well.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Sette anni
Grazie alla casa nuova, siamo finalmente riusciti a organizzare per F. una festa di compleanno come si deve, con più di 15 bimbi, partita a pallone, torte, regali, e caccia al tesoro. È stato perfino divertente!
S.
Caccia al tesoro
Magari un giorno F. vuole rileggerla:
Caccia al tesoro!!
REGOLE: restate sempre tutti insieme; non correte; ascoltate quello che dice IL CAPO; quando il CAPO dice silenzio, vuol dire SILENZIO; quando il CAPO dice FERMI vuol dire FERMI!!!!; non andate nei punti pericolosi e ripidi; quando troverete il tesoro, lo dividerete in parti uguali.
SUGGERIMENTI: Troverete vari biglietti che vi condurranno, uno dopo l’altro, mistero dopo mistero, fino al TESORO. Bussola, metro e lavagna potrebbero esservi utili; ma sopratutto usate la fantasia, divertitevi e conservate tutti i biglietti che trovate...
0. Siamo al punto zero. Incomincia la caccia. Ma non dimenticatevi che siamo al punto zero...
1. Prima tappa: questa è facile. Guardate alla base del susino. Suggerimento: il susino fa le susine, dette anche prugne. Quest’anno ne ha fatte pochissime, e F. dovrebbe ricordarsene…
2. Benissimo. Ora si fa più difficile. Guardate verso Nord-Est. (sapete, vero, dov’è il Nord-Est?) Ce ne sono tre gruppi, due di tre e uno di due. Guardate BENE sotto a quello più in alto...
3. Altra tappa. Dovete risolvere un anagramma: ELMO... (sì, ce ne sono due… il vostro è quello più lontano dalla tappa 1...) E guardate in alto...
4. Bravi, mi avete trovato! Il prossimo passo è più difficile. Dovete spostarvi di 25 metri (saranno circa 40 passi) verso Est. Vi troverete vicino a un albero con il tronco grosso e tanti rami “spettinati”. Guardate bene nei buchi nel tronco...
5. Ora dovete tornare, senza correre, da dove siete partiti. E cercate queste lettere: ** *** **. E guardate bene sotto alle... rrrr... Suggerimento: sapete la canzone “La macchina del capo ha un buco...”?
6. In una delle tappe precedenti erano 8; ora sono 10. Guardate di fianco al primo, ma a partire dall’alto... Suggerimento: verso Nord-Nord-Est...
7. Altro anagramma: ELMORAGNO. Questo è più difficile; forse è meglio se usate la lavagna... Quando capite cos’è, andategli vicino e guardate all’altezza dei vostri occhi…
8. Cari esploratori, siete stati proprio bravi. Ma ora viene la prova più misteriosa, la penultima. Ancora un anagramma, ma misterioso. Per riuscire a risolverlo vi dico solo una parte delle lettere: ROR. Per trovare le altre dovete disegnare una mappa delle prime cinque tappe (e del punto zero), numerarle e CONGIUNGERLE CON DELLE LINEE. Apparirà un disegno che vi indicherà le altre lettere dell’anagramma...
9. UAU, ce l’avete fatta. Siete stati proprio bravissimi! Ora manca solo un piccolo indovinello… Cercate una specie di scatola argentata in cima a un palo nero alto circa un metro e mezzo. Suggerimento: c’è anche una bandierina rossa... IL TESORO È LÌ!!!
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
F.
Sottotitolo: Il solito spettacolo.
- A me piace fare il bagno nella vasca perché infilo la doccia sott'acqua e mi faccio il... il litromassaggio.
- Una mela al giorno toglie il medico di... ritorno.
S.
- A me piace fare il bagno nella vasca perché infilo la doccia sott'acqua e mi faccio il... il litromassaggio.
- Una mela al giorno toglie il medico di... ritorno.
S.
Friday, 25 July 2008
Monday, 16 June 2008
William
Capita a volte nella vita di incontrare persone speciali. Di quelle che sanno fare qualcosa che nessun altro al mondo sa fare e che, nonostante ciò, rimangono semplici, disponibili, sanno sia insegnarti la tecnica, sia trasmetterti, in qualche modo, la loro forza di volontà, la loro umiltà, la loro serenità. La loro unicità. Persone, insomma, che ti lasciano senza fiato :-) William Trubridge è una di quelle. È stato un piacere vederlo in acqua dal vivo, stare in acqua insieme a lui, farsi insegnare qualcosa da lui. È stato un onore conoscerlo. Le sue danze subacquee saranno più belle d'ora in poi.
S.
S.
Friday, 16 May 2008
F.
Sottotitolo: sempre uno spettacolo
- Papà, questi sono quadri a strato, vero?
- Eh?!
- Ma sì, come quelli dello zio C.
- Ah :-D Piccolo, non si dice "a strato", si dice "astratti".
- Ah, va bene, va bene, ho capito!! Allora, questi quadri "a strati", sono come quelli dello zio C., vero?
- ...
S.
- Papà, questi sono quadri a strato, vero?
- Eh?!
- Ma sì, come quelli dello zio C.
