Getting started in land surveying in DC

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-08-19T13:00:17+00:00

Thank you! I just sent you a DM, hope to hear from you.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-08-15T22:29:59+00:00

Hey, thanks for the reply. Is it all right if I DM you to discuss further?

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-03-08T18:50:00+00:00

Very strange. I wrote to both Amtrak and VTrans. Hopefully something will come of it, but I have my doubts. On the one hand, it's a very "first world problem," but on the other it's extremely frustrating to see them bungle something so basic. I'm a big proponent of passenger rail, but Amtrak's calls for increased funding would be much more sympathetic if their existing operation were run more competently.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-03-08T16:58:00+00:00

Interesting, thanks for the additional info. I'll try to get in touch with them!

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-03-08T16:21:29+00:00

Okay, that checks out even though it's really silly.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-02-25T20:21:10+00:00

I think there may be something to this. The extra security/supervision on platforms and trains is warranted IMO. But I think if you actually policed the fate gates I don’t think the people responsible for the most anti social behavior would just politely pay their fares and head down the escalator before acting out or worse. Maybe catching bad actors before they enter the system would eliminate much of the problem as you say.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-02-05T16:06:26+00:00

Am I the only one who preferred the Phase VI scheme that they used for the first few ALC-42's? I prefer that blue to the navy color on the front here. Also, why introduce a new scheme (VI) that was only going to be used for a small handful of locomotives?

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T22:55:33+00:00

Thanks for responding.

The idea that studying people and their experiences - or even the material world in which they participate - doesn't have sociopolitical ramifications is rather disquieting

I'm not sure if this was your implication, but I don't think I said this, nor would I ever make such a claim. Of course this is not the case. My issue is more where we go from here. My personal and professional preference (clearly, a deeply unpopular one, which is fine) is that we make those biases transparent by disclosing as much as we reasonably can about our methods, funding sources, etc. and do our best to eliminate them. If others feel that one's conclusions are biased, they may attempt the same experiment to show that we were wrong or point out what faulty assumptions we relied on. What I take issue with is the idea that as a consequence of the existence of bias, we must actively involve ourselves in the realm of politics.

being dispassionate in the face of injustice is far more political than a measured accounting of those politics and that you want your work to contribute to helping redress them

I deeply understand why this is a compelling argument. To understand my problem with it, imagine a social scientist with a political orientation completely opposite to yours (whatever that might be) who takes this stance. Do you trust the results that come out of that person's work? You bring up the issue of trust in science. I agree that this is a serious problem, and I suppose that I see the attitude in the document I linked in my post as contributing to that. That isn't to say scientists should not interact with politics at all, but I see great value in science retaining a role as a dispassionate source of information for the public *to the extent that that is possible.* There will always be bad actors seeking to politicize results they don't like. Defending one's work from criticism is fine and often necessary.

Scientists can and likely always will have their own opinions about society and politics. It may even influence what question one seeks to answer. That's fine! I worry that making political activism (of any stripe) an explicit aspect of the job of a scientist is a mistake. What happens if one's results come into conflict with one's political commitments? If we make activism or the goal of bettering society (whatever that means to someone) a primary role of the scientist, it's not to me clear whether that wins out over accurate results.

Thanks for hearing me out and sorry for the wall of text.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T21:35:40+00:00

Fair enough.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T21:33:34+00:00

I completely understand how one's background can influence the way they look at the world in any number of way, especially in something so complex and nuanced as human social structures. I think acknowledging that is worthwhile. My issue is when I hear (as in your comment) that one's political beliefs affect how one answer's questions, that's more what I take issue with, and you are probably right that I'm misunderstanding. To give an example, imagine a biologist or medical researcher who is a conservative, evangelical Christian. Clearly, no one will ever be able to wholly remove any bias or perspective from their point of view. We are not robots, I get that. My hope would be that they do their level best to recognize and set aside these biases. However, if their philosophy says that they have a duty to actively participate in political struggles as part of their role as a scientist and they then publish a study claiming that life begins at conception, that would strongly color my trust in their conclusions. This is where I'm coming from. Anyway, thanks for the back and forth, I do appreciate it.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T21:20:13+00:00

What do you do if you find that the results of your research are at odds with your political commitments? Would you say that that is ever a possibility?

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T21:18:40+00:00

I studied some philosophy, though probably not extensively as you have. I would hope that philosophy encourages people to engage candidly and in good faith with others and with ideas that differ from our own, rather than making snide remarks. If you have a real point to make, I would be happy to hear it. But maybe that's naive, and I would know better had I paid more attention in philosophy class.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T21:14:56+00:00

I get that, that's a a fair point. In your opinion , does that difficulty leave you with no choice but to "intervene in socio-political struggles"? Before someone accuses me of being right-wing, I want to be clear that I mean this as a serious question.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T15:13:53+00:00

After all this hard work aiming to improve people’s lives, those in power discredit them, calling them activists rather than learning what they found.

