Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for September 12th, 2020

Borgen and how men treat women

leave a comment »

“Borgen” was made 10 years ago, and a lot has happened in the post 10 years. I think people in general have become more sensitized to how women are too often treated badly by men. A cultural shift means the we see things from a new perspective.

To take a clear example from movies, the character portrayed by John Cusak in “Say Anything” (1989) and by Robert Downey, Jr. in “Only You” (1996) are both stalkers, and that aberration — stalking a woman of interest — was at the time of those movies still presented as “romantic,” though today it seems creepy and inappropriate (much like ignoring a woman repeatedly saying “No” and refusing to accept her stated wish that a man leave her alone).

In Borgen, we see repeated clear examples of behavior that today seems obviously transgressive, though it’s not clear whether the audience is intended to judge the behavior as such. Maybe the creators thought that was okay behavior? However, the inappropriateness is so overt that I believe the series does deliberately take the stance, “Look at how these men behave!” and offers us a look at such behavior from a more enlightened view.

At any rate, some of the behavior seems shocking to current norms and attitudes: men being presumptuous, condescending, arrogant, immature, and with a poor sense of boundaries and propriety. It’s not all the male characters, and even those who exhibit bad behavior differ in the degree of offense, but cringe-worthy behavior happens often enough and in enough situations that it does seem the series is making a comment.

Watch it and see what you think. It’s on Netflix.

Certainly I now cringe at some things I did years ago. What was I thinking? But perhaps that’s a good thing — a sign of progress, as when one reads something he wrote years ago and now sees it as very poorly written.

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 8:21 pm

Posted in Movies & TV

Cider from Salt Spring Island

leave a comment »

A nice bottle of local cider. We have several local cider houses. In addition to the above, there are Sea Cider and Merridale, both of whose ciders I have tasted. Merridale also makes spirits from their cider, and their gin is quite good. Sea Cider makes some very nice fortified ciders.

Perhaps I should refer to them as cideries, since they (obviously) their ciders are sold beyond their premises. But they do serve cider at the cidery.

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 6:44 pm

Posted in Drinks

Outfoxing WordPress

leave a comment »

WordPress has a problem with horizontal rules. It allows a blank line before a rule but not after, witht the result that the text following the rule is jammed against the rule.

Like this. See how the text is jammed against the bottom of the rule. That doesn’t look right.

If finally figured out a “solution” — the sort of solution someone found once (back in the old days of the IBM 1401 computer with a card reader) when a program bug caused the program to ignore the first card in the input deck. “Solution”: put a blank card at the front of the input deck.

My blank card is a line consisting solely of a single character. After typing the character, I press Shift-Enter to start a new line. Then I make the font color white (just for that character) so that it’s invisible.

Like this. Now the rule looks right. I used “x” as the character. Before I thought of changing the character’s font color I used “.” as the character, which was barely noticeable, but with the font color change, any character works.

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 11:28 am

Posted in WordPress

Facts v. Feelings: How to stop our emotions misleading us

leave a comment »

Tim Harford writes in the Guardian:

By the spring of 2020, the high stakes involved in rigorous, timely and honest statistics had suddenly become all too clear. A new coronavirus was sweeping the world. Politicians had to make their most consequential decisions in decades, and fast. Many of those decisions depended on data detective work that epidemiologists, medical statisticians and economists were scrambling to conduct. Tens of millions of lives were potentially at risk. So were billions of people’s livelihoods.

In early April, countries around the world were a couple of weeks into lockdown, global deaths passed 60,000, and it was far from clear how the story would unfold. Perhaps the deepest economic depression since the 1930s was on its way, on the back of a mushrooming death toll. Perhaps, thanks to human ingenuity or good fortune, such apocalyptic fears would fade from memory. Many scenarios seemed plausible. And that’s the problem.

An epidemiologist, John Ioannidis, wrote in mid-March that Covid-19 “might be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco”. The data detectives are doing their best – but they’re having to work with data that’s patchy, inconsistent and woefully inadequate for making life-and-death decisions with the confidence we would like.

