Chronicled

chronicled

I write a newsletter called Above Average, where I talk about the second-order insights behind everything that is happening in the big tech. If you are into tech and don’t want to be average, . subscribe to it Inferring is essentially a way to extract insights, sentiments, and trends using clever prompts while interacting with LLMs. Previously, before LLMs, each of these tasks would require their own models, training, and deployment & maintenance. But with the explosion of OpenAI and other LLMs, inference allows you to improve your products by leveraging LLMs, and you don’t have to be a data scientist or a machine learning engineer to do so. Let’s say you run an e-commerce website and want to extract the sentiment of customer reviews. You can do this using the following prompt. In this case, I am providing the review text and the prompt you can use on it. You can use your favorite way to run it against Open AI’s API. I took a real review from Amazon for a light box that I purchased for this example. Example 1: from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI()
client.api_key = 'YOUR_SECRET_KEY'

amazon_review = f"""
This softbox lighting system is a great value for the price. They were super easy to set and offer multiple types of lighting, with dimmer and remotes for each light. They are lightweight which means they can topple over if bumped. But that was an easy problem to solve. I just created some weights out of an old pair of socks and some dried beans. You could use rice or sand also. Or just buy sandbags. I like to DIY. Anywho, I highly recommend this lighting system.
"""

story = """
prompt = f"""
Identify the following items from the review text: 
- Sentiment (positive or negative)
- Is the reviewer expressing anger? (true or false)
- Item purchased by reviewer
- Company that made the item

The review is delimited with triple backticks. \
Format your response as a JSON object with \
"Sentiment", "Anger", "Item" and "Brand" as the keys.
If the information isn't present, use "unknown" \
as the value.
Make your response as short as possible.
Format the Anger value as a boolean.

Review text: '''{amazon_review}'''

"""

response = client.chat.completions.create(
  model="gpt-4",
  messages=[
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": prompt
    }
  ],
  temperature=0,
  #max_tokens=64,
  #top_p=1
)

print(response.choices[0].message.content) The output I got is as follows: {“Sentiment”: “positive”, “Anger”: false, “Item”: “softbox lighting system”, “Brand”: “unknown”} This is a cool example showing the power of inferring using Open AI’s API. Now, Amazon is a large company that already uses AI to ship features, and one of the recent updates to the page seems to be about summarizing all the reviews under the product. Here is how it looks for the same product. Do you think it can be re-created using inferring across a set of customer reviews? I think so. If you are able to figure this out, reach me on and let me know. Twitter let's say you run a news website, and you want to find the topics an article is about without actually reading it. Can you do it using a Prompt and infer it? Yes, you can. Here is an example article from which I am inferring topics mentioned in that article. Example 2: from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI()
client.api_key = 'YOUR_SECRET_KEY'



article = """
It hasn't been the best start to 2024 for Elon Musk. The owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, appealed to YouTube's biggest star MrBeast to post his videos on the platform, and was promptly rejected.

On Dec. 30, 2023, MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson, posted on X to announce his latest video release was available on YouTube: "I uploaded, go watch or I'll drop kick you."

Donaldson had uploaded a 20-minute long video to YouTube, in which he chronicled spending a week in solitary confinement. These types of videos, in which Donaldson challenges either himself or an individual with an extreme task, have earned him worldwide notoriety. The social media mastermind earned an estimated $82 million in 2023, and with more than 225 million subscribers on his main channel alone, is the platform's biggest name.

After Donaldson posted the appeal to head to YouTube on X, one fan replied: "Upload on this platform too," which is when Elon Musk chimed in with: "Yeah."

Musk, the CEO of Tesla and owner of X, has been trying to drum up interest from video viewers since taking over the social media platform in 2022.

Schemes have included launching a media partnership with heiress Paris Hilton—which has since been axed—as well as streaming shows from the likes of former Fox star Tucker Carlson.

Musk, now with the help of CEO Linda Yaccarino, has also attempted to drum up revenue by launching premium subscription services on the site, which—among other things—allow for users to appear as "verified" and send DMs to other accounts.

The moves have been necessary after droves of advertisers left the site over fears their branding would appear beside unregulated content.

Musk, a fierce proponent of free speech, has refused to cow to concern from advertisers about how X will prevent their messages from reportedly appearing beside Nazi propaganda, for example.

