tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17667941198699685622024-02-08T18:59:45.946+02:00Intellectual mindlessnessThoughts, arguments, stories.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger263125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-73225727970185337202016-06-09T23:54:00.001+03:002016-06-09T23:54:51.193+03:00Like what you do. Love what you do well.<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why do I like programming?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My first reason would be somewhat religious. Granted, religion is not what one usually thinks of when talking about endlessly writing lines of codes and hours, days, even weeks of testing. Still, I find it divine. Why? Because it is creating something out of nothing. You get a working result, an application that somehow benefits you, as entertainment or a more productive manner. And you started with nothing more than an idea in your mind and the know-how to turn that idea into software. It's mystical. There are very few fields where the same can be said: writing books, writing music, drawing paintings... all creative processes, at best creating blueprints for productive objects or buildings or devices. Programming largely skips the middle step - just write it and you can use immediately use it. I say 'largely' as I admit most software requires some hardware to work properly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My second reason would be the process itself. While it may be irritating, time-consuming and can make you feel so frustrated you'd almost like to quit... it is addicting as hell. The rush of pleasure when you solve a problem that has been bothering you for hours or days is simply sublime. It is the same feeling you get after solving a puzzle, jumping a new personal record height or beating an especially challenging level in a video game. It is the same feeling that explains the crazy phenomenon that was 2048. Imagine getting the pleasure of beating a difficult sudoku puzzle several times a day, sometimes even on an hourly basis. But every time you solve it, the puzzle changes. So maybe you solve a sudoku in the morning, win a game of Go in the afternoon and beat a chess champion by dinnertime. On a daily basis with constantly changing challenges - not everything is caused by a NullPointerException caused by crappy code. Sometimes you need to learn more about your tools - included but not limited to the languages used. Other times you need to rethink the logic of what you are trying to accomplish. Some times you know what you want to do but have to ponder for hours on how to describe it algorithmically so as to be able to write it in code. Other times your code works and you are left baffled because as far as you can imagine the thing shouldn't even compile, let alone work without problems. And once you strain your mind, feel the satisfying tingle of your little gray cells to arrive at a brilliant, or as it often happens more often, barely working solution, the relief of getting past a problem using nothing more than your wits and anything or anyone you can find online is breathtaking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you can code with someone else, share the insane joy with someone, these effects are often amplified. Sure, some people make enjoying programming very difficult, but some make it even better. And the results are even cooler - the creation of large and effective pieces of software inherently requires more than one person. As such, programming can be an awesome group activity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So these are the reasons why I love programming. The ability to experience blissful pondering on a daily basis with others or on your own, resulting in something that never existed before and most probably would never have existed in such form if it wasn't for your thoughts, your ideas and your persistance on making it a real working program. Something out of nothing. Nothing but the random thoughts that run through your mind.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" mozallowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" src="https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/cedric_villani_what_s_so_sexy_about_math.html" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="854"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-80464133684686082312015-11-01T17:09:00.000+02:002015-11-01T17:09:55.994+02:00"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility is being superior to your former self."- Ernest Hemingway<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Last night I got to do some thinking. In my wonderings I
realized that every choice I've made, every place I've been to, every group or organisation
I've joined recently have been my choices for one single reason. Surely there are other reasons to give additional motivation, but there is only one 'big one'. I believe they make me
better. Not better than others. But better than who I've been before. Since we are the sum of our experiences it stands to reason that one must choose the most probably beneficial choices. To become the best version of oneself. One might say
I pursue action in accordance with excellence. And that, according to
Aristotle, will be the very best thing in us.</div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
The Universe may always take us to places we
can learn, but learning is only one part of life. From Faust we have learned
that knowing everything is insufficient for happiness. Knowledge is not to be
hoarded, it is to be shared. With family, friends, colleagues, sometimes even
strangers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Knowledge must be shared for
more people to have the chance to be enlightebed, to be better, to pursue
excellence. Not all knowledge is worth sharing and not all knowledge should be shared with just anyone, which poses a problem. Nevertheless, any person could try to go at it alone, but would soon realize that
great tasks and incredible feats require cooperation, require working together.</div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
This is
why I find love so important. Love for ideas shows us where to go, what to
focus ourselves on. Love for another person shows us who can help us get there,
how we can help others reach the same goal. Often it tells us how to enjoy our
pursuit.</div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
We might
never achieve excellence, but without love we don't even stand a chance.
