The data are interesting
Like nails on a chalkboard! Iâm never going to get used to that construction.
"police may behave more aggressively albeit still within the boundaries of the rules "
HA HA HA HA! What a knee slapper!
The City of Chicago fought hard to keep data about police complaints from being released under Freedom of Information Act requests, and the Fraternal Order of Police is trying to keep any further data from coming to light.
Whatâs that saying about âIf you have nothing to hide, âŚâ? Why are the City of Chicago and the Fraternal Order of Police so afraid?
Silly person!! âIf you have nothing to hide,âŚâ only applies to little people! Not to the city or the police union!
I understand Baltimoreâs night-sky view is substantially diminished from the glow of its own protect-and-servers.
It seems to be almost invariably used by scientists (and others) making a point of sounding ostentatiously sciencey.
If you feel like starting an argument about it, ask them to define a âdatum.â
It would be interesting if the personalities of prolific criminals and prolifically offending police could be compared. I suspect they would be very similar.
And then ask a haberdasher (for example) to define a scissor.
Oh god, I am so there with you 
I think Iâve figured out what I find annoying though; there is an implied word omitted, as in âthe data ____ are interestingâ.
I have always assumed that the missing word is âsetâ, as in âthe data set are interestingâ, which is grammatically horrible. It should, of course, be âthe data is interesting.â
âSetâ makes sense as the missing word, because what you analyse is the (singular) set of data you have. And even if you merge multiple sets, your final merged set which is analysed is still a singular set. If the individual sets are of importance, then you can specify that with âthe data sets are interesting.â
But I think that in that horrible construction the implied missing word is actually âpointsâ, as in âthe data points are interestingâ, which makes grammatical sense, but is kinda nonsense in analytical terms. The data points are not interesting, except in the most facile while. Information comes from analysing multiple data points (which we call a set 
), and making correlations and identifying trends, not from pulling random numbers out of a pile and saying âlook at this interesting random number!â
In that vein, âCompStatâ and its derivatives and imitators are all the rage for data-driven-policing. It would appear that they have some low hanging fruit in data-driven-internal-affairs that could likely be picked with minimal modification to existing algorithmsâŚ
If for no nobler reason, Iâm a bit surprised that larger municipal PDs arenât tracking âWho keeps generating expensive settlements, and how can we get rid of them?â I understand that smaller ones might benefit(at least in the short term) from having access to officers that have burned out their more prestigious and/or better paid options; but itâs hard to imagine any other class of municipal employee getting away with repeated âcosting the organization 10s to hundreds of thousands of dollars through questionable conductâ incidents.
Sure, cops are Our Heroes and whatnot; but just ask the VA how much we think âheroesâ are really worth paying for.
The reason is ancient and well known: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? When Teresa May tried to rein in the Metropolitan Police, they demonstrated their power to get rid of a Minister (not seemingly a terribly nice man but he was stitched up).
Or a âpant.â (Which is actually used in catalogs and such when theyâre trying too hard to be fancy: âNew for Spring, our raw silk Palazzo Pant. In Dusty Eggplant, Devonshire Cream, Saint-Barth Seafoam, and Nantucket Cornflower. $480.â)
I work in data with a bunch of niggardly, persnickety nitpickers and I hate it too. At this point, itâs as bad as who/whom.
In case you want to do something:
âthe data set is interestingâ (set is singular), âthe data are interestingâ (data are plural).
Data is a noun, not an adjective. You donât need a âhelperâ word in this case.
âDatumâ may not be a terribly useful word, but consider the fact that âsandâ is singular even though it never refers to a single thing, and that itâs strictly speaking a synonym of its plural: âsandsâ.
But thatâs not even true, or a sensible sentence construction. The âdataâ arenât interesting. What you do with the data set is.
âanalysis of the data provides some interesting conclusionsâ, that makes sense.
âWe collected data relating to âŚâ That makes sense.
âWe collected the data that related to âŚâ That makes sense too.
âWe analysed data, finding that âŚâ sensible
âWe analysed the data, finding that âŚâ also sensible (perhaps more sensible, as youâd be referring to a specific, presumably relevant, data set)
Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information.
âdataâ is a mass noun. Anyone who thinks otherwise can go to hell, including Cory âfull of himselfâ Doctorow
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
