b81402941420709608dff077c1c5f92f
165541f49426eff4cd96bfa492236eee
165541f49426eff4cd96bfa492236eee
b81402941420709608dff077c1c5f92f
Taming the oil price
For the foreseeable future, the world will need oil, but its price volatility makes buying and selling it a challenge for producers and the myriad manufacturers who need it. For brokers who sit in the middle of such transactions, finding the optimal price and the number of clients to spread their risk is one of their biggest challenges. Belleh Fontem, a senior researcher in operations and information systems at the University of Massachusetts, USA, has designed a mathematical programme that embraces oil price volatility. The results could have far-reaching consequences.
One of the main benefits of a highly networked global economy is the sheer scale of access to products and services. On the flip side, being so interwoven, that network is at the mercy of impactful events anywhere within it. Witness the effects when the Ever Given, one of the world’s biggest container ships, blocked the
Genome Architecture Theory shakes up cancer research
It’s an inconvenient truth that after 50 years of concerted research and untold billions of dollars in funding every year, a cure for cancer remains elusive. Perhaps the problem sits with the conventional view of cancer. Henry H. Heng, a professor of molecular medicine at the Wayne State School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, suggests we need to see the bigger picture and even rethink our understanding of evolution. His Genome Architecture Theory is telling and provocative, which is why it’s attracting interest from an unlikely collaborator who sees progress in disruption.
It’s probably true that every person who has lost a loved one to cancer has wondered at some point why there isn’t a cure. It’s a fair point, given the tens of thousands of scientists who have spent endless hours and billions of dollars in cancer research every year for over 50 years.
Talk radio station 702 is wrong to believe presenters need to be a certain race
Radio station 702’s recent relaunch is a desperate attempt to find a foothold in a crumbling legacy media landscape. It’s quixotic so long as the station holds dear outdated ideas about programming and the media consumer.
The legacy media landscape may be under stress, but talk radio has an advantage over music radio, which is battling advert-free streaming services for the attention of music lovers. Talk radio’s disadvantage is that its presenters cost more to feed than the digital programming software behind music radio. So, talk radio stations need the right people to attract listers.
702 believes these people need to be of a certain colour. In a recent interview in the Sunday Times, Primedia Broadcasting acting CEO Geraint Crwys-Williams admitted to failures at the station but waxed lyrical about the shifting racial profile of its presenters, as if racial diversity is
I’m afraid it’s not that simple
Much has been said about what scientists have said about Covid-19; but all that must be examined against one of the bothersome things about science: its mind-boggling complexity.
[An extract from Tim Noakes: The Quiet Maverick]
Scientific knowledge comes with caveats: it is at best incomplete, at worst wrong, most likely somewhere in-between. At issue is the scope and complexity of the subject matter (our natural world), the robustness demanded of the way we examine it (the scientific method), the demands, frailties and idiosyncrasies of those implementing it (the scientists), and the resultant disconnects, which are euphemistically referred to as ‘dodgy science’.
Let’s dig deeper into the issue of complexity. If you ever find yourself with a little time on your hands, I urge you to look up a paper titled ‘
Step up scientists
It’s time scientists step up, step out, and put a stop to this catalogue of bullshit.
Scientists are a measured bunch, probably because their careers involve measuring. But those careers are themselves measured, not only in research output but also the impact of that research.
Scientists are also measured in the language they use. They’re generally cautious, sticking to supporting their statements with quantitive evidence - “In our research, 21% of respondents were shown to…” That type of thing. They prefer not to step out of their comfort zone of measured responses.
Right now we need scientists to stop doing that, and to start speaking with a commoner’s tongue. The media is awash with all manner of bizarre claims about Covid-19, and in the absence of firm, authoritative correction, those claims are taking root in the minds of people desperate for
Dark times ahead
We haven’t seen the full effect of Covid-19 yet, and when we do, fingers of blame will hone in without due diligence.
I’m going to put my boot in. This thing’s not over; not by a long shot.
When lockdown is over and the coronavirus takes hold in densely-packed townships and informal settlements, running rampant amongst those denied the luxuries of isolation and working from home, it’s going to enjoy its second breath.
And when people start dying by the dozens, even hundreds - and they will - South Africans will look for someone to blame. Social media has thrown up potential candidates: whites or ‘the rich’ - the two terms are apparently interchangeable.
But surely, that wouldn’t happen? After all, such claims are irrational.
The gossamer wisdom of ‘they’
How can I tell if you’re spreading fake news about Covid-19?
Simple. I ask you one question: Have you ever commented about Covid-19 using the phrase ‘They say that…’? If you have, then, sorry, but you’re probably guilty.
If someone comments with some measure of authority on something using the phrase ‘They say that…’, and I’m within earshot, my reaction is to ask, “Sorry, who are ‘they’?”. It irritates my wife, who I suspect continues to use the phrase simply to return the favour.
There’s a reason for my pernickety inquisition: In journalism, significant value is placed on the credibility of the source of any story or comment within a story. It’s why journalists are very protective of their sources.
If, say, a story breaks about some cutting-edge research, and I have the lead researcher on
What you’re not told about Covid-19 infections
Right now, numbers of infected persons are being bandied about in news media as part of the breathless coverage of Covid-19. Those numbers are meaningless without context.
Let me explain. If the media report, say, 500 Covid-19 infections, my first reaction as a science journalist is to ask how many people were tested. It’s an issue of maths and basic logic.
If, say, 100 people are tested and ten of those test positive, the only thing we can deduce is that ten people - or 10% - of those tested, at the moment they were tested, were positive. That’s it. We can’t extrapolate it to a broader population.
Let’s say a week later, the number of people tested positive is now 20; has the rate of infection doubled? Not necessarily. It depends on how many people were tested. If, to get