Without love we are nothing. And I
stand firm in my belief that somehow, somewhere there is love for everyone.</div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JT6utDmgIA8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-643476907256007092015-08-26T00:05:00.002+03:002016-01-04T22:36:41.515+02:00'For I have tasted the fruit.'<div style="text-align: justify;">
I had no plans, no idea what to do. I didn't know how the world worked anymore. Nowhere to go, no way to get there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So when the pretty girl offered to let me stay at the café's back room for the night, I had no reason to refuse and every reason to accept. Apparently I looked proper, and sounded sincere enough to be trusted with a night in a locked building with locked cabinets. She did seem hesitant when she left, but I understand that. Not everyone would let a man who claims to have skipped the last forty years sleep in their workplace, even if the backroom had a bed and other amenities. But I'm glad she did. I mean, where would a person from the past go to look for a future? I really don't know.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the morning I volunteered to help with the café. A little as a thank you, a little hoping to speak with the clients if I got the chance. She had been right, most of them were born around the same time I was. They could've been my mates, colleagues, but I didn't recognize a single one of them. In a way I was relieved. It'd be weird to see someone I might have talked to just yesterday, and see them having aged decades. If they even remembered me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was odd, hearing them reminisce about things that seemed all too familiar for me. Radio that wasn't algorithmically tuned to one's taste, software on non-rewritable media, long and thorough news articles, the taste of real chocolate, being able to go to WiFi-less countryside... the list goes on. When I asked why they preferred using the café's computers, I got a variety of answers. Some were expected, such as the natural feeling of having a physical keyboard or a sharp dedicated screen that was easier on the eyes than projections on walls or tables. Some expressed joy that books were still around. Not everyone can get used to carrying your personal computer with you everywhere you went, even if the less powerful ones would fit in your glasses or you wrist, with minuscule projectors embedded in them for flexible displays. New technology isn't always better. I was a little surprised to hear several clients mention privacy. Devices that are always on and carried with you can collect a lot of information about you, and upload it. Apparently they are against thingamajigs spying on them. Old devices had settings to respect a person's privacy, newer ones sacrifice it for more personalization with little choice for the user. Even with all the personal information the user interfaces looked alike. Thus their point: if the personalization data isn't collected for personalization purposes, what is it collected for? What partly disappointed me was that with all of the concerns each new system or service, the famed 'year of the Linux' never arrived.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sure enough, the café was empty by five. I helped her clean up, she got a couple of buns and cups of coffee and sat down with me. She mentioned that some people came to the café because it was one of the few places that still had classic computers. That they'd gone out of production a long time ago, and were rarely found in shops.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Just like phones with full keyboards,' I casually mentioned.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'How do you mean?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'In my time it was difficult to find a phone with a physical keypad, pretty much impossible to find a phone with a full physical keyboard. Everything had a touchscreen so phone keyboards were being wiped out. Shame, really, I'd really have liked a phone with a full keyboard.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You mean you would have liked to lug around one of those giant things with an extra keyboard on them? Why?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I never liked the on-screen keyboard. It used too much room, too much resources, it didn't feel right.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She looked at me with the fascination a little child would have for a Rube Goldberg machine. I felt like a lab rat, being observed, poked and prodded out of curiousity. Then again, when it comes to women, curiousity isn't the worst thing one could spark.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'So how come you're tending this place alone? Forgive me, but you don't strike me as a vintage café owner.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I'm not, it's a family business. I just work here from time to time, keep the place running. What <em>do</em> I strike you as?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I'm not sure... yet. I don't exactly know this world that well.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Ah, insufficient information for a meaningful answer?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Her voice was confident, her eyes narrowed. She was poking me, trying to see my reaction. Lab rat.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Asimov. Yes, I guess you could say that. How come you've read Asimov?