Morrisjonathan

I used to think that it's be too much trouble to go peer review, but having recently looked at @antiquity.ac.uk's quidelines, it's not all that difficult. However, there can be good reasons to avoid this route, so interested to know your thoughts on reasons why one would not contribute in this way.

I've always felt that the existence of the algorithms - and thus an implicit editorial function (especially apparent on X and Facebook), makes the argument that they're not publishers quite hard to swallow.

Trump says he will sue BBC for at least $1bn over Panorama edit The US president confirmed he intends to sue the broadcaster for at least $1bn over the Panorama edit of a 2021 speech.

Buckle up - because this now amounts to a direct and deliberate attack on our country and its cultural sovereignty. Which side our politicians take - Trump's or the BBC's - over the coming days and weeks will speak volumes about their patriotism.

Agreed; that is very interesting too.

Agree wholeheartedly. However, that's not how Archaeological Theory, as a discipline, developed. It's why the field is so great for testing AI: there's no reference works that AI can steal an answer from. So it would have to combine multiple works from various disciplines to get an efficient answer.

The question and answers that are most efficient have very little value, so it's only useful as a test of AI. In this particular context, I doubt anyone would go to the bother of writing the most efficient methods up; there's no way of knowing if people of the past worked in an efficient manner.

It tries to (we've had this come up in archaeological forums). At some point it may be capable of bringing together research from different sources but, at the moment, all it can do is to copy and re-work existing material. Interesting as a test.

There's a bit more to the question than that. For example, it has to be constrained by requiring it to only use technologies that are known to have existed during that period. The bluestone one is the best because it's so easy for any non-expert to determine if it's passed the test.

The best one is "what's the most efficient method of transporting blusetones from Preseli to Stonehenge". Chat can't tell you that because people may have transported it inefficiently, so nobody's bothered to research and then write down efficient methods. There's quite a few more!

Hard to guess what would be considered contentious in archaeology! Do you have links to contentious articles?

If we made an emotional connection to the past, would that help people to link to the future?
(not sure it would make all that much difference, but could easily be wrong on this)

I'm at 51º, but England so heavy clouds: nothing.😞

Picture of about a kilo of chilis

Today's chili harvest.
Seriously, I should not be able to harvest outdoor chilis in mid November (no greenhouse). Not even down here on the South Coast.

Stonehenge is a great test of whether or not AI might become capable of reasoning independently (though that's a long way off). At the moment, it fails badly. It's due to the way archaeological theory developed (very few other disciplines can boast that)

Seriously, I don't know how you retain all this knowledge Brian

Haha: thought to myself: must have heard that from Matt during the Twitter days of old (knew I'd seen it before).
I guess that, if almost everyone thinks a subject is low stakes (including senior experts), it's not feasible to get interest in the idea that the subject matter might not be low stakes.

Sayre's law. That's the one. Thanks

There's an informal law for this isn't there? Something along the lines of <the extent of vilification in written papers is inversely proportional to the importance of the subject as seen by everyone else>. Can't remember whose "Law" this is though.

Marvelous news. Big moment.

Like many others! Perhaps the subject matter isn't all that important? (guessing as have no idea which paper this is)

Drawing up plans for a heat pump (maybe two in same property!). Years ago, I wrote my own spreadsheets for heat loss evaluation, so able to compare ideas easily. But God knows how people who aren't engineers compare contractors.

Only had it happen once (though recent papers make that experience look insignificant). Hard to work out a motive. Could be confidence issues, the influence of others, maybe political beliefs or perhaps plain incompetence. But could also be combinations of above or a multitude of other reasons.

Probably. (though no idea which paper being referred to: there's a few like this).

An entry into entries to below rail arches

Into the void

That theme seems to concentrate around particular places. Same here?

Wimbledon near rail station

Wimbledon. Investigating 1980's multi storey build morning then railway arches a bit later. A fun day out!

I am expecting Allison Pearson to soon be announced as the new Director General of the BBC.

All depends on what's called as the start. 4500 yrs back is generally accepted for the phase we generally refer to. Some call it at 5000 yrs back on the basis of some timber posts at the perimeter. There's another set of posts dating back much further.
South Downs Way, on the other hand, much older.

Your score: 6/6

This is a fun quiz. Guessed my way to 6/6

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Difficult to know what to spend time on looking at all this. Choosing to do local renewables, even though I think that archaeology could have more impact (but judging that the time isn't right). Got a really special heat pump scheme we're working on at the moment.