Details of this fiasco will, no doubt, be studied for years to come. But some things already seem clear. At the beginning of the crisis, politics seem to have impeded the free flow of honest statistics. Although the claim is contested, Taiwan complained that in late December 2019 it had given important clues about human-to-human transmission to the World Health Organization – but as late as mid-January, the WHO was reassuringly tweeting that China had found no evidence of human-to-human transmission. (Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, because China claims sovereignty over the territory and demands that it should not be treated as an independent state. It’s possible that this geopolitical obstacle led to the alleged delay.)

Did this matter? Almost certainly; with cases doubling every two or three days, we will never know what might have been different with an extra couple of weeks of warning. It’s clear that many leaders took a while to appreciate the potential gravity of the threat. President Trump, for instance, announced in late February: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” Four weeks later, with 1,300 Americans dead and more confirmed cases in the US than any other country, Trump was still talking hopefully about getting everybody to church at Easter.

As I write, debates are raging. Can rapid testing, isolation and contact tracing contain outbreaks indefinitely, or merely delay their spread? Should we worry more about small indoor gatherings or large outdoor ones? Does closing schools help to prevent the spread of the virus, or do more harm as children go to stay with vulnerable grandparents? How much does wearing masks help? These and many other questions can be answered only by good data about who has been infected, and when.

But in the early months of the pandemic, a vast number of infections were not being registered in official statistics, owing to a lack of tests. And the tests that were being conducted were giving a skewed picture, being focused on medical staff, critically ill patients, and – let’s face it – rich, famous people. It took several months to build a picture of how many mild or asymptomatic cases there are, and hence how deadly the virus really is. As the death toll rose exponentially in March, doubling every two days in the UK, there was no time to wait and see. Leaders put economies into an induced coma – more than 3 million Americans filed jobless claims in a single week in late March, five times the previous record. The following week was even worse: more than 6.5m claims were filed. Were the potential health consequences really catastrophic enough to justify sweeping away so many people’s incomes? It seemed so – but epidemiologists could only make their best guesses with very limited information.

It’s hard to imagine a more extraordinary illustration of how much we usually take accurate, systematically gathered numbers for granted. The statistics for a huge range of important issues that predate the coronavirus have been painstakingly assembled over the years by diligent statisticians, and often made available to download, free of charge, anywhere in the world. Yet we are spoiled by such lŭury, casually dismissing “lies, damned lies and statistics”. The case of Covid-19 reminds us how desperate the situation can become when the statistics simply aren’t there.

hen it comes to interpreting the world around us, we need to realise that our feelings can trump our expertise. This explains why we buy things we don’t need, fall for the wrong kind of romantic partner, or vote for politicians who betray our trust. In particular, it explains why we so often buy into statistical claims that even a moment’s thought would tell us cannot be true. Sometimes, we want to be fooled.

Psychologist Ziva Kunda found this effect in the lab, when she showed experimental subjects an article laying out the evidence that coffee or other sources of caffeine could increase the risk to women of developing breast cysts. Most people found the article pretty convincing. Women who drank a lot of coffee did not.

We often find ways to dismiss evidence that we don’t like. And the opposite is true, too: when evidence seems to support our preconceptions, we are less likely to look too closely for flaws. It is not easy to master our emotions while assessing information that matters to us, not least because our emotions can lead us astray in different directions.

We don’t need to become emotionless processors of numerical information – just noticing our emotions and taking them into account may often be enough to improve our judgment. Rather than requiring superhuman control of our emotions, we need simply to develop good habits. Ask yourself: how does this information make me feel? Do I feel vindicated or smug? Anxious, angry or afraid? Am I in denial, scrambling to find a reason to dismiss the claim?

In the early days of the coronavirus epidemic, helpful-seeming misinformation spread even faster than the virus itself. One viral post – circulating on Facebook and email newsgroups – all-too-confidently explained how to distinguish between Covid-19 and a cold, reassured people that the virus was destroyed by warm weather, and incorrectly advised that iced water was to be avoided, while warm water kills any virus. The post, sometimes attributed to “my friend’s uncle”, sometimes to “Stanford hospital board” or some blameless and uninvolved paediatrician, was occasionally accurate but generally speculative and misleading. But still people – normally sensible people – shared it again and again and again. Why? Because they wanted to help others. They felt confused, they saw apparently useful advice, and they felt impelled to share. That impulse was only human, and it was well-meaning – but it was not wise.