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I like old books. I like reading. He's one of the greats, though his essays are hard to come by.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You're a geek as well then.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She gave a little smile and a nod.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'But who are <em>you</em>?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I told her. My name, my home, my work as a network administrator at a local company that apparently went bust years ago, my education, mentioned a few of my friends, filled her in on the basics. Anything that she could've found on the 'net.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Well, that explains your lingo.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Um, my what?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'How you talk. What you talk about. You focus on tech, and you use technical words. I figured you were a geek of some sort.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'A geek who would know about QuNet, that's why you believed me.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I didn't. I'm not sure I do. But I was curious. Not much happens here, you were... different. Thought it couldn't hurt talking to you.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You did more than talk. I gave me a place to sleep.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Locked up and under alarm. Figured I'd learn something whatever you'd do.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lab rat.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'So you like studying people? Working out what makes them go?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I do. Human psychology is fascinating. It is predictable and wild at the same time. It is so limited, yet you cannot reproduce experiments with reliable results.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Is that what you're studying? Psychology?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'God no, I'd be shunned. I'm a Biology major.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Shunned? How come?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Well, it's not a real, hard science. It's too inaccurate. Anything that could be accurate about it is classified as neurology. Anyone who deals with it are ridiculed. Was it not so in your time?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'No. People actually wanted to become psychologists. It paid reasonably well, and people could always do with someone to talk to.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You mean, as therapists, not as scientists?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Mostly, yes.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The conversation continued for a while, I learned a great deal about the world I was now in. It wasn't all good or all bad, as it never is. In return I shared my knowledge of the world I'd left. Finally, she told me that I could stay at the café provided that I kept the place in order and running. She also asked about my plans.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I don't really know. I mean, I'd like to go back to my life, my friends, my work... but I don't know how.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You said there was a sound that drew you to the machine, like someone else came through? Ever think of finding whoever it was, maybe get a way back?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I have. But how can I? How do I know they can help me? How do I know if they would? Whoever came through before me could be as stuck as me.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'It isn't always necessary to know, but it is important to try.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Maybe. If I stayed, and someone found out about me, I fear I'd be a curiousity to be poked and prodded in a secret lab somewhere. Never to see daylight again.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wondered about it for a while. I also wondered if I <em>could</em> leave. There is so much to do here, to learn, to experience. I can see a world of knowledge right outside this building, ready to be conquered. How could I simply leave this opportunity and exchange it for familiarity? I feel conflicted, as I would like to go home, but I don't want to give up this amazing chance to learn about the future. I don't know, maybe my future is here. Maybe I cannot leave, for I have tasted the fruit of knowledge.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ORS9qJRi4A?rel=0&showinfo=0" width="420"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-47772903062692493962015-06-11T20:32:00.000+03:002015-06-15T22:48:34.420+03:00"Time portal to the future. One way."<div style="text-align: justify;">