But Musk's attempt to get MrBeast's content on his site—not even exclusively—was rebuffed by the creator.

Donaldson replied to Musk directly: "My videos cost millions to make and even if they got a billion views on X it wouldn’t fund a fraction of it :/ I’m down though to test stuff once monetization is really cranking!"

The polite rebuttal contrasts with the firm interest Donaldson had previously taken in Twitter. Indeed, Donaldson's bio still reads "X Super Official CEO," harking back to the times when speculation was rife about who would take over the day-to-day running of the platform from the ever-busy Musk.
"""

prompt = f"""
Determine five topics that are being discussed in the \
following text, which is delimited by triple backticks.

Make each item one or two words long. 

Format your response as a list of items separated by commas.

Text sample: '''{article}'''

"""

response = client.chat.completions.create(
  model="gpt-4",
  messages=[
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": prompt
    }
  ],
  temperature=0,
  #max_tokens=64,
  #top_p=1
)

print(response.choices[0].message.content) Output is: Elon Musk, Social Media Platforms, YouTube Content, Advertising Concerns, Monetization Strategies Pretty accurate, right? Shopify App to summarize & extract insights from customer reviews. This app should be launched in the Shopify app store. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shopify launched this natively. Just using prompt engineering with open AI API, this would be an app that can be launched in a couple of days. AI PRODUCT IDEA ALERT: That’s it for day 3. Follow me on for the latest updates on 100 days of AI, or . Twitter bookmark this page Also published . here

100 Days of AI Day 3: Leveraging AI for Prompt Engineering and Inference

AI দিনের 100 দিন 3: প্রম্পট ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিং এবং ইনফরেন্সের জন্য AI ব্যবহার করা

100 Tage KI Tag 3: Nutzung von KI für schnelles Engineering und Inferenz

100 días de IA Día 3: Aprovechamiento de la IA para ingeniería e inferencia rápidas

100 jours d'IA Jour 3 : Tirer parti de l'IA pour une ingénierie et une inférence rapides

एआई के 100 दिन, दिन 3: त्वरित इंजीनियरिंग और अनुमान के लिए एआई का लाभ उठाना

100 日間の AI 3 日目: AI を活用して迅速なエンジニアリングと推論を行う

AI 100일 3일차: 신속한 엔지니어링 및 추론을 위해 AI 활용

100 dias de IA, dia 3: aproveitando a IA para engenharia e inferência imediatas

100 дней ИИ. День 3. Использование ИИ для оперативного проектирования и вывода

100 Günlük Yapay Zeka 3. Gün: Hızlı Mühendislik ve Çıkarım için Yapay Zekadan Yararlanma

100 ngày AI Ngày 3: Tận dụng AI cho Kỹ thuật và suy luận nhanh chóng

人工智能 100 天第 3 天：利用人工智能进行快速工程和推理

AN ABSENT LOVER RETURNS.

