A post partly about big cars started off with a factual error. Why I bother to correct a post in which the author essentially boasts about ignoring data not once, but twice, I don’t know. Blind obsession with truth?
I offer a suggestion for improving a graph at Junk Charts.
The Intersection asks if inaccurate coverage is better than no coverage. It depends, but I point out that we may not get a choice in the matter.
The Lay Scientist exposes a hoax about a study purporting a correlation between breast size in women and IQ. I mention that I heard this claim long before the hoax article they found was printed.
I’ve been very fortunate to have people comment positively on my Better Posters blog. But the recommendation at Astrodicticum Simplex was the first that required me to use Google’s language tools to make sure it was, in fact, a recommendation.
At Slides that Stick, I get purist about data displays – in this case, tilting maps.
Martin Fenner on Goobledygook talks about those fancy article level metrics, and I shamelessly plug a post here about them.
The Usable Learning blog talks about seeing games everywhere, something I’ve discussed.
Evo.sphere claimed that the U.S. in the only country in the world that does not have its K-12 curriculum set nationally. I point out that this is incorrect; Canada is much like the U.S. in this regard.
Adventures in Ethics and Science has a case of plagiarism and an unresponsive editor. I suggest editors often have bosses they must answer to.
Bunchbery & Fern blog has a post that makes a point about cognitive load with an unusual picture. I take a stab at guessing what point it’s illustrating.
At Dr. Becca’s blog On the Market: Fumbling Towards Tenure-Track, I share some advice about what I’ve seen on search committees. Note to those who want tenure-track jobs: Don’t ignore the teaching aspect of the job.
At There and (Hopefully) Back Again, I put in a little thought on what a supervisor’s responsibility is.
No comments:
Post a Comment