The machine illuminated the sign so I could read it. It was not a large machine, just a cylindrical shape a metre in diameter, two in height. Large enough for a person, opened on one side. Bright lights wobbling around in the centre. Waiting for someone to walk in. Waiting for me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A moment's hesitation, and I walked in. The light grew brighter with every step. By the time I was at the machine I was walking blind, my eyes closed. It was an interesting sensation. I suddenly felt weightless, my body lifted up by something I couldn't feel. I dared not open my eyes, it still seemed too bright. I know it makes no sense, but I felt like I suddenly shrunk into nothing, and then grew back as large as suddenly. And then it was dark, I fell down on the pavement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The pavement was wet, but I didn't remember it raining. I looked around, got my eyes used to the darkness. The street lights were dimmer than I remembered. But almost every window was lit, which illuminated the street plenty. My mind was still spinning, I felt like I had been knocked out. I decided to go home. It wasn't far.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I got to my front door, but my key wouldn't unlock it. The lock was different. I knocked, there was no answer. The light was off. There was a small café across the street, the lights were still on. It had a large sign in a very French-looking font over the windows. For something so posh it should have felt more familiar. It didn't. It had a few computers at the back wall. A pretty girl was standing behind the counter. I asked if I could use one, she told me I had to order something. I took a cup of coffee, and went to the computer. I was greeted by a log-in screen and a choice: a Microsoft account, an Apple account or a guest account. I chose the latter.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The computer was bloated with all kinds of apps I had never heard of. But I did notice a big blue E icon. The name of the app was unfamiliar, but everyone knows the big blue E leads to the Internet. I was right, it was a browser. I checked the current news on BBC, CNN, io9. It was true, I was no longer in my time. I was in 2055.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What I learned during my quite frankly terrifying research was that while countries were created and destroyed, borders redrawn, leaders appointed and torn down, the corporations remained. Companies really were too big to fail - the demand for them kept them supplied with money and clients regardless of political states. No governments could control them as long as they kept producing popular entertainment. Governments remained only as minor players on the larger board.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Culture had changed. The people who grew up with computers, with the Internet, had grown old. A generation full of digital entertainment junkies had grown old. Social media sites had come and gone, games had come and gone, IM software had come and gone. Just how I remembered it, just add a few decades of the same. Every five or six years someone came up with something newer, something better, and it starved the old of users. But the effect it had had on people, that was remarkable. It appeared that everyone was online all the time they weren't sleeping or engaged in other private activities. Public transport had been revolutionized using self-driving vehicles with on-board WiFi hotspots, which were also placed in most buildings. WiFi hopping was automatic, using software preinstalled on every smart device. But what the people did online... it was astounding.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
They were talking, chatting, sharing whatever they were doing. They were under a constant barrage of social activities, not a single moment without new notifications of someone doing something they thought their friends or everyone should know about or some new fad that was going around just to give someone their fifteen minutes of fame and sizzle out. Fifteen minutes of fame may be an expression, but for the people of the time, it was reality. Very few trending news, movies or performers managed to retain people's interest for over a month - too many new trends arrived to take the spotlight. I don't know how the people kept their sanity, how they could keep up with everything without going absolutely mental. And suddenly I felt like a grumpy old man amased at how people could find almost any piece of information within seconds using a dusty old computer with a DSL connection. In a way I was the grumpy old man, way too old for the time, way too stuck in my ways to be able to comprehend what was going on around me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The girl came over to offer a refill and noticed what I was looking at - the past Internet spread statistics. 'It's weird, it feels like it's been around forever, now it's suddenly going away,' she said looking at the screen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'What do you mean? "Going away"?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'The... QuNet. What, have you been living under a rock or something?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Or something. What is q net? How can it be making the Internet go away, it is everywhere?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'It's some quantum tunnelling thingy made useful. No wires, instant connections to everyone, no hotspot hopping, and way better security. It's all the rage.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'While we're... um... may I ask, where are all the customers?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Most of them come by in the morning, check the news, messages, get some breakfast. It's pretty empty around here after lunch, but the law says all businesses granting Internet access must remain open at least until ten pm.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'So you just stand here to keep the lights on?