Scientific American, Vol. XXXVII.—No. 2. [New Series.], July 14, 1877 by Various, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . BOOT AND SHOE MACHINERY. here BOOT AND SHOE MACHINERY. No manufacturers have taken greater advantage of the ingenuity of the mechanical engineer than the American boot and shoe makers. Nearly every operation in the complex process of evolving finished boots from the plain skins of leather is the object of a special class of machinery; and for several years past, we have weekly chronicled the patenting of several improvements in the devices for effecting some of the numerous operations. We present herewith a series of eight labor-saving machines of the most approved construction, which we select from Knight's "American Mechanical Dictionary."[1] Published in numbers by Messrs. Hurd & Houghton, New York city. Fig. 1 is a shoe-edge trimmer, in which the shoe is mounted on a jack, the carriage of which has a motion of translation and rotation communicated to it: so that, while the side of the sole is being trimmed, the shoe is fed longitudinally against the knife, but at the toe and heel is rotated beneath it. The knife is universally jointed, to permit the hands of the operator to determine the different bevels cut. ![Boot and Shoe Machinery Fig. 2 ](https://cdn.hackernoon.com/images/gQK8BrKBD4ehL3obNS4vfM2m8RB2-i6a3w33.jpeg) Fig. 2 is an ingenious little machine for placing the eyelets of the lace holes in position, and fastening them. The eyelets are fed, one by one, from the reservoir at the top, down the inclined ways, and are seized at the foot between the plunger and anvil, and they are riveted in their proper places in the shoe or strip of leather, which is held and fed by the operator. Fig. 4 is a machine for pressing together the "lifts" which compose a boot or shoe heel, thus dispensing with the handiwork of the hammer and lapstone. The bed is adjusted vertically by a screw to any thickness to which the blank heel may be built; and the plunger is brought down by the depression of the treadle with such force as to compact the lifts together. Fig. 5 shows a heel-pricking machine. When the lifts of the heel are fairly pressed together by the appliance shown in Fig. 4, the pricking machine pierces the necessary holes through all the lifts at once by a gang of awls. The compressed heels are first secured together by tacking, and then placed on the platen; and the plunger, with its gang of awls, descends with great force. Fig. 5 shows a heel-pricking machine. When the lifts of the heel are fairly pressed together by the appliance shown in Fig. 4, the pricking machine pierces the necessary holes through all the lifts at once by a gang of awls. The compressed heels are first secured together by tacking, and then placed on the platen; and the plunger, with its gang of awls, descends with great force. Fig. 6 is a heel trimmer, known in the trade as the Coté trimmer. The shoe is held stationary by the treadle clamp; and the knife stock, which is centrally pivoted to the outer plate or jaw bearing upon the tread lift, is then grasped in the hands of the operator, and moved to give a sweeping cut to trim the heel. Fig. 7 is a machine for pressing boot soles. Beneath the crosshead of the press is a swinging bed, on each end of which is a form, in order that a shoe may remain under pressure upon one while the operator is placing another shoe on the other. The pressure is given by the treadle, which brings down the upper platen on the channeled sole. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Various (2012). Scientific American, Vol. XXXVII. —No. 2. [New Series.], July 14, 1877. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38481/pg38481-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

BOOT AND SHOE MACHINERY

Sir Roger Dies

Long, Long Ago

MADAME MELMOTTE'S BALL

This Museum Was Built on Native American Burial Mounds: What to Know About the Dickson Mounds Museum

