Quotulatiousness

September 22, 2011

We need to borrow another word from German

Filed under: Germany, Randomness — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:29

The English language is adept at picking up bits of vocabulary from other languages — it’s one of the greatest strengths of English. I’ve just read of a word in German that I have needed for decades:

Schadenfreude captures a much more complex psychological concept, and therefore lacks a single-word counterpart in the English dictionary (Schadenfreude itself is a combination of the German words Schaden and Freude; meaning damage and joy respectively).

Nonetheless, Schadenfreude is such a basic human experience, that it is only natural that — if you don’t develop your own word for it — you would certainly want to adopt somebody else’s word for it into your vocabulary.

Another word that seems similarly essential to describing a particular feeling that most humans experience at some time or another, but which — unlike Schadenfreude — has somehow evaded incorporation into the English language, appears in the verb “Fremdschämen“:

Fremdschämen describes embarrassment which is experienced in response to someone else’s actions, but it is markedly different from simply being embarrassed for someone else. In particular it is different from being embarrassed because of how another person’s actions reflect on us or because of how another person’s actions make us look in the eyes of others.

Instead, Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place. It is at the heart of beloved “mockumentaries” such as The Office, Modern Family, or Ricky Gervais’ Extras. It is also what makes the auditions for American Idol, Britain’s got Talent and Deutschland Sucht den Superstar so discomfortingly entertaining…

I can now use the correct word to express how almost-physically-painful I feel when I see someone else get embarrassed or humiliated. Fremdschämen. I must remember that.

BT is worth negative £30bn

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:11

The British telecoms firm is actually worth much less than the scrap value of its copper wire network:

British Telecom is, as a telecoms company, worth minus £30bn. Yes, that’s a negative number there. And yet it is literally sitting on top of billions in assets.

[. . .]

Ten pairs of copper cabling weighs around 132kg per mile. Which by the miracle of multiplication can be seen to be about 10 million tonnes of copper. Which, at current LME prices of just over £5,000 a tonne, is £50bn.

BT’s current market capitalisation is just north of £20bn. So, as an operating telecoms company they’re worth £30bn less than the mountain of copper they’re sitting upon: that is, they’re worth less than the physical assets or they have, as a telecoms company not a mountain of scrap copper, a negative value.

This is why the Ontario election has been such a snooze-fest

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:56

Scott Stinson explains that there is barely any difference between the warmed-over bowl of snot being offered by Premier Dalton McGuinty and the bucket of snot that Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives would like you to choose instead:

Mr. McGuinty himself put it this way: “He’s basically saying, ‘Whatever McGuinty’s doing on health care, I’ll do that. Whatever McGuinty’s doing on education, I’ll do that.’”

This is not entirely true, since there are certain differences in the way the governing Liberals and the opposition PCs would address each file — Mr. Hudak, to pick one example, vows to scrap the Local Health Integration Networks that were brought in under the McGuinty government. But on the whole, both men say they would govern Ontario, a province with a recently ballooned deficit and with a highly optimistic plan to return to balance, by spending the same amount on its most costly ministries.

This, however, does not make for a particularly compelling battle cry. “A Vote for Hudak Is A Vote For Incremental Change!” Or “Vote Liberal: We’re Pretty Much Like the Other Guy But Our Signs Are a More Pleasing Red.” And so, the leaders would much rather play up their differences.

This may be the first election since I became eligible to vote that I will not bother to go to the polls. I have the incumbent PC candidate, a Liberal, an NDP’er, and a Green. That is, centre-left, centre-left, left, and enviro-fascist. Such a choice!

Update: I’m clearly not alone in my distate for all the electoral options:

Hudak has forfeited a slam-dunk opportunity to ride that conservative tidal wave that made Rob Ford mayor and gave Stephen Harper a majority. He could’ve run on a simple “respect for taxpayers” platform, promising to axe the HST. That alone would’ve carried the day. Instead, he yammers on about chain gangs.

Come Oct. 6, I’m choosing option “D” on Ontario’s multiple-choice quiz: None of the Above.

I’m declining my ballot.

“A piece of half-baked speculation had simply been used without checking because, well, it seemed true enough”

Filed under: Americas, Environment, Media — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:49

Tim Black on the recent Times Atlas gaffe over the Greenland ice sheet:

For those all too inclined to believe the worst in the warmest of all possible worlds, there was no need to question the Times Atlas’s revelation. It merely told them what they already knew — that our nasty industrialised ways are destroying Earth.

But among those who actually know a little about ice sheets, the atlas’s findings were a little too much of a revelation. First up were researchers from the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, who promptly wrote to the atlas’s editors: ‘There is to our knowledge no support for this [15 per cent] claim in the published scientific literature.’ Other scientists in the field were quick to back up the Cambridge researchers. ‘The claims here’, said Graham Cogley from Trent University, ‘are simply not backed up by science; this pig can’t fly’. Others agreed. Jeffrey Kargel of the University of Arizona, principal scientist on a project involving the mapping of ice and glaciers from space, was unequivocal: ‘These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland. I don’t know how exactly the Times Atlas produced their results, but they are not scientific results.’