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Pretty much. You're not from around here I gather,' she replied with a smile.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Ah, well, I guess, yeah.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Closer than she might think, farther than I could imagine.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You're also younger than the folk we get here usually. E-cafées aren't really exciting for them. Where did you say you were from?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Uuuh that is a little tough to explain.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She looked at me crossly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'I.... I used to live across the street.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Oh, when?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'About forty years ago.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
She looked serious. She crossed her hands.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'You know you don't look *that* old.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'Um, I'm not. In a sense. Hmm, I... Let me explain.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I told her how on my way home I heard a clunk from an alley and a bright light, followed by a calming humm. Someone's excited shouts and laughter followed. I didn't usually go into alleys, but this time I was curious. As I slowly and carefully moved closer to the noise, I had suddenly heard a big zap, as if someone had unplugged a huge loudspeaker before turning it off. Then I noticed the machine, and the sign in front of it. The rest of it you know.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'"One way"? Why did you go in, didn't you have family or friends or someone who would worry?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'There were no terms, no explanations, nothing that told me where I'd end up. I didn't know if it was legit, if the text on it had already been proven wrong, or that it'd take me further than half an hour. There was nothing.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'And you still tried? Why on Earth would you do that?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I suddenly recalled a quote from an old TV show I loved to watch that went perfectly with the situation. I wondered if the people there still had TV shows. I then wondered if they had TVs at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
'If you're offered a seat on a rocket ship, don't ask which seat! Just get on.'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-LX7WrHCaUA?rel=0" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*<br />
This is a complete short on its own with no sequels or background story created or planned. Inspired by a question posed by a friend.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-76420144076473996442015-05-24T16:06:00.003+03:002015-05-24T16:06:53.298+03:00Assorted Euromusings<div style="text-align: justify;">
We all know about Eurovision. It is the longest running annual international televised music competition in the whole wide world. It is a celebration of music, of cultures, of emotions and technology. And it is the perfect proof that Skype is not reliable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what I really love about it (besides the music) is the voting. Every year some countries surprise everyone with their unusual choices. To combat giving votes to neighboring countries, all countries have a jury of local music 'experts', whose votes are tallied up and account for 50% of the final result of the country's votes. The other 50% comes from a public SMS vote. Sometimes the decision of the jury and the thoughts of the public work well together. Sometimes they go and stand on different sides of a giant chasm. One example would be last year's votes from the UK - the public's FAVOURITE song did not get even a single point from UK because the local jury absolutely hated it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Among this year's surprises was San Marino who decided to give 12 points to Latvia. This can be explained as San Marino's public was disqualified and only jury votes mattered, and for some reason Latvia was a big favourite of many juries, but not of publics'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To those that don't know, each country that takes part in the competition (40 in total this year) gives points to the national top 10 selection on a scale of 12, 10, 8-1 to countries that qualified to the Grand Final (27 in total this year). Eurovision does not only span Europe, but parts of Asia (including Georgia, Israel etc.) and this year had a guest star Australia.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, without further ado, assorted musings concerning the votes of this year's Eurovision Grand Final:</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Sweden, the winner, received 12 points 12 times in the final. 14 times in the semifinal. Out of possible 39 (21 in semifinal).</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Germany and Austria (the host country) were the only ones to not get even a single point. They didn't even give any to each other. Austria was just out of reach of a single point in several countries.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
7 countries qualified directly to the grand final. 4 of them - Austria, Germany, France and UK occupied the very last positions of the scoreboard.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