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . MRS. ACKROYD CHAPTER XIV. MRS. ACKROYD After the evening talk I have just chronicled, the affair seemed to me to enter on a different phase. The whole thing can be divided into two parts, each clear and distinct from the other. Part I. ranges from Ackroyd’s death on the Friday evening to the following Monday night. It is the straight-forward narrative of what occurred, as presented to Hercule Poirot. I was at Poirot’s elbow the whole time. I saw what he saw. I tried my best to read his mind. As I know now, I failed in this latter task. Though Poirot showed me all his discoveries—as, for instance, the gold wedding-ring—he held back the vital and yet logical impressions that he formed. As I came to know later, this secrecy was characteristic of him. He would throw out hints and suggestions, but beyond that he would not go. As I say, up till the Monday evening, my narrative might have been that of Poirot himself. I played Watson to his Sherlock. But after Monday our ways diverged. Poirot was busy on his own account. I got to hear of what he was doing, because, in King’s Abbot, you get to hear of everything, but he did not take me into his confidence beforehand. And I, too, had my own preoccupations. On looking back, the thing that strikes me most is the piecemeal character of this period. Every one had a hand in the elucidation of the mystery. It was rather like a jig-saw puzzle to which every one contributed their own little piece of knowledge or discovery. But their task ended there. To Poirot alone belongs the renown of fitting those pieces into their correct place. Some of the incidents seemed at the time irrelevant and unmeaning. There was, for instance, the question of the black boots. But that comes later.... To take things strictly in chronological order, I must begin with the summons from Mrs. Ackroyd. She sent for me early on Tuesday morning, and since the summons sounded an urgent one, I hastened there, expecting to find her in extremis. The lady was in bed. So much did she concede to the etiquette of the situation. She gave me her bony hand, and indicated a chair drawn up to the bedside. “Well, Mrs. Ackroyd,” I said, “and what’s the matter with you?” I spoke with that kind of spurious geniality which seems to be expected of general practitioners. “I’m prostrated,” said Mrs. Ackroyd in a faint voice. “Absolutely prostrated. It’s the shock of poor Roger’s death. They say these things often aren’t felt at the , you know. It’s the reaction afterwards.” time It is a pity that a doctor is precluded by his profession from being able sometimes to say what he really thinks. I would have given anything to be able to answer “Bunkum!” Instead, I suggested a tonic. Mrs. Ackroyd accepted the tonic. One move in the game seemed now to be concluded. Not for a moment did I imagine that I had been sent for because of the shock occasioned by Ackroyd’s death. But Mrs. Ackroyd is totally incapable of pursuing a straight-forward course on any subject. She always approaches her object by tortuous means. I wondered very much why it was she had sent for me. “And then that scene—yesterday,” continued my patient. She paused as though expecting me to take up a cue. “What scene?” “Doctor, how can you? Have you forgotten? That dreadful little Frenchman—or Belgian—or whatever he is. Bullying us all like he did. It has quite upset me. Coming on top of Roger’s death.” “I’m very sorry, Mrs. Ackroyd,” I said. “I don’t know what he meant—shouting at us like he did. I should hope I know my duty too well to of concealing anything. I have given the police assistance in my power.” dream every Mrs. Ackroyd paused, and I said, “Quite so.” I was beginning to have a glimmering of what all the trouble was about. “No one can say that I have failed in my duty,” continued Mrs. Ackroyd. “I am sure Inspector Raglan is perfectly satisfied. Why should this little upstart of a foreigner make a fuss? A most ridiculous-looking creature he is too—just like a comic Frenchman in a revue. I can’t think why Flora insisted on bringing him into the case. She never said a word to me about it. Just went off and did it on her own. Flora is too independent. I am a woman of the world and her mother. She should have come to me for advice first.” I listened to all this in silence. “What does he think? That’s what I want to know. Does he actually imagine I’m hiding something? He—he—positively me yesterday.” accused I shrugged my shoulders. “It is surely of no consequence, Mrs. Ackroyd,” I said. “Since you are not concealing anything, any remarks he may have made do not apply to you.” Mrs. Ackroyd went off at a tangent, after her usual fashion. “Servants are so tiresome,” she said. “They gossip, and talk amongst themselves. And then it gets round—and all the time there’s probably nothing in it at all.” “Have the servants been talking?” I asked. “What about?” Mrs. Ackroyd cast a very shrewd glance at me. It quite threw me off my balance. “I was sure know, doctor, if any one did. You were with M. Poirot all the time, weren’t you?” you’d “I was.” “Then of course you know. It was that girl, Ursula Bourne, wasn’t it? Naturally—she’s leaving. She want to make all the trouble she could. Spiteful, that’s what they are. They’re all alike. Now, you being there, doctor, you must know exactly what she did say? I’m most anxious that no wrong impression should get about. After all, you don’t repeat every little detail to the police, do you? There are family matters sometimes—nothing to do with the question of the murder. But if the girl was spiteful, she may have made out all sorts of things.” would I was shrewd enough to see that a very real anxiety lay behind these outpourings. Poirot had been justified in his premises. Of the six people round the