- Ah :-D Piccolo, non si dice "a strato", si dice "astratti".
- Ah, va bene, va bene, ho capito!! Allora, questi quadri "a strati", sono come quelli dello zio C., vero?
- ...
S.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Contrazioni, finalmente!
Lunedì 14 aprile 2008, piscina di Lignano, allenamento con ripetute sui 50m con tempi di recupero brevi (1'15"-1'30"). Beh, finalmente, a fine allenamento ho sentito le contrazioni diaframmatiche! "Una ogni pinneggiata" :-) Ora almeno so cosa sono.
Sono contento.
S.
Sono contento.
S.
Son soddisfazioni...
Sono rientrato dal convegno a cui ho partecipato un paio di settimane fa. È stato molto bello, soprattutto per i riconoscimenti informali e soggettivi dei partecipanti al convegno, che mi hanno ripetutamente fatto i complimenti per le mie pubblicazioni, che mi hanno detto di attendere con trepidazione i miei prossimi lavori, che mi hanno chiesto se è possibile averne una bozza in anteprima, che mi hanno fatto notare come uno dei miei lavori sia menzionato in uno dei libri piu' di prossima uscita, scritto da luminari del mio settore, come uno dei due "best papers" degli ultimi 30 anni.
Rientrando mi dicevo: "queste sono soddisfazioni, altro che l'h-index..." Appunto "soddisfazioni". Non misure di quanto uno sia bravo. Sono-solo-semplici-soddisfazioni-personali. Fare i professori universitari è sempre meglio che lavorare: pensiamo a divertirci (nel senso alto e ampio del termine).
S.
Rientrando mi dicevo: "queste sono soddisfazioni, altro che l'h-index..." Appunto "soddisfazioni". Non misure di quanto uno sia bravo. Sono-solo-semplici-soddisfazioni-personali. Fare i professori universitari è sempre meglio che lavorare: pensiamo a divertirci (nel senso alto e ampio del termine).
S.
Caos... calmo
16 aprile 2008. Un battito d'ali di una farfalla in Brasile può scatenare un tornado in Texas. Ed Lorenz.
Saturday, 23 February 2008
F. come Febbre
Quando F. ha la febbre è più spettacolo del solito:
F.: "Papà, ho l'abbassacollo"
Papà: "Eh?????"
F.: "Ma sì, come si chiama quella cosa lì che quando muovi la testa ti fa male e non riesci a muoverla e rimani bloccato guarda così..." (mima il movimento)
Papà: "Ah, il torcicollo. Hai il torcicollo"
F.: "Noo, ti ho detto che ho l'abbassacollo. Mi fa male non quando giro la testa ma quando la abbasso, vedi così" (mima il movimento) "E anche quando la alzo. Ho anche l'alzacollo".
Logica ferrea.
S.
F.: "Papà, ho l'abbassacollo"
Papà: "Eh?????"
F.: "Ma sì, come si chiama quella cosa lì che quando muovi la testa ti fa male e non riesci a muoverla e rimani bloccato guarda così..." (mima il movimento)
Papà: "Ah, il torcicollo. Hai il torcicollo"
F.: "Noo, ti ho detto che ho l'abbassacollo. Mi fa male non quando giro la testa ma quando la abbasso, vedi così" (mima il movimento) "E anche quando la alzo. Ho anche l'alzacollo".
Logica ferrea.
S.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
La prima pagella
F. ha ricevuto la sua prima pagella. Lacrimuccia.
È una bella pagella, ha preso tutti Distinto (ma «le maestre hanno detto che non danno Ottimo a nessuno in questo quadrimestre»)... a parte il voto in Condotta, che adesso ha un nome molto più complicato, qualcosa del tipo "comportamento consono alle regole della vita democratica e civile". Lì ha preso solo Buono. Speriamo che abbia capito di non dare calci e pugni ai compagni...
Glielo dico o non glielo dico che anche io avevo rischiato il "7 in condotta"?
S.
È una bella pagella, ha preso tutti Distinto (ma «le maestre hanno detto che non danno Ottimo a nessuno in questo quadrimestre»)... a parte il voto in Condotta, che adesso ha un nome molto più complicato, qualcosa del tipo "comportamento consono alle regole della vita democratica e civile". Lì ha preso solo Buono. Speriamo che abbia capito di non dare calci e pugni ai compagni...
Glielo dico o non glielo dico che anche io avevo rischiato il "7 in condotta"?
S.
Monday, 17 December 2007
Il metodo Kerkes
Una volta, anni fa, giocammo un sistemone al totocalcio. Saremo stati qualche decina di amici, non ricordo più. Uno di noi si pose il problema di cosa fare se per caso avessimo vinto. Qualcun altro disse: "Beh, se vinciamo centomila lire, facciamo ciocca; se invece vinciamo un miliardo dividiamo!" Al che Kerkes (un altro degli amici, uno un po'... speciale) saltò su e rispose: "No, no!! Se vinciamo centomila lire, dividiamo; se invece vinciamo un miliardo... CIOCCA!!!"
S.
S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)