A lot of people derive great benefit from recording, usually daily, the things that bring them joy or for which they are grateful. That isn’t something I do — at least not publicly — although I will sometimes jot down something along those lines as a reminder to future me. That may be because I am e...

There’s an internet refrain common when bad behaviour triumphs: this is why we can’t have nice things. I generally sympathise, but aside from trying to buy longer-lasting goods and mending when I can, I have not paid much attention to whether some things are, maybe, too nice.

Phil Gyford, having...

The launch of a new blog carnival was so exciting that I wrote my own summary, even though I was not the host. That job was very ably performed by Sara Jakša, who launched the carnival. The point of my roundup was to visit each of the sites and, by way of encouragement, send a webmention to each...

It turns out Kraft Dinner is tasty.

Who knew.

I too have never knowingly eaten Kraft Dinner, but I can say that the whole world knew, because that's what industrial food does, and does it well. Homemade mac and cheese is even tastier, usually, but more work.

But Peter Rukavina's point is...

In response to a fascinating article about Charles Babbage and the plantation management techniques that informed his calculating engines, Kevin Marks pointed to an earlier article about how eugenics shaped statistics that was every bit as interesting. I was familiar with some of the background to Galton, Pearson and Fisher but had not taken on board the extent to which “statistical significance” started life as a way of examining the homogeneity of human populations. Does that history negate its usefulness entirely?