table yesterday, Mrs. Ackroyd at least had had something to hide. It was for me to discover what that something might be. “If I were you, Mrs. Ackroyd,” I said brusquely, “I should make a clean breast of things.” She gave a little scream. “Oh! doctor, how can you be so abrupt. It sounds as though—as though——And I can explain everything so simply.” “Then why not do so,” I suggested. Mrs. Ackroyd took out a frilled handkerchief, and became tearful. “I thought, doctor, that you might put it to M. Poirot—explain it, you know—because it’s so difficult for a foreigner to see our point of view. And you don’t know—nobody could know—what I’ve had to contend with. A martyrdom—a long martyrdom. That’s what my life has been. I don’t like to speak ill of the dead—but there it is. Not the smallest bill, but it had all to be gone over—just as though Roger had had a few miserly hundreds a year instead of being (as Mr. Hammond told me yesterday) one of the wealthiest men in these parts.” Mrs. Ackroyd paused to dab her eyes with the frilled handkerchief. “Yes,” I said encouragingly. “You were talking about bills?” “Those dreadful bills. And some I didn’t like to show Roger at all. They were things a man wouldn’t understand. He would have said the things weren’t necessary. And of course they mounted up, you know, and they kept coming in——” She looked at me appealingly, as though asking me to condole with her on this striking peculiarity. “It’s a habit they have,” I agreed. “And the tone altered—became quite abusive. I assure you, doctor, I was becoming a nervous wreck. I couldn’t sleep at nights. And a dreadful fluttering round the heart. And then I got a letter from a Scotch gentleman—as a matter of fact there were two letters—both Scotch gentlemen. Mr. Bruce MacPherson was one, and the other were Colin MacDonald. Quite a coincidence.” “Hardly that,” I said dryly. “They are usually Scotch gentlemen, but I suspect a Semitic strain in their ancestry.” “Ten pounds to ten thousand on note of hand alone,” murmured Mrs. Ackroyd reminiscently. “I wrote to one of them, but it seemed there were difficulties.” She paused. I gathered that we were just coming to delicate ground. I have never known any one more difficult to bring to the point. “You see,” murmured Mrs. Ackroyd, “it’s all a question of expectations, isn’t it? Testamentary expectations. And though, of course, I expected that Roger would provide for me, I didn’t . I thought that if only I could glance over a copy of his will—not in any sense of vulgar prying—but just so that I could make my own arrangements.” know She glanced sideways at me. The position was now very delicate indeed. Fortunately words, ingeniously used, will serve to mask the ugliness of naked facts. “I could only tell this to you, dear Dr. Sheppard,” said Mrs. Ackroyd rapidly. “I can trust you not to misjudge me, and to represent the matter in the right light to M. Poirot. It was on Friday afternoon——” She came to a stop and swallowed uncertainly. “Yes,” I repeated encouragingly. “On Friday afternoon. Well?” “Every one was out, or so I thought. And I went into Roger’s study—I had some real reason for going there—I mean, there was nothing underhand about it. And as I saw all the papers heaped on the desk, it just came to me, like a flash: ‘I wonder if Roger keeps his will in one of the drawers of the desk.’ I’m so impulsive, always was, from a child. I do things on the spur of the moment. He’d left his keys—very careless of him—in the lock of the top drawer.” “I see,” I said helpfully. “So you searched the desk. Did you find the will?” Mrs. Ackroyd gave a little scream, and I realized that I had not been sufficiently diplomatic. “How dreadful it sounds. But it wasn’t at all like that really.” “Of course it wasn’t,” I said hastily. “You must forgive my unfortunate way of putting things.” “You see, men are so peculiar. In dear Roger’s place, I should not have objected to revealing the provisions of my will. But men are so secretive. One is forced to adopt little subterfuges in self-defence.” “And the result of the little subterfuge?” I asked. “That’s just what I’m telling you. As I got to the bottom drawer, Bourne came in. Most awkward. Of course I shut the drawer and stood up, and I called her attention to a few specks of dust on the surface. But I didn’t like the way she looked—quite respectful in manner, but a very nasty light in her eyes. Almost contemptuous, if you know what I mean. I never have liked that girl very much. She’s a good servant, and she says Ma’am, and doesn’t object to wearing caps and aprons (which I declare to you a lot of them do nowadays), and she can say ‘Not at home’ without scruples if she has to answer the door instead of Parker, and she doesn’t have those peculiar gurgling noises inside which so many parlormaids seem to have when they wait at table——Let me see, where was I?” “You were saying, that in spite of several valuable qualities, you never liked Bourne.” “No more I do. She’s—odd. There’s something different about her from the others. Too well educated, that’s my opinion. You can’t tell who are ladies and who aren’t nowadays.” “And what happened next?” I asked. “Nothing. At least, Roger came in. And I thought he was out for a walk. And he said: ‘What’s all this?’ and I said, ‘Nothing. I just came in to fetch Punch.’ And I took Punch and went out with it. Bourne stayed behind. I heard her asking Roger if she could speak to him for a minute. I went straight up to my room, to lie down. I was very upset.” There was a pause. “You will explain to M. Poirot, won’t you? You can see for yourself what a trivial matter the whole thing was. But, of course, when he was so stern about concealing things, I thought of this at once. Bourne may have made some extraordinary story out of it, but you can explain, can’t you?” “That is all?” I said. “You have told me everything?” “Ye-es,” said Mrs. Ackroyd. “Oh! yes,” she added firmly. But I had noted the momentary hesitation, and I knew that there was still something she was keeping back. It was nothing less than a flash of sheer genius that prompted me to ask the question I did. “Mrs. Ackroyd,” I said, “was it you who left the silver table open?” I had my answer in the blush of guilt that even rouge and powder could not conceal. “How did you know?” she whispered. “It was you, then?” “Yes—I—you see—there were one or two pieces of old silver—very interesting. I had been reading up the subject and there was an illustration of quite a small piece which had fetched an immense sum at Christy’s. It looked to me just the same as the one in the silver table. I thought I would take it up to London with me when I went—and—and have it valued. Then if it really was a valuable piece, just think what a charming surprise it would have been for Roger?” I refrained from comments, accepting Mrs. Ackroyd’s story on its merits. I even forbore to ask her why it was necessary to abstract what she wanted in such a surreptitious manner. “Why did you leave the lid open?” I asked. “Did you forget?” “I was startled,” said Mrs. Ackroyd. “I heard footsteps coming along the terrace outside. I hastened out of the room and just got up the stairs before Parker opened the front door to you.” “That must have been Miss Russell,” I said thoughtfully. Mrs. Ackroyd had revealed to me one fact that was extremely interesting. Whether her designs upon Ackroyd’s silver had been strictly honorable I neither knew nor cared. What did interest me was the fact that Miss Russell must have entered the drawing-room by the window, and that I had not been wrong when I judged her to be out of breath with running. Where had she been? I thought of the summer-house and the scrap of cambric. “I wonder if Miss Russell has her handkerchiefs starched!” I exclaimed on the spur of the moment. Mrs. Ackroyd’s start recalled me to myself, and I rose. “You think you can explain to M. Poirot?” she asked anxiously. “Oh, certainly. Absolutely.” I got away at last, after being forced to listen to more justifications of her conduct. The parlormaid was in the hall, and it was she who helped me on with my overcoat. I observed her more closely than I had done heretofore. It was clear that she had been crying. “How is it,” I asked, “that you told us that Mr. Ackroyd sent for you on Friday to his study? I hear now that it was who asked to speak to ?” you him For a minute the girl’s eyes dropped before mine. Then she spoke. “I meant to leave in any case,” she said uncertainly. I said no more. She opened the front door for me. Just as I was passing out, she said suddenly in a low voice:— “Excuse me, sir, is there any news of Captain Paton?” I shook my head, looking at her inquiringly. “He ought to come back,” she said. “Indeed—indeed he ought to come back.” She was looking at me with appealing eyes. “Does no one know where he is?” she asked. “Do you?” I said sharply. She shook her head. “No, indeed. I know nothing. But any one who was a friend to him would tell him this: he ought to come back.” I lingered, thinking that perhaps the girl would say more. Her next question surprised me. “When do they think the murder was done? Just before ten o’clock?” “That is the idea,” I said. “Between a quarter to ten and the hour.” “Not earlier? Not before a quarter to ten?” I looked at her attentively. She was so clearly eager for a reply in the affirmative. “That’s out of the question,” I said. “Miss Ackroyd saw her uncle alive at a quarter to ten.” She turned away, and her whole figure seemed to droop. “A handsome girl,” I said to myself as I drove off. “An exceedingly handsome girl.” Caroline was at home. She had had a visit from Poirot and was very pleased and important about it. “I am helping him with the case,” she explained. I felt rather uneasy. Caroline is bad enough as it is. What will she be like with her detective instincts encouraged? “Are you going round the neighborhood looking for Ralph Paton’s mysterious girl?” I inquired. “I might do that on my own account,” said Caroline. “No, this is a special thing M. Poirot wants me to find out for him.” “What is it?” I asked. “He wants to know whether Ralph Paton’s boots were black or brown,” said Caroline with tremendous solemnity. I stared at her. I see now that I was unbelievably stupid about these boots. I failed altogether to grasp the point. “They were brown shoes,” I said. “I saw them.” “Not shoes, James, boots. M. Poirot wants to know whether a pair of boots Ralph had with him at the hotel were brown or black. A lot hangs on it.” Call me dense if you like. I didn’t see. “And how are you going to find out?” I asked. Caroline said there would be no difficulty about that. Our Annie’s dearest friend was Miss Ganett’s maid, Clara. And Clara was walking out with the boots at the Three Boars. The whole thing was simplicity itself, and by the aid of Miss Ganett, who coöperated loyally, at once giving Clara leave of absence, the matter was rushed through at express speed. It was when we were sitting down to lunch that Caroline remarked, with would-be unconcern:— “About those boots of Ralph Paton’s.” “Well,” I said, “what about them?” “M. Poirot thought they were probably brown. He was wrong. They’re black.” And Caroline nodded her head several times. She evidently felt that she had scored a point over Poirot. I did not answer. I was puzzling over what the color of a pair of Ralph Paton’s boots had to do with the case. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Agatha Christie (2006). The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/69087/pg69087-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html .

