The Kunich Korrection: A required skill for r.b.r. navigation

In article
.com
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Jun 17, 12:35 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:
A recent post by Tom Kunich (TK) clearly illustrates the need for
corrected estimates of post content by author. Specifically, TK
claimed to have been able to use a three-stage process to spin up a
53x15 gear to a cadence of 180 rpm (it is assumed that wheel size was
700c, though this is not specified). This equates to about 50 mph,
superior to the finest slightly-downhill sprint that Mario Cipollini
could produce in his heyday. For TK, this is par for the course (the
boast, not the actual achievement of claimed performance). After
illustrating the impossibility of the claim, r.b.r. veteran Carl
Sundquist showed fine skills, honed by voluminous TK experience, to
deduce that this realistically reduces to an actual performance of 120
rpm on the same gear, equivalent to a speed of 32 mph that one could
expect of a Cat 5 performance. (The alternate explanation, that TK
was using 469c wheels, seems much less likely, but cannot be entirely
ruled out). Though Carl did not label it as such, he has masterfully
applied the Kunich Korrection (KK). In this case:

KK = 120/180 = 67%.

This is a good starting value for quantitative TK posts, though it may
represent an upper bound. When given results are still implausible
using KK = 67%, KK's equivalent to 50%, 33%, or even 8% may be
appropriate. Further refinement of quantitative KK is necessary.
Thankfully, a vast backlog of data does exist.

The principles of KK can be extended to qualitative posts, though
judgment and experience are required. For example a TK post claiming

"I was a sharpshooter"

should be conservatively KK'ed to

"I have shot guns a few times"

or even liberally KK'ed to

"I have been in the same room as a gun, once."

Discussion:
Kunich Korrection (KK) is a powerful tool for extracting sense from
the hyperbole of TK posts. It assumes that there is always kernel of
truth in a TK post that can be estimated by careful discounting. KK =
67% is suggested as a good starting point for most quantitative posts,
though lower values may demonstrate their superiority as the technique
is refined. The principles of KK have been used by r.b.r. veterans
for years. The elucidation and naming of the technique, along with
the provision of worked examples, is hoped to benefit r.b.r.
journeymen and provide a shorthand that will streamline posts
exhibiting TK-associated deviations from rationality.

A yeoman-like workup, but without graphs, plotted data, footnotes and
a comprehensive bibliography you'll never get it published. Don't
worry about the bibliography - no one actually reads all of the books
they list and no one will check your sources.

Then we can apply a TK correction to all published
bibliographies. Sometimes I wonder if authors have read
their own cited works.

--
Michael Press

Bret wrote:

I like it. You can also apply it to TK's statements about others. If
Marco Polo sailed 67% of the way to the North Pole, that would put him
at 60 degrees or in the Bering Sea. Much more believable.

Isn't the North Pole named after the guy who discovered it?
Pole..Polo?
Seems conclusive to me.

ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:

It's more a of think piece. And it's already published.

But did it make the cover...?

wrote:
Utter crackpottery! I can't believe this made it past
the new RBR peer review system. The journals will
publish anything these days.

The rbr peer review board received a free case of 15% beer with the paper
and considered the paper quite credible when compared to their RAAM
inspired hallucinations.

On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
suppose that meant?

As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
rotation of the earth are not one and the same.

Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.

Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
Utter crackpottery! I can't believe this made it past
the new RBR peer review system. The journals will
publish anything these days.

The rbr peer review board received a free case of 15% beer with the paper
and considered the paper quite credible when compared to their RAAM
inspired hallucinations.


Oh sure, blame RAAM for our normal background of hallucinations. Not
like we typically need much "inspiration" there.

On Jun 18, 7:02 am, wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
suppose that meant?

As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
rotation of the earth are not one and the same.

Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.


Jackass -


Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
degrees but in the past it's been much greater.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jun 18, 9:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:02 am, wrote:

On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
suppose that meant?

As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
rotation of the earth are not one and the same.

Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.

Jackass -

Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
degrees but in the past it's been much greater.

Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT?

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 18, 9:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:02 am, wrote:

On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly
the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what
do you
suppose that meant?

As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
rotation of the earth are not one and the same.

Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.

Jackass -

Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
degrees but in the past it's been much greater.

Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT?

Are you really dumb, or do you just play one on the usenet?

On Jun 18, 2:51 pm, "Frank Drackman" wrote:
wrote in message
On Jun 18, 9:52 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:02 am, wrote:

On Jun 17, 9:09 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly
the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what
do you
suppose that meant?

As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
rotation of the earth are not one and the same.

Henry, stop confusing the issue by attempting to
argue with Kunich's whackjob theory on the merits
of the case.

It seems unlikely that Polo actually used a magnetic
compass for navigation or introduced it to Europe.
The Chinese had invented it by then but references to
its use for navigation postdate Marco Polo. Kunich,
perhaps you could point out where Polo mentions a
compass in his works:
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a3613

Now if you only had the ability to think beside read, perhaps one
could augment the other. But that's probably a dream in your case.

Jackass -

Right now the magnetic pole and the axis of rotation differ by eleven
degrees but in the past it's been much greater.

Ahem, 11 degrees of WHAT?

Are you really dumb, or do you just play one on the usenet?

No, no, Kunich has a point. Did the pole and the pole
differ by 11 degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius? There's a big
difference. Are we talking about the Medieval Warm Period
or the Medieval 110-in-the-Shade-in-Minsk Period?

Ben