4 ms·
I'm so extraordinarily sick of "Computer Simulations <whatever>" being reported with any real credibility as though the Computer Simulation part means accuracy.
by crusso 13y ago
I'm so extraordinarily sick of "Computer Simulations <whatever>" being reported with any real credibility as though the Computer Simulation part means accuracy.
Sadly, the public can't tell the difference between "Computer Simulations Predict Aerodynamic Qualities of a Porche 911" and "Computer Simulations Show Where Noah's Ark Landed".
This article and simulation looks halfway between the two examples above... maybe closer to the Noah's Ark one.
- fusiongyro 13y agoP'shaw, we all know Noah's Ark is up on Mt. Ararat on Armenian land politically owned by Turkey.
- moomin 13y agoWell they do if they've read Declare anyway. Not enough people properly appreciate the Kim Philby connection.
- malandrew 13y agoYup. Computer simulations like many other tools of understanding are at best a lever for the mind. It will multiply feats of both intelligence and stupidity.
- vacri 13y agoIt reminds me of those shows that pit ninjas against vikings - "computer simulations show a -foo- would win. We ran it ten times and the ninja won 7 of them!". You've got to have a lot of faith that the designers of the simulation knew what they were talking about in minute detail. Just eyeballing their graphs, I would say their model is doing better at predicting areas weighted by soil fertility and temperate lattitudes. It's missing some giant areas from the data graph. Also, without defining what they mean when they say 'civilisation', it's pretty worthless for any real work.