MRS. ACKROYD

This story was originally published on by , and . ProPublica Sophia Kovatch Pamela Colloff Brett Murphy It’s been decades since the intersection of forensic science and criminal justice first became a pop culture phenomenon, popularized by countless TV shows, movies and books. But the public’s growing awareness of forensic techniques obscures a far more complex field that’s chock full of bogus science — and the people who champion it, often for profit. For years, ProPublica has reported on these dubious techniques as they’ve wormed their way into every corner of our real-life criminal justice system. So, what’s legitimate forensic science and what’s junk? Let’s start with the basics. What Is Junk Science? Junk science refers to any theory or method presented as scientific fact without sufficient research or evidence to support it. Some types of junk science have virtually no supporting evidence, while others are oversimplifications of real but complex science findings. Adding to the risk they pose to the justice system, many forms of junk science are very subjective and depend highly on individual interpretation. How to Spot Junk Science in Forensics When ProPublica has reported on junk science, we’ve found many common traits. They could include: It has limited or no scientific evidence or research supporting it. It is presented as absolutely certain or conclusive, with no mention of error rates. It relies on subjective criteria or interpretation. It oversimplifies a complex science. It takes just a few days to become an “expert.” Examples of Junk Science in Forensics and Law Enforcement Tracing the spread of junk science through the criminal justice system can be difficult. But ProPublica has followed forensic junk science in various forms for years. 911 Call Analysis Police and prosecutors trained in are taught they can spot a murderer on the phone by analyzing speech patterns, tone, pauses, word choice and even the grammar used during emergency calls. 911 call analysis These are known as “guilty indicators,” according to the tenets of the program. A misplaced word, too long of a pause or a phrase of politeness could reveal a killer. Analysis of 911 calls appears in the criminal justice system in lots of different ways. Some detectives say it’s a tool to help build a case or prepare to interrogate a suspect. They have used it to help extract confessions. Others present their analyses to prosecutors or enlist Tracy Harpster, the program’s creator and a retired deputy police chief from Ohio, to consult on cases. During Harpster’s career, he had almost no homicide investigation experience or scientific background. He developed the 911 call analysis technique based on a small study for his master’s thesis in 2006. After teaming up with the FBI to promote his findings nationwide, there was enough demand from law enforcement to create a full-fledged training curriculum. Since the technique’s development, 911 call analysis has been used in investigations across the country. ProPublica documented more than 100 cases in 26 states where Harpster’s methods played a role in arrests, prosecutions and convictions — likely a fraction of the actual figure. In addition, Harpster says he has personally consulted in more than 1,500 homicide investigations nationwide. Despite the seeming pervasiveness of the technique, researchers who have studied 911 calls have not been able to corroborate Harpster’s claims. A from the FBI warned against using 911 call analysis to bring actual cases. 2020 study A separate said applying 911 analysis may actually increase bias. And academic studies from researchers at Villanova and James Madison universities came to similar conclusions. FBI study in 2022 Ultimately, five studies have not been able to find scientific evidence that 911 call analysis works. In a 2022 interview, Harpster defended his program and noted that he has also helped defense attorneys argue for suspects’ innocence. He maintained that critics don’t understand the research or how to appropriately use it, a position he has repeated in correspondence with law enforcement officials for years. “The research is designed to find the truth wherever it goes,” Harpster said. ProPublica chronicled how 911 call analysis was used in , who was convicted of killing her baby after a detective trained by Harpster analyzed her call and then testified about it during trial. Example: the case of Jessica Logan Bloodstain-Pattern Analysis Bloodstain-pattern analysis is a forensic discipline whose practitioners regard the drops, spatters and trails of blood at a crime scene as clues that can sometimes be used to reconstruct and even reverse-engineer the crime itself. The reliability of bloodstain-pattern analysis has never been definitively proven or quantified, but largely due to the testimony of , it was steadily admitted in court after court around the country in the 1970s and ’80s. criminalist Herbert MacDonell MacDonell spent his career teaching weeklong “institutes” in