A Present I Made For My Dear Friend @ave-puella.  You May Recognize It As A Short Temeraire Fic She

At first glance this seemed pretty outrageous to me. It just so happens that it was at the intersection of two of my great passions, computer science and manuscript studies (one of which I have a career in), so I was super interested to read the study being referenced. After having done so this seems like a pretty standard case of "scientists propose new methodology and speculate on possible results, media reports those possible results as fact, everyone yells at scientists".

(Turns out I have a lot of Feelings about this, so, uh... here’s a read more?)

Nowhere in the study to the researchers make any claim at having cracked Voynich. All they conclude is that, "The application of our methods to the Voynich manuscript suggests that it may represent Hebrew, or another abjad script, with the letters rearranged to follow a fixed order". They're super clear about the fact that all they found was a suggestion, open to interpretation - "The results presented in this section could be interpreted either as tantalizing clues for Hebrew as the source language of the VMS, or simply as artifacts of the combinatorial power of anagramming and language models".

These researchers are computer scientists, and the study is about computer science. It is mostly an examination of the accuracy of various algorithms, with a section on what happened when they applied the method to Voynich. Getting into a discussion of Medieval Hebrew is outside of their scope (and probably the scope of their funding), so they pass their results on to other experts, saying, "In any case, the output of an algorithmic decipherment of a noisy input can only be a starting point for scholars that are well-versed in the given language and historical period."

This is where lines from the linked Times of Israel like, "Why the Canadians didn’t tap a Hebrew linguist to shore up their claims is confounding to many in academia" really seem off base. First of all, they didn't make any claims, they suggested a possibility. And passing their results on to let experts in other fields run with them is a great way to do science.

And lines like "Like others before them, I think the authors have gone public too early. You can’t declare victory when your proposal, one, isn’t reproducible and, two, doesn’t result in a decryption that makes sense" seem to straight up undermine what I think is a really cool way for academia to function. Skipping over the statement about declaring victory, going public is a great thing to do! It lets other people be inspired by your work and take it in new directions. Jealously hoarding research is really bad for everyone.

I get that "New Methodology in Deciphering Unknown Scripts Proposed" is way less interesting than "Scientists Crack Famous Medival Enigma Using Google Translate Instead of a Medieval Hebrew Scholar". But these researchers did really interesting work and were diligently scientific. We owe them the same when responding. Instead it seems like no one responding even bothered to read the study.

And honestly? This misses all the really interesting stuff that was in the study! Their algorithim is actually really cool and exciting! They managed to get really good results decoding texts where they didn't know the language or the script. And then they did that on texts where they didn't know if there were vowels! AND THEN they did that on texts where they letters might have been scrambled! Friends, that is so cool and exciting!! It makes me want to go try their methods on Linear A RIGHT NOW!

To bring this back to manuscript studies, this is a great example of how important primary sources are. If you read the responses to this study you get a wildly different picture (presented with confidence) than if you consult the text. This is part of why I get so excited about manuscript digitization - not having to rely on transcriptions and commentaries is really important (plus manuscripts are pretty!).

And on a broader scale, this way that the media commonly reports on scientific studies as unequivocal facts scares me. When you remove all the uncertainty and proposals for further research from these findings, they naturally seem absurd and contradictory. I worry that this can undermine people's confidence in what science can tell us. We can change how science is reported on with our responses.

Using AI to uncover the mystery of the Voynich manuscript - Medievalists.net

Modern scientific methods help decipher language and meaning of medieval manuscript.

Short answer is that each tab is its own process. Since different processes get their own chunk of memory they can use and can't change anything outside of their chunk, this prevents tabs from altering each other. As you can imagine the security implications of that would be Bad.

Not only are you yelling at a poor mother and many adorable children, they've been guarding your house from spooky monsters you can't see this whole time!!

if any of you could tell me why task manager thinks i have 13 firefoxes open at once that would be great

Ooooooooh, @ave-puella added some closeups!  

A present I made for my dear friend @ave-puella.  You may recognize it as a short Temeraire fic she posted a little while back.  It’s done entirely by hand, and was my first time attempting borders and illumination.  I’m still figuring out gold leaf, but it was super fun to work with (there’s also some gold work on the border of the third page).  For those of you unfamiliar with the Temeraire universe, there are dragons, hence the second page border.

It was a heck of a lot of work, but was entirely worth it for her face and incredulous ‘what did you do?!’

Unfortunately for safety planners (but fortunately for arson fantasies) not all of the ISS is expected to vaporize in orbit. From NASA's ISS end of life FAQ:

Most station hardware is expected to burn up or vaporize during the intense heating associated with atmospheric re-entry, whereas some denser or heat-resistant components like truss sections are expected to survive re-entry and splash down within an uninhabited region of the ocean.  

What is left of the surviving components will be very hot and could certainly burn down the goat if placed next to it. The trouble here is that this scrap does not have predictable aerodynamic qualities and the atmosphere is a chaotic place. The debris field when the Russian station MIR was deorbited was 1500 km long and 100km wide. The American Skylab missed the target of the Pacific Ocean and dropped debris on Australia as a little whoopsie doodle. So hitting a target the size of the goat would sadly be imposible.

As for missing a target the size of a goat, NASA has concerns:

...a random re-entry cannot ensure that any surviving debris lands in a remote, unpopulated area. The risks to the population associated with an uncontrolled re-entry for space station are not acceptable.

They're still a little twitchy from the media response to that time they dropped debris on Australia I think.

theoretically if we convinced NASA to deorbit the international space station into gavle that would probably light the goat on fire

Wouldn't it burn up in the atmosphere?

                                                         Michel Ney

                                                  Marshal of France

                                                First Duc d'Elchingen

                                           First Prince de la Moskowa

                                 (January 10, 1769 – January 10, 2016)

                                              Happy 247th birthday!

Happy New Year everyone. Thank you so much to you all for taking an interest in my work. Over 3.9 million likes on 192 posts on @instagram in 2015. Over 1.4 million accounts following me across social media. Such big plans for my art career in 2016. It is daunting but I’m going to give it everything I’ve got. I hope 2016 is a great year for all of you. #2015bestnine #seblester #thankyou

[Image text: Say This! Not That! Unreal/insane, unbelievable/crazy, jerk/psycho, awful/stupid, bad/dumb, moody/bipolar, ridiculous/retarded, eccentric/mental case, dismantled/crippled, unruly/mad house]. Image by Upworthy. Read more at autistichoya.com.

Evangéliaire (Gospels), f. 21v, St. Gallen, Switzerland c. 875-900 via Bibliothèque nationale de France, Public Domain

This game is about bird lawyers in revolutionary france and thus is squarely at a major intersection of interests for like

70% of the  people i know on here