Archive for spams

email footprint

Posted in Travel, University life with tags , , , , , on September 14, 2019 by xi'an

While I was wondering (im Salzburg) at the carbon impact of sending emails with an endless cascade of the past history of exchanges and replies, I found this (rather rudimentary) assessment  that, while standard emails had an average impact of 4g, those with long attachments could cost 50g, quoting from Burners-Lee, leading to the fairly astounding figure of an evaluated impact of 1.6 kg a day or more than half a ton per year! Quite amazing when considering that a round flight Paris-Birmingham is producing 80kg. Hence justifying a posteriori my habit of removing earlier emails when replying to them. (It takes little effort to do so, especially in mailers where this feature can be set as the default option.)

 

[h]it figures

Posted in Books, pictures with tags , , , , , on June 1, 2014 by xi'an

Just a few figures from wordpress about the ‘Og:

  • 2,845 posts;
  • 1,009,428 views;
  • 5,115 comments;
  • 5,095 tags;
  • 470,427 spam comments;
  • 1,001 spams in the past 24 hours;
  • and… only 5 amazon orders in the past month!

can you help?

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on October 12, 2013 by xi'an

An email received a few days ago:

Can you help me answering my query about AIC and DIC?

I want to compare the predictive power of a non Bayesian model (GWR, Geographically weighted regression) and a Bayesian hierarchical model (spLM).
For GWR, DIC is not defined, but AIC is.
For  spLM, AIC is not defined, but DIC is.

How can I compare the predictive ability of these two models? Does it make sense to compare AIC of one with DIC of the other?

I did not reply as the answer is in the question: the numerical values of AIC and DIC do not compare. And since one estimation is Bayesian while the other is not, I do not think the predictive abilities can be compared. This is not even mentioning my reluctance to use DIC…as renewed in yesterday’s post.

someone who might benefit from increased contacts with the statistical community

Posted in Books, Statistics with tags , , , , , on July 23, 2012 by xi'an

A (kind of automated) email I got today:

Your name has come to our attention as someone who might benefit from increased contacts with the international statistical community. Given your professional interests and your statistical background (noting your publication ‘Reading Keynes’ Treatise on Probability’ in the journal International Statistical Review, volume 79, 2011), you should consider elected membership in the International Statistical Institute (ISI).

Hmmm, thanks but no thanks, I am not certain I need become a member of the ISI to increase my contacts with the international statistical community! (Disclaimer: This post makes fun of the anonymous emailing, not of the ISI!)

a new type of spam?

Posted in University life with tags , , , on June 14, 2012 by xi'an

Here is an email I received on Monday and which left me quite puzzled:

I found the information on your blog about reviewer’s credits insightful as I was scouring the web for research on historical topics that are relevant to issues in nursing today. Through my research, I’ve found that there has been a trend towards taking on greater responsibilities and autonomy within the nursing community. A growing number of nurses today hold graduate and doctorate degrees, requiring more education in areas such as biochemistry.

I’d love to write a post for you that perhaps blends this topic with something deeper you are interested in for your blog. What do you think? Thanks, and I really look forward to hearing froam you.

I frankly see no connection between this post on reviewer’s credits and nursing… On the other hand, I do not see why anyone would want to publish a post on nursing on my blog…and what they would gain from it!