Before I repeat any statistical claim, I first try to take note of how it makes me feel. It’s not a foolproof method against tricking myself, but it’s a habit that does little harm, and is sometimes a great deal of help. Our emotions are powerful. We can’t make them vanish, and nor should we want to. But we can, and should, try to notice when they are clouding our judgment.

In 1997, the economists Linda Babcock and George Loewenstein ran an experiment in which participants were given evidence from a real court case about a motorbike accident. They were then randomly assigned to play the role of plaintiff’s attorney (arguing that the injured motorcyclist should receive $100,000 in damages) or defence attorney (arguing that the case should be dismissed or the damages should be low).

The experimental subjects were given a financial incentive to argue their side of the case persuasively, and to reach an advantageous settlement with the other side. They were also given a separate financial incentive to accurately guess what the damages the judge in the real case had actually awarded. Their predictions should have been unrelated to their role-playing, but their judgment was strongly influenced by what they hoped would be true.

Psychologists call this “motivated reasoning”. Motivated reasoning is thinking through a topic with the aim, conscious or unconscious, of reaching a particular kind of conclusion. In a football game, we see the fouls committed by the other team but overlook the sins of our own side. We are more likely to notice what we want to notice. Experts are not immune to motivated reasoning. Under some circumstances their expertise can even become a disadvantage. The French satirist Molière once wrote: “A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one.” Benjamin Franklin commented: “So convenient a thing is it to be a reasonable creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to.”

Modern social science agrees with Molière and Franklin: people with deeper expertise are better equipped to spot deception, but if they fall into the trap of motivated reasoning, they are able to muster more reasons to believe whatever they really wish to believe.

One recent review of the evidence concluded that this tendency to evaluate evidence and test arguments in a way that is biased towards our own preconceptions is not only common, but just as common among intelligent people. Being smart or educated is no defence. In some circumstances, it may even be a weakness.

One illustration of this is a study published in 2006 by two political scientists, Charles Taber and Milton Lodge. They wanted to examine the way Americans reasoned about controversial political issues. The two they chose were gun control and affirmative action.

Taber and Lodge asked their experimental participants to read a number of arguments on either side, and to evaluate the strength and weakness of each argument. One might hope that being asked to review these pros and cons might give people more of a shared appreciation of opposing viewpoints; instead, the new information pulled people further apart.

This was because people mined the information they were given for ways to support their existing beliefs. When invited to search for more information, people would seek out data that backed their preconceived ideas. When invited to assess the strength of an opposing argument, they would spend considerable time thinking up ways to shoot it down.

This isn’t the only study to reach this sort of conclusion, but what’s particularly intriguing about Taber and Lodge’s experiment is that expertise made matters worse. More sophisticated participants in the experiment found more material to back up their preconceptions. More surprisingly, they found less material that contradicted them – as though they were using their expertise actively to avoid uncomfortable information. They produced more arguments in favour of their own views, and picked up more flaws in the other side’s arguments. They were vastly better equipped to reach the conclusion they had wanted to reach all along.

Of all the emotional responses we might have, the most politically relevant are motivated by partisanship. People with a strong political affiliation want to be on the right side of things. We see a claim, and our response is immediately shaped by whether we believe “that’s what people like me think”

Consider this claim about climate change: . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 11:09 am

Posted in Daily life, Science

Is the entire universe a neural network?

leave a comment »

Interesting idea and makes a certain amount of sense — and fits nicely with the overarching idea of evolution as a process. Victor Tangermann writes in Futurism:

It’s not every day that we come across a paper that attempts to redefine reality.

But in a provocative preprint uploaded to arXiv this summer, a physics professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth named Vitaly Vanchurin attempts to reframe reality in a particularly eye-opening way — suggesting that we’re living inside a massive neural network that governs everything around us. In other words, he wrote in the paper, it’s a “possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network.”

For years, physicists have attempted to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. The first posits that time is universal and absolute, while the latter argues that time is relative, linked to the fabric of space-time.

