
America’s Last Top Model - panic
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/americas-last-top-model/
======
supahfly_remix
On a related note, there is a model of the Bay Area by the US Army Corp of
Engineers located in Sausalito:

[http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Recreation/Bay-
Model-...](http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Recreation/Bay-Model-
Visitor-Center/)

~~~
robotmlg
Ah, I remember this model from the episode of Mythbusters where they escape
from Alcatraz. They used the model to test potential routes across the bay.

------
csours
I don't have a source, but someone said that we don't crash cars for
crashworthiness, we crash cars to validate the computer models we have for
crashworthiness.

I don't completely agree with that statement, but I do think it's interesting.

~~~
hammock
That's a classic example of Goodhart's law. Regulations call for extremely
specific tests to measure crashworthiness, so vehicles are engineered to pass
those tests (front-end impact with a specific wall shape at a specific
velocity and angle, etc), so they get a "five star crash rating" but at the
expense of real-world crash performance.

~~~
Xylakant
What else could regulations call for than a defined set of tests? You need
comparability between tests or the tests are worthless when it comes to
informing customers. Real world crashes differ wildly, so it's impossible to
use those as a measure. There are also many different crash tests carried out
around the globe and a car performing well in many of those will perform well
in the real world.

~~~
csours
Use a defined set of tests _along with_ real world metrics. [1]

Ensure your tests match reality as close as possible.

Ensure you test for the most important events found in the real world. In the
case of crash tests, make sure you test for crashes that often cause death or
serious injury.

Real world metrics get really tricky and expensive, but when speaking about
life and safety, it's probably important enough to measure.

It's also very important to be smart about measurement and reporting of
events, statistics, and trends.

1\.
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ws/the_importance_of_goodharts_law/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ws/the_importance_of_goodharts_law/)

~~~
Xylakant
But that's exactly what happens: crash tests get validated against real world
accidents and refined all the time.

~~~
csours
Is that a problem? That sounds like a solution... but it's a continuous
solution, not a solution that you apply once and forget about.

------
fovc
Surpising that these physical models can outperform computers! I would have
thought surface tension and gravity would mess up the scaling in the physical
model. Is the problem in computer simulations that we don't have the
equations, or that we don't have the computing power?

~~~
b_emery
We have the equations, its the computing power that is the limiting factor.
You can do a full DNS (direct numerical simulation) of fluids on the order of
a few cubic meters. That will simulate flow to the particle, and fully
turbulent, with Reynolds numbers (Re) on the order of 10^6 (IIRC). Re goes up
proportional to length scale, so if you want to do a km or so, multiply this
by 10^2.

This is way ocean models parameterize turbulence (large eddy simulations
(LES), and Reynolds Averaged Numerical Simulation (RANS) for example). It's
also why observational oceanography is still done.

~~~
pdm55
I was recently at an applied maths seminar. The speaker had been working on
the main "over the horizon" radar in Australia for over 40 years. It was
amazing to me that he could map ocean currents with radar!

------
FussyZeus
Be awesome to see someone buy up the derelict Mississippi one and turn it into
a mini golf course or something. Sad to see so much work going to waste.

Absolutely fascinating in any case. I had heard about the one New York used
previously, didn't know there was ever a model of that scale.

------
lubesGordi
I've wondered for a while about how good computer models can be when modelling
complex systems. We can't model water flow well, what fundamentally
differentiates this from modelling climate?

------
itissid
Another comparable flood was the 2008 Kosi flood in india[1]. It must be as
hard, if not harder, to simulate a river like that because of factors like
gradient shifts as the river merges into Ganga and tectonic forces.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshi_River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshi_River)

------
ableal
> “The physical model will stimulate the processes on its own,” says Gibson.

Probably a typo, s/stimulate/simulate

------
golemotron
The is the most egregiously clickbait title I've ever run across.

~~~
dag11
This is not what clickbait is. For those unfamiliar with 99PI, this is a thing
they do with all of their episode titles. They're often a pun of some sort,
and make the subject of the episode a fun surprise which is made apparent at
the start.

One of my favorite titles is "Reefer Madness", which is about refrigerated
shipping containers – a.k.a. reefers.

~~~
slazaro
Yet, wouldn't you agree that it's a bit deceptive? I'd bet I wasn't the only
one to click expecting something completely different.

~~~
arrrg
And that’s a problem … because?

I get that clarity can be a goal, but it’s not the only goal worth achieving.
Clear and unambiguous titles aren’t some self-evidently true virtue,
especially not in a medium like podcasts, especially not with a podcast like
99PI that’s very much about storytelling.

I do agree that for the medium of Hacker News ambiguous titles aren’t optimal,
but 99PI has not special obligation to optimize its titles for Hacker News.
Here I would rather have Hacker News adapt the title than wanting 99PI to
change it.

I dislike the “clickbait” accusation very much. It’s so lazy. “Clickbait” is
really not the only reason that can lead to ambiguous titles, far from it.

Also, I enjoy ambiguous and creative titles, especially from someone I already
trust to put out great content (like 99PI). Under those circumstances I
honestly fail to see the problem and if there is a problem then it’s that the
title isn’t optimal in circumstances where clarity is a virtue, but under
those circumstances it seems better to just manually adjust the title or to
add a little abstract instead of wanting 99PI to change.

~~~
golemotron
> I dislike the “clickbait” accusation very much. It’s so lazy. “Clickbait” is
> really not the only reason that can lead to ambiguous titles, far from it.

But it leads to more clicks, doesn't it? You're saying that they don't have
that intention?

~~~
dpark
Isn't that the intention of every article title? Is everything clickbait?

~~~
golemotron
Only the deceptive ones.

~~~
arrrg
Aka a creative subversion of expectations.

There are more than one ways to view this. Also, to me something is not
clickbait if the actual content might be different from what I expected, but
just as interesting or maybe even more interesting.