So how exactly did the Times Atlas cartographers produce their results? More kindly commentators have suggested that the atlas bods foolishly relied on the National Snow and Ice Data Center-maintained online resource, the Atlas of the Cryosphere. This apparently shows the thickness of the central part of the ice sheet over Greenland, but it does not show the thickness of the ice sheet’s periphery. The cartographers presumably interpreted this to mean that the peripheral ice did not exist — that it had melted. Other critics have been less generous, with one suggesting they might have been just a little too reliant on that bastion of truth, Wikipedia.

While it’s fun to pile on when a respected publication gets caught out trying for sensation instead of presenting facts, Black also sounds a note of caution:

Yet such over-eager triumphalism on the part of climate-change sceptics is misplaced. This is not because advocates of climate change are not frequently making mistakes. And it is not because the climate-change narrative, demanding so many facts to fit its story of manmade doom, is not fundamentally flawed. No, the problem with celebrating every scientific, factual refutation of the climate-change thesis as the beginning of the end for what remains the dominant narrative of our times, despite growing public indifference, is that climate change is not primarily a scientific issue. It was not born in science labs or in meteorology centres. And likewise, it will not be defeated by scientists or meteorologists, either.

That is because climate change is principally a political issue, not a scientific one. Climate-change alarmism is about channelling a vision of the future in which man, producing too much and consuming far more, is conceived as a problem. And the only way to challenge this widespread political and moral outlook is by coming up with something a little less human-hating — a political vision in which humanity’s needs and desires, our productive capacities and our consuming wants, are championed rather than denigrated. To rely on the mistakes of climate-change advocates to undermine their own cause is no substitute for the long-awaited, never-seen political debate about climate change.

Telegraph: The great euro swindle

Filed under: Britain, Economics, Europe, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:34

This is an interesting summary of the path to the Euro, and how some predicted the current situation at the very start of the project:

The field is theirs. They were not merely right about the single currency, the greatest economic issue of our age — they were right for the right reasons. They foresaw with lucid, prophetic accuracy exactly how and why the euro would bring with it financial devastation and social collapse.

Meanwhile, the pro-Europeans find themselves in the same situation as appeasers in 1940, or communists after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They are utterly busted. [. . .]

The central historical error of the modern Financial Times concerns the euro. The FT flung itself headlong into the pro-euro camp, embracing the cause with an almost religious passion. Doubts were dismissed. Here is the paper’s Lex column on January 8, 2001, on the subject of Greek entry to the eurozone: “With Greece now trading in euros,” reflected Lex, “few will mourn the death of the drachma. Membership of the eurozone offers the prospect of long-term economic stability.” The FT offered a similarly warm welcome to Ireland.

The paper waged a vendetta against those who warned that the euro would not work. Its chief political columnist, Philip Stephens, consistently mocked the Eurosceptics. “Immaturity is the kind explanation,” sneered Stephens as Tory leader William Hague came out against the single currency.

[. . .]

Now let’s turn to the BBC. In our Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet, Guilty Men, we expose in detail how the BBC betrayed its charter commitment and became a partisan player in a great national debate — all the more insidious because of its pretence at neutrality.

For example, in the nine weeks leading to July 21, 2000, when the argument over the euro was at its height, the Today programme featured 121 speakers on the topic. Some 87 were pro-euro compared with 34 who were anti. BBC broadcasters tended to present the pro-euro position itself as centre ground, thus defining even moderately Eurosceptic voices as extreme.

H/T to Tim Harford for the link.

Detroit Lions favoured over the Vikings this Sunday

Filed under: Football — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:44

It’s actually a rare thing for Detroit to be the favourite when playing the Vikings at home. It hasn’t happened for quite some time. In fact, the last time they were the favourites was in week three . . . of the 1981 season.

Usually, when Minnesota sees Detroit coming up on the schedule, they can mark a win for that week. That is no longer true: Detroit has been improving at about the same rate that the Vikings have been disintegrating. They beat Tampa Bay at home in the season opener, then hung a vicious 48-3 beating on the Kansas City Chiefs last weekend. They’re coming in at 2-0, while the Vikings are 0-2 having blown halftime leads in both games so far this season.

Judd Zulgad, now with ESPN1500.com, thinks that a Vikings loss this week means the team will have to accept that they’re in rebuilding mode — that the current team is on the downward slide and no quick fixes are available.

It’s going to be very hard for Frazier to reverse course now and tell anyone that it’s time to look to the future. He already convinced his players that he is all in and it’s very difficult (almost unfair) to ask any coach to give up on a season.

That means Spielman would be the logical candidate to be the bad guy and set in motion a rebuilding process that could land a top-five draft pick. Spielman doesn’t have the general manager title but he is the guy that must take the long-term view of what’s best for this franchise.

A loss to the Lions means the Vikings must begin thinking about when first-round pick Christian Ponder will be ready to replace Donovan McNabb at quarterback and when other personnel changes might make the most sense.

The Ponder for McNabb swap is the obvious one — and should only be done when there is a belief that Ponder is ready to take over — but there are other veterans who could be replaced in 2011 with an eye on making sure a younger player is ready to go in 2012.

[. . .]

It also would become important to begin plucking talent off the waiver wire each week, meaning a once valuable veteran might have to be shown the door. This approach would mean sacrificing a few potential and meaningless victories in the name of upgrading the roster for the future.

None of this would be pleasant for Frazier or anyone else associated with the Vikings franchise in the short term, but in the long run it likely would be the quickest and most efficient way to get back on track.

Powered by WordPress