In his paper, Vanchurin argues that artificial neural networks can “exhibit approximate behaviors” of both universal theories. Since quantum mechanics “is a remarkably successful paradigm for modeling physical phenomena on a wide range of scales,” he writes, “it is widely believed that on the most fundamental level the entire universe is governed by the rules of quantum mechanics and even gravity should somehow emerge from it.”

“We are not just saying that the artificial neural networks can be useful for analyzing physical systems or for discovering physical laws, we are saying that this is how the world around us actually works,” reads the paper’s discussion. “With this respect it could be considered as a proposal for the theory of everything, and as such it should be easy to prove it wrong.”

The concept is so bold that most physicists and machine learning experts we reached out to declined to comment on the record, citing skepticism about the paper’s conclusions. But in a Q&A with Futurism, Vanchurin leaned into the controversy — and told us more about his idea.

Futurism: Your paper argues that the universe might fundamentally be a neural network. How would you explain your reasoning to someone who didn’t know very much about neural networks or physics?

Vitaly Vanchurin: There are two ways to answer your question.

The first way is to start with a precise model of neural networks and then to study the behavior of the network in the limit of a large number of neurons. What I have shown is that equations of quantum mechanics describe pretty well the behavior of the system near equilibrium and equations of classical mechanics describes pretty well how the system further away from the equilibrium. Coincidence? May be, but as far as we know quantum and classical mechanics is exactly how the physical world works.

The second way is to start from physics. We know that quantum mechanics works pretty well on small scales and general relativity works pretty well on large scales, but so far we were not able to reconcile the two theories in a unified framework. This is known as the problem of quantum gravity. Clearly, we are missing something big, but to make matters worse we do not even know how to handle observers. This is known as the measurement problem in context of quantum mechanics and the measure problem in context of cosmology.

Then one might argue that there are not two, but three phenomena that need to be unified: quantum mechanics, general relativity and observers. 99% of physicists would tell you that quantum mechanics is the main one and everything else should somehow emerge from it, but nobody knows exactly how that can be done. In this paper I consider another possibility that a microscopic neural network is the fundamental structure and everything else, i.e. quantum mechanics, general relativity and macroscopic observers, emerges from it. So far things look rather promising.

What first gave you this idea?

First I just wanted to better understand how deep learning works and so I wrote a paper entitled “Towards a theory of machine learning”. The initial idea was to apply the methods of statistical mechanics to study the behavior of neural networks, but it turned out that in certain limits the learning (or training) dynamics of neural networks is very similar to the quantum dynamics we see in physics. At that time I was (and still am) on a sabbatical leave and decided to explore the idea that the physical world is actually a neural network. The idea is definitely crazy, but if it is crazy enough to be true? That remains to be seen.

In the paper you wrote that to prove the theory was wrong, “all that is needed is to find a physical phenomenon which cannot be described by neural networks.” What do you mean by that? Why is such a thing “easier said than done?”

Well, there are many “theories of everything” and most of them must be wrong. In my theory, everything you see around you is a neural network and so to prove it wrong all that is needed is to find a phenomenon which cannot be modeled with a neural network. But if you think about it it is a very difficult task manly because we know so little about how the neural networks behave and how the machine learning actually works. That was why I tried to develop a theory of machine learning on the first place.

How does your research relate to quantum mechanics, and does it address the observer effect? . . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 10:43 am

Posted in Evolution, Science

Judge Gleenson reports on Justice Department’s decision to attempt to pull back the Flynn case (after Flynn’s plea of guilty)

leave a comment »

Spencer Hsu reports in the Washington Post:

A retired federal judge accused the Justice Department on Friday of yielding to a pressure campaign led by President Trump in its bid to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn for lying to federal investigators.

In a 30-page court filing in Washington, former New York federal judge John Gleeson called Attorney General William P. Barr’s request to drop Flynn’s case a “corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system.”

“In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty — twice, before two different judges — and whose guilt is obvious,” said Gleeson, who was appointed by the court to argue against the government’s request to dismiss the case.