As an oddity, Lithuania gave no points to Russia, with kind regards of the country's jury.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
The public's top song in France was the jury's 15th (Italy). The jury's top song was the public's 12th (Latvia).</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
The public's second favourite song was the jury's 20th and hence only got 3 points from France. The public's 4th, 5th and 8th top picks did not get any points as the jury ranked them 24th, 25th and 26th (out of 26).</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
The public of the UK loved Lithuania's song this year, which I honestly liked as well. Their jury, however, dropped it down to getting 4 points from the UK. It could be worse, it could be Poland.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
UK public's second favourite song (from Poland) received 2 points from UK as the jury ranked it 17th best.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Latvia's jury loved Austria, ranked it the 3rd best song in the grand final. The public disagreed and ranked it 21st, narrowly leaving it without a point. Austria did not get a single point from anywhere else, either.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
The Netherlands' public's 5th best (Armenia) and 7th best (Poland) were also snubbed by their jury - 26th and 25th places respectively.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Germany's jury violently disagreed with their public - the jury's unanimous fave Latvia was only 12th most popular with the public. The public's fave Italy was ranked 18th by their jury. The jury's 3rd, Norway, was the public's 15th. The jury's 8th, Austria, was the public's 17th, again narrowly escaping a single point. Germany's public's 6th favourite, Albania, dropped down to a low 15th place in the country's rankings as the jury ranked it absolute last.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Hungary's public's favourite received a whopping 2 points from Hungary as the local jury ranked Italy 20th best. The jury loved Latvia, helping it get 5 points despite being only the public's 10th top pick.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
Israel's jury threw the public's 3rd, 8th and 9th most favourite songs out of the country's top 10, giving them 24th, 21st and 22nd rank respectively.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
The people of Ireland loved Lithuania most, but the jury dropped it down to 4th place. It only got worse after that as the public's 2nd, Poland, was the jury's 22nd. The public's 7th top pick, Romania, and 9th top pick, Estonia, were thrown out of the national top 10 as the local jury stuck them as 24th and 23rd respectively.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
A similar thing happened in Belgium - the public's 6th and 8th most favourite songs were ranked 20th and 23rd by the jury, throwing both Poland and Israel well out of the national top 10.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No other great disagreements between jury and public votes caught my eye as most disagreements are relatively small. Yet I do find it really curious when the jury and the public rank the same song over 20 spots apart on a scale of 1 to 26.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All data has been taken from <a href="http://www.eurovision.tv/page/results">eurovision.tv</a> - Eurovisions official website.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MdybVsBESQc" width="560"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-75232849426362650862015-05-08T01:45:00.000+03:002015-05-08T22:41:02.843+03:00The Space Race. Excerpt."So the Usurper gave you these lands for the treasure?"<br />
<br />
"Well, he would've taken it anyway, but he appreciated my.... bravado. I stole from his enemies, so he couldn't just kill an ally. Other land owners would surely kill me soon enough."<br />
<br />
They were sitting at a cave's mouth. A small bench had been carved out of the rock wall. It was pleasantly cool and a slight breeze led from the deep caverns out. The sun was coming up. <br />
<br />
"Why would they?"<br />
<br />
"I attacked someone powerful. Someone they didn't dare attack. If I were to do it again, they would look weak, their positions would be threatened."<br />
<br />
"So if you are so dangerous to all of them..."<br />
<br />
"Why didn't they? Because I got there first. I sent a few raiding parties against them. None returned."<br />
<br />
"You sent your people to their deaths?"<br />
Flake looked at Maria, an eyebrow raised.<br />
<br />
"Yes. So the others would lose interest in me. Now I appear weak. Coming after me would bring them no benefit, so I can live in peace."<br />
<br />
"So you have a plan?"<br />
Maria simpered. She sat back, closed her eyes, and exhaled. She seemed relaxed, which was odd considering the topic.<br />
<br />
"I always have a plan."<br />
<br />
"It is weird. Boys are always warned about bad girls. That they can cause plenty of harm by wrapping a man around their little finger. Then again, anyone with half a brain can handle a bad girl. It is a good girl we should really worry about."<br />
<br />
Maria chuckled. "You think I'm a good girl?"<br />
<br />
"Better than most. You are too smart not to be."<br />
<br />
Maria locked eyes with Flake.<br />
"If I didn't know any better I'd say you're coming on to me."<br />
<br />
"Not at all. Just remarking on why your plans keep working."<br />