bloodstain-pattern analysis at police departments around the country, training hundreds of officers who, in turn, trained hundreds more. While there is no index that lists cases in which bloodstain-pattern analysis played a role, state appellate court rulings show that the technique has played a factor in . Additionally, it has helped send innocent people to prison. felony cases across the country From Oregon to Texas to New York, convictions that hinged on the testimony of a bloodstain-pattern analyst have been overturned and the defendants acquitted or the charges dropped. In 2009, a cast doubt on the discipline, finding that “the uncertainties associated with bloodstain-pattern analysis are enormous,” and that experts’ opinions were generally “more subjective than scientific.” watershed report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences More than a decade later, few peer-reviewed studies exist, and research that might determine the accuracy of analysts’ findings is close to nonexistent. When MacDonell, who died in 2019, was asked whether he ever considered changing his course structure or certification process after seeing students give faulty testimony, MacDonell answered in the negative. “You can’t control someone else’s thinking,” he said. “The only thing you can do is go in and testify to the contrary.” ProPublica has also reported on of killing his wife, Mickey. Example: how bloodstain-pattern analysis was used to convict Joe Bryan Other Junk Science Examples ProPublica’s reporting on junk science in forensics goes beyond bloodstain-pattern analysis and 911 call analysis. We’ve also covered: The pervasiveness of , a means of dissecting written suspect statements while looking for markers of deception. Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN How the in its investigations for years. FBI used unproven photo analysis Why police and prosecutors kept using with known high rates of false positives. roadside drug tests How Does Junk Science Spread in Forensics? Junk science can spread a lot of different ways, but there are some common patterns in how it spreads across forensics and law enforcement. Often, junk science originates when an individual devises a forensic technique based on minimal or narrow experience and data. For example, the original 911 call analysis training curriculum was based on a study of just 100 emergency calls, most of which came from a single state. The creators of these techniques then put together curriculums and workshops targeting law enforcement at every level around the country. As more police officers take these courses, these techniques are employed more often in investigating crimes and interrogating suspects. When officers testify in court, the impact of junk forensic techniques makes its way into the justice system. Other times, prosecutors call the creators and trainees of these forensic methods as expert witnesses, as was common with . bloodstain-pattern analysis In the courtroom, it’s up to the judge to decide whether certain evidence is admissible. While judges are experts in the law, they aren’t necessarily experts in the scientific disciplines that make up forensics. Once a type of junk science is admitted in a case, other prosecutors and judges can use that as precedent to allow it in future cases too. In this way, new junk science methods like 911 call analysis can spread quickly through the justice system. How Long Has Junk Science Been a Problem in Criminal Justice? Forensic science has had a junk science problem for decades. In the 1980s and ’90s, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used in hundreds of cases, only formally acknowledging the problematic science in 2015. faulty microscopic hair comparison Since at least the 1990s, law enforcement has used a to interpret witness and suspect statements. written content analysis tool with no scientific backing The , which reviewed the state of forensic science in the United States, found that a lot of forensic evidence “was admitted into criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences A found that despite efforts to fund forensic science research, there was still a major gap in understanding the scientific validity of many forensic methods. 2016 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology In 2017, the Trump administration allowed the charter for the to expire, further limiting the progress on validating forensic science methods. National Commission on Forensic Science Since then, many the junk science problems rampant in forensics and criminal justice. forensic professionals have critiqued Photo by on Dan Meyers Unsplash

Junk Science Vs Real Science: Which Is Which?

জাঙ্ক বিজ্ঞান বনাম বাস্তব বিজ্ঞান: কোনটি কোনটি?

Junk Science vs. echte Wissenschaft: Was ist was?

Ciencia basura versus ciencia real: ¿cuál es cuál?

Junk Science Vs Real Science: lequel est lequel?

जंक साइंस बनाम वास्तविक विज्ञान: कौन सा है?

Stories, News & Mentions about CHRONICLED

Chronicled’s Stories on HackerNoon