Gleeson’s filing set the stage for a potentially dramatic courtroom confrontation Sept. 29 with the Justice Department and Flynn’s defense over the fate of the highest-ranking Trump adviser to plead guilty in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. Friday’s filings echo earlier arguments from Gleeson, who called the Justice Department’s attempt to undo Flynn’s conviction a politically motivated and “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.”

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia set the hearing date after a federal appeals court upheld his authority to review and rule on the government’s dismissal request on Aug. 31. The hearing before Sullivan was selected from three dates proposed by the parties and is scheduled the same day as the first presidential debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Continue reading. There’s more at the link, providing background.

The text of Judge Gleeson’s review is here.

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 10:40 am

Heather Cox Richardson reflects on 9/11 and today

leave a comment »

Healther Cox Richardson writes:

Today is the nineteenth anniversary of the terrorist attack that killed almost 3000 of us on this date in 2001. It feels wrong to write about daily news today and yet, as we approach 200,000 dead from a mismanaged pandemic and face unprecedented assaults on our national government, it also feels wrong not to.

We are also currently facing another crisis that demands our attention. Wildfires in California, Oregon, and Washington have consumed more than 3 million acres in CA, more than a million acres in Oregon, and nearly 627,000 in Washington. The fires have killed at least 17 people; many more are missing. In Oregon, more than 40,000 residents have been evacuated with half a million preparing to leave evacuation zones. Towns have been burned to the ground, and state officials warn that they are preparing for a “mass fatality incident.”

The danger from Oregon fires has been compounded by politics, as rumors spread that the fires had been set by left-wing mobs planning to ransack houses after forcing people to evacuate. The FBI and local officials urged people not to listen to rumors and insisted that extremists were not setting the fires. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office posted on Facebook: “Remember when we said to follow official sources only[?] Remember when we said rumors make this already difficult incident even harder? Rumors spread just like wildfire and now our 9-1-1 dispatchers and professional staff are being overrun with requests for information and inquiries on an UNTRUE rumor that 6 Antifa members have been arrested for setting fires in DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON. THIS IS NOT TRUE!… STOP. SPREADING. RUMORS!”

Although one person has been arrested for setting one of the fires, officials said he was not politically motivated. They described him as “a local transient” with a criminal record who had frequently tangled with law enforcement officers.

While Trump talked in July and August about protecting lives in Oregon and sent in federal forces to engage with protesters in the streets of Portland, he has remained virtually silent about the fires now devastating the western states. (Last summer, he offered federal help to Russian leader Vladimir Putin and to Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist, to contain wildfires burning in Siberia and the Amazon rain forest.) He has, though, issued an emergency declaration for California and Oregon, which opens up federal funding for those states.

How much money will go to help Americans through this year’s fires is unclear. The Iowa governor asked for close to $4 billion to rebuild after last month’s derecho storm; Trump approved $45 million (although he tweeted that he had approved “the FULL Emergency Declaration”). A month later Iowans have received $7.1 million in grants and small business loans.

It is also unclear how much money is available. At the end of July, the $600 federal weekly addition to state unemployment benefits ran out. The Senate refused to pass the House’s coronavirus relief bill and proved unable to write its own. Then talks between White House negotiators and Democratic House leaders about a new bill broke down. To replace some of the unemployment relief money– $300 a week– Trump redirected $54.2 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), leaving $25 billion or so for emergencies. The money that went into unemployment benefits is now almost gone– the extra payments will end for most recipients within a week or two. It’s unclear how far the remaining money will stretch.

Federal relief money was also in the news today as Michael McAuliff at the New York Daily News broke the story that, since 2016, the Trump administration has secretly siphoned off nearly $4 million from the New York City Fire Department’s 9/11 health fund, designed to treat New York firefighters and medics who suffer from illnesses related to their service on 9/11. The payments were authorized and sent, but the Treasury Department began keeping some of the money.

The administration had not responded to years of inquiries about the hold, but today, after the news story broke, a Treasury Department official emailed to say that it was “an unfortunate situation.” The department blamed an accounting error that docked money from the fund because the city owed money on a different account. Dr. David Prezant, the medical officer who oversees the program, rejected the explanation, noting that he had been asking for answers for years. “They are giving us craziness,” he told McAuliff and his colleague Chris Sommerfeldt. “If they’re talking [sic] money because the city owes them money, let them take it from where the city owes it. And if they’re taking money, they should tell people they’re taking money. This has been a clandestine operation.”

