Better logic, more stats about reported casualties in Afghanistan

Susan Simpson checked on reports of various numbers of civilians killed and made a graph.

Still, any effect is a small one. The real question here is what on earth is going on with the number 7? And, to a lesser extent, 21? I know this survey is far from perfect, but the google returns for 7 deaths are so far out from the rest of the data set that it is hard to believe it is merely a random fluke. Looking at the Google results provides no obvious clues to explain the difference.

The number 21 also has an oddly high number of reports. This is a bit counter-intuitive, as if there was an attempt by the PR machine to make the numbers more appealing, I would guess that they would aim for 18 or 19 instead — you know, the old salesman’s trick of setting the price at $19.99.

I wish I had something clever to say here about what might be going on, but I don’t. Still, if we are going to be questioning the accuracy of military civilian death counts, the alleged ubiquity of the number 30 may be a red herring — 7 and 21 seem like much more promising anamolies to investigate.

There's at least one problem with the graph-- the vertical axis is number of google hits rather than number of uniquie accounts. I don't know whether a few stories which are interesting enough to get linked more could be causing the anomalies. I also don't know whether a statistician would say that blips are to be expected if the situation was random.

in any case, View from LL2, Security Crank, and Moon of Alabama seem to be part of a community that's trying to figure out what's going on, and I'm planning add it to my blog reading list.

Better logic, more stats about reported casualties in Afghanistan

Susan Simpson checked on reports of various numbers of civilians killed and made a graph.

Still, any effect is a small one. The real question here is what on earth is going on with the number 7? And, to a lesser extent, 21? I know this survey is far from perfect, but the google returns for 7 deaths are so far out from the rest of the data set that it is hard to believe it is merely a random fluke. Looking at the Google results provides no obvious clues to explain the difference.

The number 21 also has an oddly high number of reports. This is a bit counter-intuitive, as if there was an attempt by the PR machine to make the numbers more appealing, I would guess that they would aim for 18 or 19 instead — you know, the old salesman’s trick of setting the price at $19.99.

I wish I had something clever to say here about what might be going on, but I don’t. Still, if we are going to be questioning the accuracy of military civilian death counts, the alleged ubiquity of the number 30 may be a red herring — 7 and 21 seem like much more promising anamolies to investigate.

There's at least one problem with the graph-- the vertical axis is number of google hits rather than number of uniquie accounts. I don't know whether a few stories which are interesting enough to get linked more could be causing the anomalies. I also don't know whether a statistician would say that blips are to be expected if the situation was random.

in any case, View from LL2, Security Crank, and Moon of Alabama seem to be part of a community that's trying to figure out what's going on, and I'm planning add it to my blog reading list.

Slightly futuristic cooking

Some time ago, I read a delightfully geeky chapter in Harold McGee's The Curious Cook (1992 edition) about poaching meat. There was plenty about the difficulty of finding a thermometer that read in the right range (about 132F, iirc) and using engineering info about heat transfer in flat triangles (iirc, a homogeneous cut of pork) to get the cooking time right.

Fast forward a decade and a half, and we have an NYTimes article about a home Sous Vide ($449) for cooking at exact sub-boiling temperatures. The process is slow but doesn't require nearly as much ongoing attention as most cooking does and can produce very good results, some of them probably not attainable by other methods.

Unfortunately, the first link just gives a sketch of setting up the business. There's nothing about why it's so hard to control temperature that tightly.

On the less expensive side, there's the Sous Vide Cooking Controller for $139. You supply the heating element, it supplies the precision. I don't know if it's as satisfactory for something like cooking a whole chicken.

Sous Vide (which means "under vacuum"-- the food is in a vacuum-sealed plastic bag while it's being cooked) backs up a notion of mine-- that there can be a lot of technological advance just by thinking about the science and engineering we already know. I bet there are lots of innovations as good as the invention of left and right shoes just waiting to be made.

I found out about sous vide from Noodle Food. I have no idea whether pasta should be sous vided.

A history of sous vide, with a little about compressing food (sounds like a good idea for watermelon, which I've always thought was too watery) and extreme freezing (get your decadent sour cream brittle on the bottom and room temp on the top).

And you can get a Molecular Gastronomy Starter Kit from ThinkGeek.

On the much less practical side, how to cook a turkey in 30 seconds: with thermite. Don't try this indoors.

I can't remember where I saw the link. I think the memory was burnt away.

Slightly futuristic cooking

Some time ago, I read a delightfully geeky chapter in Harold McGee's The Curious Cook (1992 edition) about poaching meat. There was plenty about the difficulty of finding a thermometer that read in the right range (about 132F, iirc) and using engineering info about heat transfer in flat triangles (iirc, a homogeneous cut of pork) to get the cooking time right.

Fast forward a decade and a half, and we have an NYTimes article about a home Sous Vide ($449) for cooking at exact sub-boiling temperatures. The process is slow but doesn't require nearly as much ongoing attention as most cooking does and can produce very good results, some of them probably not attainable by other methods.

Unfortunately, the first link just gives a sketch of setting up the business. There's nothing about why it's so hard to control temperature that tightly.

On the less expensive side, there's the Sous Vide Cooking Controller for $139. You supply the heating element, it supplies the precision. I don't know if it's as satisfactory for something like cooking a whole chicken.

Sous Vide (which means "under vacuum"-- the food is in a vacuum-sealed plastic bag while it's being cooked) backs up a notion of mine-- that there can be a lot of technological advance just by thinking about the science and engineering we already know. I bet there are lots of innovations as good as the invention of left and right shoes just waiting to be made.

I found out about sous vide from Noodle Food. I have no idea whether pasta should be sous vided.

A history of sous vide, with a little about compressing food (sounds like a good idea for watermelon, which I've always thought was too watery) and extreme freezing (get your decadent sour cream brittle on the bottom and room temp on the top).

And you can get a Molecular Gastronomy Starter Kit from ThinkGeek.

On the much less practical side, how to cook a turkey in 30 seconds: with thermite. Don't try this indoors.

I can't remember where I saw the link. I think the memory was burnt away.