Preliminary findings of Richard Dasher from Stanford University’s US-Asia Technology Management Center & Amit Kapoor from Institute for Competitiveness, India, presented at govt event.
India needs to move from a discussion that is focused on generation of sludge to one that acknowledges how containment, disposal and end-use are equally necessary.
Research paper, however, finds lowest indebtedness level among Muslims at 12.3% & highest among Hindus at 14.9%. Overall national financial inclusion level at 87.2%, indebtedness at 14.7%.
Fresh details of operation conducted by IAF, Army have come out in gazette notification giving citations of those who were awarded Vir Chakra for their bravery.
On 21 Oct, a buzz went up that the govt had released full list of gallantry award recipients along with Op Sindoor citations. I put an AI caddy on the job. It took me into a never-ending rabbit hole.
Has theprint traded its journalists for AI bots? Not that there was a great margin to begin with, but the rapid and abysmal fall in standards of the reports makes one doubt that nothing beyond “copy and publish” is expected from the brain numbed zombies manning the reporting and editorial staff. What is the value of this article? Does it provide adequate information about the headline claims? Does it provide any background check? Does it provide any context regarding biological versus physical portability of water? Does it provide any nuance regarding the use of TDS to refute a previous report on Fecal Coliform Count when the two things obviously measures different aspects of the quality of water? What value has the reporter or the editorial staff added to this article? An immediate course correction is the order of the day.
1) AFAICT, TDS does not measure faecal coliform or similar bacteria, not even indirectly. There are completely different tests for the latter. So good TDS does not fully refute the CPCB report.
2) What tests were done using what instruments are unknown because the report is neither linked by this reporter nor available on the Institute of Competitiveness website. Based on the article, it looks like only TDS tests were done.
3) Reporter has failed to get the Stanford person’s views. Also, “white academic from reputed western university” is a trope to establish the credibility of the report.
However the trope works only because most of us assume that academics from reputed western universities are honest and incorruptible to money or ideology. But a Harvard ethics professor fabricated data; so did Stanford’s former president, a reputed neuroscientist; another Stanford professor included hallucinated citations generated by AI chatbots without verifying them; several Harvard professors have been accused of plagiarism.
It’s up to us, the average reader, not to fall for this appeal to authority trope.
4) The reporter has failed to get even the basic facts checked by one or two Indian researchers either. Does good TDS mean no coliform? Are the instruments used acceptable? Nothing at all.
5) Lastly, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the Indian academic community will step up and publicly refute or verify the claims. This is their domain of expertise. But they generally just sit silently. Probably, their religiosity also tends to discourage their scientific objectivity. Or they’re careerists. Whatever it is, a major reason for the spread of scientific and historic disinformation is that Indian academics just sit quiet. They don’t care to spread knowledge and truth even in semi-anonymous forums like these where there are relatively fewer risks.
Wow we actually need to take pride in this.
More than the population of entire countries packed in one city and managed so well.
There should be a case study
Has theprint traded its journalists for AI bots? Not that there was a great margin to begin with, but the rapid and abysmal fall in standards of the reports makes one doubt that nothing beyond “copy and publish” is expected from the brain numbed zombies manning the reporting and editorial staff. What is the value of this article? Does it provide adequate information about the headline claims? Does it provide any background check? Does it provide any context regarding biological versus physical portability of water? Does it provide any nuance regarding the use of TDS to refute a previous report on Fecal Coliform Count when the two things obviously measures different aspects of the quality of water? What value has the reporter or the editorial staff added to this article? An immediate course correction is the order of the day.
1) AFAICT, TDS does not measure faecal coliform or similar bacteria, not even indirectly. There are completely different tests for the latter. So good TDS does not fully refute the CPCB report.
2) What tests were done using what instruments are unknown because the report is neither linked by this reporter nor available on the Institute of Competitiveness website. Based on the article, it looks like only TDS tests were done.
3) Reporter has failed to get the Stanford person’s views. Also, “white academic from reputed western university” is a trope to establish the credibility of the report.
However the trope works only because most of us assume that academics from reputed western universities are honest and incorruptible to money or ideology. But a Harvard ethics professor fabricated data; so did Stanford’s former president, a reputed neuroscientist; another Stanford professor included hallucinated citations generated by AI chatbots without verifying them; several Harvard professors have been accused of plagiarism.
It’s up to us, the average reader, not to fall for this appeal to authority trope.
4) The reporter has failed to get even the basic facts checked by one or two Indian researchers either. Does good TDS mean no coliform? Are the instruments used acceptable? Nothing at all.
5) Lastly, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the Indian academic community will step up and publicly refute or verify the claims. This is their domain of expertise. But they generally just sit silently. Probably, their religiosity also tends to discourage their scientific objectivity. Or they’re careerists. Whatever it is, a major reason for the spread of scientific and historic disinformation is that Indian academics just sit quiet. They don’t care to spread knowledge and truth even in semi-anonymous forums like these where there are relatively fewer risks.
Wow we actually need to take pride in this.
More than the population of entire countries packed in one city and managed so well.
There should be a case study