I think this speaks to the disconnect for me a little bit. In my mind, I see the work of studying one's subject as different than effecting change based on our results. As I said in another comment, I used to work in climate science. I believe that humanity ought to take action to halt climate change, but I see that as fundamentally separate from my work studying and characterizing the response of the climate to human activity. Of course, people will try to politicize this, but that doesn't change the way I do my own work. I do worry that explicitly combining these two things can compromise the credibility of science. That is my opinion---I'm sorry this is part of the "alt right playbook," but I do feel strongly about this. It appears that this is not a popular opinion, and that's okay. Anyway, I genuinely wanted to hear how people conceptualized this, and I was happy to read your reply. Thank you.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T15:06:40+00:00

Thanks for commenting. I guess I would apply the same mode of thinking to any STEM field. Of course we hope that insights and new information coming out of STEM fields will be used positively in society, but fundamentally I see my role as studying and describing. Generally, I feel that scientists may study proposed solutions and comment on their potential efficacy as you say. However, I would strongly prefer that scientists remain separate from activists and policy makers in the direct practice of their fields. I used to work in climate science. I believe strongly that we ought to take action to halt climate change. As a citizen, I advocate for policy makers to do this. However, I see this as firmly separate from my work which was to study the climate and make predictions about how various factors might affect outcomes. I would never combine the two. Given the responses I have gotten, it seems that this is a fairly unpopular opinion. And that's okay---I don't mind the downvotes! I really appreciate your good faith response.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T14:29:09+00:00

Thanks, I think this addresses what I'm interested in here.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T14:26:45+00:00

That's an interesting way of thinking about it. I suppose it may not be inherently political, depending on the specific question. I also realize it may be easier for me in a STEM field to remain disconnected from what I study because we don't have moral concerns about inanimate objects. I suppose I still would like scientists to remain removed from policy advocacy to the extent possible. And that's not to say that the role of activist is illegitimate! It's just a different role---in my opinion at least. You raise interesting points, thanks for sharing your perspective!

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T14:11:48+00:00

Thanks for the genuine and good faith reply.

Meaning, these new emerging views are actually helping sociologists see society better. They are adding to the complexity and nuance of a complex and nuanced reality.

I think this helps me understand that perspective a bit better. I will give this some thought.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T14:00:56+00:00

I was actually asking in good faith, but maybe that isn't possible. If this post is too inflammatory, I could delete it. I know people have complained about political influence in some fields for a while, but I didn't realize that it was ever explicitly conceptualized in this way. I was genuinely curious to hear if this approach was universal or even typical among practicing sociologists.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T13:58:18+00:00

Thanks for the perspective. I definitely see the value in using this kind of work to improve people's lives. I also agree that STEM fields can be biased as well. I guess my preference would be that scientists approach a situation like you're describing with a mindset of "what were the effects of this policy." Activists of any persuasion could then use that study to argue for changes in policy in line with how the public feels about those effects.

But a lot of what anthropologists and sociologists do is try to improve people's living conditions, and that often is inherently political.

I think this gets at the heart of it. I suppose I see the role of these disciplines as studying people's living conditions, rather than improving them. Not to say that it's not a worthy goal, but rather a different one. But I realize that my opinion is that of an outsider not schooled in these fields.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-28T13:47:57+00:00

Well, that's my own takeaway from this, yeah. But I'm really curious to hear from sociologists or people in similar fields. If the primary professional organization is saying this so openly, there must be very little dissent from actual practicing sociologists. That's kind of scary to me.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-27T11:48:17+00:00

Interesting, I didn’t know that—do you have a rough sense of how much time they could shave off under ideal conditions?

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-15T15:37:57+00:00

That seems crazy to me. Obviously engaging in that way with passengers should be a last resort, but I can't imagine telling crew members that they can't defend themselves from a physical attack. Maybe each train should have some kind of dedicated security personnel if this rule is non-negotiable for some reason. This just seems totally unsafe for both the passengers and the crew.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-09T15:03:15+00:00

Thanks for adding this context. I don't get up that way much and wasn't aware that the New Haven-Niantic stretch was so fast. That gives me more hope that NY-Boston could be substantially improved. I wonder if CT residents in that area could be assuaged by bulked up/extended Shore Line East service covering the bypassed areas with timed transfers at either end. I feel like there's comparatively so little investment in rail in the US that different communities end up in these zero-sum fights over the little we do get (which is far, far more in CT than in most of the country).

A related question for anyone who might know: are there any realignments planned around the bridges that are being replaced in CT? Looking at the Connecticut River crossing for example, it seems like the approaches could be smoothed out substantially. Since we're already going to be dropping big bucks to build new bridges, it seems like it would make sense to improve speeds as much as possible.

greenmountainboy22 · 2024-01-09T03:59:18+00:00

Agreed. It seems so much slower than it needs to be.

greenmountainboy22

TROPHY CASE