Representative Peter King, a Republican from Long Island who is retiring from Congress this year, agreed: “The initial blame has to go to Treasury. Whoever decided to target the FDNY 9/11 firefighters health fund — it’s just absolutely disgraceful, totally indefensible.”

The administration’s honesty on other issues was in the news, today, too. Nora R. Dannehy, a top aide in the Justice Department, unexpectedly stepped down. Dannehy worked for U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is conducting an investigation into the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in 2016. Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham to redo the work of the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, when it became clear Horowitz’s own look at the probe would not support the president’s accusations that it was a “witch hunt.” When it came out, Horowitz’s report found errors in the FBI’s application for surveillance clearance, but concluded that the investigation was opened legitimately and conducted without political bias.

Dannehy did not explain why she has resigned, but the Hartford Courant reported that, according to her colleagues, she was unhappy that Barr was putting pressure on the team to produce a report before the election. Barr has made it clear he is intending to ignore the Justice Department’s policy of avoiding public announcements within 60 days of an election if such an announcement could affect the vote. After the Horowitz report, Trump told reporters: “I look forward to the Durham report, which is coming out in the not-too-distant future. It’s got its own information, which is this information plus plus plus.”

Today, former Judge John Gleeson, tapped by the judge overseeing Michael Flynn’s sentencing to examine whether or not it was appropriate to drop the case at the sentencing stage, delivered his brief. Trump’s friend and . . .

Continue reading.

You can read Judge Gleeson’s report in full. As Richardson notes, “He called the attempt to dismiss the case a plot to help a friend of the president evade the law. “There is clear evidence that this motion reflects a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system,” he wrote.”


Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 10:25 am

Gillette 1940’s Aristocrat and Dr. Selby’s fine concoction

with 2 comments

I do like Dr. Selby’s 3x Concentrated Shave Cream, but I have no idea where you can now obtain it. Despite its name, it seems to me to be a shaving soap with a wonderful lavender fragrance and a bountiful lather, which my Rooney Victorian easily evoked this morning.

Three passes later, the Gillette 1940’s Aristocrat doing a very comfortable and very efficient job, a splash of Prospect Co.’s Peary & Henson aftershave sent me into the weekend, feeling good and smelling pleasant.

The name is explained at the link:

Robert E. Peary and Matthew Henson … were the first explorers to reach the North Pole. Peary and Henson were the most determined and steadfast explorers having made several record-breaking attempts. In April of 1909, along with 4 [Inuit], they reached the highest point on earth.

In point of fact, the North Pole, far from the highest point on earth, is barely above sea level (and even that only when ice is present). The highest point on earth is generally regarded as the peak of Mt. Everest, but that is subject to debate/definition. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notes:

Mount Everest, located in Nepal and Tibet, is usually said to be the highest mountain on Earth. Reaching 29,029 feet at its summit, Everest is indeed the highest point above global mean sea level—the average level for the ocean surface from which elevations are measured. But the summit of Mt. Everest is not the farthest point from Earth’s center.

Earth is not a perfect sphere, but is a bit thicker at the Equator due to the centrifugal force created by the planet’s constant rotation. Because of this, the highest point above Earth’s center is the peak of Ecuador’s Mount Chimborazo, located just one degree south of the Equator where Earth’s bulge is greatest. The summit of Chimborazo is 20,564 feet above sea level. However, due to the Earth’s bulge, the summit of Chimborazo is over 6,800 feet farther from the center of the Earth than Everest’s peak. That makes Chimborazo the closest point on Earth to the stars.

You may be surprised to learn that Everest is not the tallest mountain on Earth, either. That honor belongs to Mauna Kea, a volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii. Mauna Kea originates deep beneath the Pacific Ocean, and rises more than 33,500 feet from base to peak.

They provide this illustration:

The highest point above Earth’s center is the peak of Ecuador’s Mount Chimborazo, located just one degree south of the Equator where Earth’s bulge is greatest

Written by Leisureguy

12 September 2020 at 10:11 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: