Francis Windram

While AI can be really helpful for coding, I have seen a serious uptick in stupid UI fuckups in the last few years which I do strongly suspect is related. Today I found #1 an insurance form that just didn't work and didn't save quotes. #2 A "message us" button that does nothing. But best of all...

Or...I suppose...they're facing such catastrophic cuts that the concepts of unit testing and basic QA are either completely ignored or are again replaced by AI that fundamentally gets it wrong. If my code simply doesn't work, my paper might get retracted or my package removed...

While AI can be really helpful for coding, I have seen a serious uptick in stupid UI fuckups in the last few years which I do strongly suspect is related. Today I found #1 an insurance form that just didn't work and didn't save quotes. #2 A "message us" button that does nothing. But best of all...

An #rstats question for package developers: If my package maintains a cache to minimise data downloads, is it sensible/preferred to put an automatic cache cleaner (delete anything older than x days) in .onLoad, or to just mostly leave cache maintenance to the user (with appropriate helpers)?

I struggle with this because on one side I don't like doing things under a user's nose, but on the other I really don't like the idea of just eating up space on a user's drive until they interact with the cache-maintenance helpers (which they may not find).

Things that you as a data scientist can replace the term "artificial intelligence" with in stupid marketing text to stop your brain detonating E.g. "We will use advanced methods such as <BLANK> to track sewage spills." - Basic regression models - Interns - The CEO's best guess - An actual fish ...

- Scattered pages of notes - Balls dropped from height onto pieces of paper - High school science demonstrations - Twitch chat messages - Numerology - The wikipedia game - Syncretic religious beliefs - Arcane and disturbing incantations - Ants - Foreign influence campaigns - Community shaming

Things that you as a data scientist can replace the term "artificial intelligence" with in stupid marketing text to stop your brain detonating E.g. "We will use advanced methods such as <BLANK> to track sewage spills." - Basic regression models - Interns - The CEO's best guess - An actual fish ...

Right, with the advent of the recent government whitepaper "Restoring Control Over the Immigration System" (which already has some pretty loaded language in the title), it's worthwhile looking a bit at some of the detail of the student section. It's some "interesting" statistics presentation.

In 100. the authors unintentionally spell out the reasoning for these increased visa numbers: uncapped master's degree tuition fees (see above). They also cynically fail to acknowledge the ~85% fall in dependants between 2023 and 2024. Point 101 is a nothingburger and I won't waste your time.

Right, with the advent of the recent government whitepaper "Restoring Control Over the Immigration System" (which already has some pretty loaded language in the title), it's worthwhile looking a bit at some of the detail of the student section. It's some "interesting" statistics presentation.

This is very cynical, as it is purely the opinion of the authors that students are using the asylum system in this way, but they present it as fact. It's manipulative, dangerous anti-immigration rhetoric. Again the authors should be ashamed. If you are in policy, endeavour to do better than this.

Right, with the advent of the recent government whitepaper "Restoring Control Over the Immigration System" (which already has some pretty loaded language in the title), it's worthwhile looking a bit at some of the detail of the student section. It's some "interesting" statistics presentation.

Additionally, graduate visas only commenced in their current form in January 2021, so this graph could be considered misleading as this point is not highlighted. Also when a government introduces a visa, it is expected that said visa will be used? You can't then use that as an argument against them.

Right, with the advent of the recent government whitepaper "Restoring Control Over the Immigration System" (which already has some pretty loaded language in the title), it's worthwhile looking a bit at some of the detail of the student section. It's some "interesting" statistics presentation.

In 100. the authors unintentionally spell out the reasoning for these increased visa numbers: uncapped master's degree tuition fees (see above). They also cynically fail to acknowledge the ~85% fall in dependants between 2023 and 2024. Point 101 is a nothingburger and I won't waste your time.

Right, with the advent of the recent government whitepaper "Restoring Control Over the Immigration System" (which already has some pretty loaded language in the title), it's worthwhile looking a bit at some of the detail of the student section. It's some "interesting" statistics presentation.

In 98, the government deliberately and specifically fails to mention the distinct fall in student visas issued in 2024 (down by 100,000 from the peak in 2023). Also this graph commits the sin of having two y axes in different units at different scales. Whoever created this plot should be ashamed.

The report released today by the Tony Blair institute is one of the most cynical, least scientific, and most poorly-written reports I have ever seen about climate change. I'm not exactly surprised that there is no climate scientist willing to put their name on it anywhere, but I am disappointed.

Not a single interview by the BBC (for example) with a leading climate scientist. Not a single assertion of the established and tested fact of climate change and its drivers. This is dire reporting on top of the report being atrocious. Laughable "policy" being reported by laughable "journalism".

The report released today by the Tony Blair institute is one of the most cynical, least scientific, and most poorly-written reports I have ever seen about climate change. I'm not exactly surprised that there is no climate scientist willing to put their name on it anywhere, but I am disappointed.

It is chock full of the latest buzzwords and thin on any real rigour (gotta tell people to use AI to optimise energy systems [somehow], but we won't address the carbon cost inherent in using AI). There are only 35 citations for the whole thing, of which only 2 are relevant papers.

The report released today by the Tony Blair institute is one of the most cynical, least scientific, and most poorly-written reports I have ever seen about climate change. I'm not exactly surprised that there is no climate scientist willing to put their name on it anywhere, but I am disappointed.