<br />
Maria smiled.<br />
"They work because I make them work."<br />
<br />
"So why am I here?"<br />
<br />
"A few hundred years ago everyone thought that our little Cersus was a lonely planet with a tiny moon and a single sun constantly shining overhead. Then everything changed when we received radio signals from somewhere far beyond. Somewhere beyond our wildest imaginations, somewhere far beyond the twin suns. An outside contact caused an explosion of research. Everyone wanted to know more so scientific centres were popping up like mushrooms, getting more funding than a Nah after finding a rock cavity."<br />
<br />
"I remember the stories from history classes. I was only half-asleep."<br />
<br />
"I am sure you do. I mean to make a parallel. Now imagine there was another discovery that brought all researchers together, and imagine you could control where they would come to."<br />
<br />
"You could control the flow of money. And trade. You could become the new Usurper."<br />
<br />
"Good. So there is no confusion."<br />
<br />
"There is. You cannot possible control the signal. It comes from somewhere we cannot see, and you only know it is coming once it has already arrived. And it still doesn't explain what you called me here for."<br />
<br />
"It does. The signal comes through periodically. Almost completely in phase with the cycle of our days. It happened because our suns are always in opposite directions from us. We can't find the signal any more because over time the signal kept occurring later and later in the day, until it was impossible for anyone to withstand the heat of the suns."<br />
<br />
"So? Are you saying you found a way to stay alive outside the cliffs?"<br />
<br />
"No. I'm saying you did. Or well, keep equipment alive."<br />
<br />
Maria reached into her bag and pulled out a dagger. It was completely black, charred, with a small bit of char scratched off to reveal a metal blade. Flake immediately recognized it. It was his.<br />
<br />
"How did you find it? I lost it almost half a world away."<br />
<br />
"I found it by accident. It was being sold as a cheap clump, but the shape seemed familiar. When I saw your symbol on it, I had to buy it. Still got a bargain.<br />
"Your dagger doesn't melt in the sun. Either of them. That is rare for a metal. So rare that noobody would make a dagger out of it. The only time its quality were of use is when you've lost it or you are dead. It would only be made into a dagger if one had the ability to get more of it. Lots more. And one was using the dagger as a proof of concept for people of wealth. You never got to it."<br />
<br />
"It is true I met some resistance on my path."<br />
<br />
"But the dagger arrived here. And now so did you. I understand you have found a way to produce this new metal. I'd like to use it to build research equipment to catch those signals."<br />
<br />
"For personal benefit."<br />
Maria breathed deeply, contemplating her reply.<br />
<br />
"It will benefit the world, it is a research revolution. I can keep it out of the hands of those who would use it for war."<br />
<br />
"I am here because of you. I trust you. But I cannot make something out of nothing. I could bring nothing with me."<br />
<br />
"I understand you need magnetic ore. There is plenty mined in this cave. Any tools you need will be supplied. Just write down what you need and you'll get it. I'll have some servants sent over to help you."<br />
<br />
"No. I work alone, in private. But I'll also need coal. Lots of it. When I get set up I should have the first produce in about four cycles."<br />
<br />
"As you wish. So I'm guessing you fuse the ore and coal together in some way to make it more heat resistant. Why the long delay?"<br />
<br />
"A single mistake in the process will make the fuse unstable, the metal brittle. It will look fine, but shatter under pressure, or heat. Wouldn't work for anything technical."<br />
<br />
"Fine. I can get you supplies and privacy, but sooner or later people will notice us working together. They will talk. Other land owners will listen."<br />
<br />
Flake laughed. "No matter how much time I have, it seems it is never enough."<br />
<br />
"One does not need to live forever to know that."<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6l1GvDWtccI?rel=0" width="480"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-4782014982668219832015-04-21T01:22:00.004+03:002015-04-28T18:24:07.185+03:00Of love of language of love<div style="text-align: justify;">
The lovers of sounds and sights delight in beautiful tones and colors and shapes and in everything that art fashions out of these, but their thought is incapable of apprehending and taking delight in the nature of the beautiful in itself. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plato, Republic 476b</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are defined by language, and we define language. We can see what is beautiful, we can describe beautiful things, but we cannot define beauty. It is a problem that often comes up in the science of aesthetics, the study of beauty. How can one study something that is essentially a subjective assessment of an object's qualities? By connecting it to philosophy<a href="http://koolimaksupettus.blogspot.com/2012/03/philosophical-ramblings.html" target="_blank">[1]</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MSyIhapMdI8?rel=0" width="420"></iframe><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world” L. Wittgenstein</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Language is a tool. It is a tool that we use to describe the world. We have a plethora of languages that serve different tasks - the language of mathematics, algebra, computing, communication - and even more that serve the same. It is difficult to explain Finnish to a computer, as is teaching algebra to an infant. As is difficult to describe complicated formulae in plain English. The deeper we attempt to explain what we've described, the more complicated our language needs to be. And that is a problem when we attempt to explain something we perceive but cannot prove. To put it in plain terms, you can say gravitation is a term that says that all things pull all other things closer to it and can be demonstrated by showing that a big thing (the Earth) pulls small things (apples) towards itself. With beauty it is more difficult, for you can say something contains a property of beauty and is therefore beautiful, but you cannot really explain what it is or where it comes from. The best you can do is explain beauty as the ability to be appreciated aesthetically.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But that says very little. Especially when you consider that beauty is not only skin-deep. It is pretty much universally accepted that most people are somewhat in possession of inner beauty. That would seem to suggest that beauty is quantifiable as some people are more beautiful on the inside than on the outside and vice versa. Some would say a mechanismus of sorts can have inner beauty in the sense that it looks horrendous, but works in a fashion that can be called beautiful. Some would even go so far as to say a random rock on the street has inner and outer beauty. Sentimental value complicated things even further. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what do we know? We know that beauty is akin to energy in that whatever exists, has beauty, and can be perceived as beautiful to some extent or other. We know it is somewhat quantifiable as we find some things more beautiful than others. We can confidently claim beauty plays an integral part in attraction. Yet we know that beauty is relative to the eyes of the beholder. For some people a mathematical proof can be more beautiful than a red rose just come into bloom. We know there are some generally accepted connections between symmetry and beauty. We know there is some correllation between repetition and beauty. But we cannot explain why. We cannot explain what it is that makes something more beautiful that others. If we did, it would at the very least explain modern art.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No matter how we approach the problem, we end up with the issue of explanation. And that can be achieved in only one way - with language. The deeper we delve into defining beauty and other subjective attributes the more we see that language in itself insofar is inadequate to do so. After thousands of years of philosophical trains of thought we have yet to reach a point where we can turn a subjective attribute to an objective assessment via the opportunities language itself provides. And that is oddly comforting, to know there are still mysteries we have not yet fully explained or understood, that these issues remain relevant and unsolved for thousands of years. Being controversial and inexplicable is an essential part of being human. And that is just fine.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just remember, "gravity is not responsible for people falling in love."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3dOx510kyOs?rel=0" width="640"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-23688977717468511302015-03-21T00:24:00.000+02:002015-03-22T11:22:47.872+02:00Excerpt. Again."There are two types of people one must always be cautious of. Smart men and beautiful women."<br />
<br />
Lisa looked at Frank questioningly.<br />
<br />
"Smart men know what others don't, and use it to their advantage. They become unpredictable for they rely on the existence of secrets. Beautiful women know what everyone knows - that they're beautiful. They become unpredictable for they rely on other people changing their normally predictable behavior to impress them or to avoid being seen in bad light."<br />
<br />
"What about smart women?" Bob retorted.<br />
<br />
Frank decided to wait until a moment of silence had passed before replying. It gave his words more gravitas, he thought.<br />
<br />
"Smart women take care of themselves, they do not bother with schemes or ploys. They have no need for them."<br />
<br />
"Unless they're pretty?"<br />
<br />
"Unless they are pretty."<br />
<br />
Frank gave Lisa a long and hard look, signifying that he thought she was pretty. She felt it as an insult, as he hadn't done so when he was talking about intelligence.<br />
<br />
"So you think of good looks as a handicap? That's... unusual."<br />
<br />
"Not really. You see, Bob, a pretty woman can woo a lesser man into submission, which has little effect on third parties. A smart woman can work her way up herself, again not bothering others. But a beautiful girl with wits... well, there's nothing more enticing for a smart man than a woman of equal or greater measure. It's in our biology and we cannot fight it. We want the best. A smart woman knows how to use our biology to circumvent our minds. There's nothing more dangerous for a man than a woman, smart and beautiful."<br />
<br />
He didn't move his eyes off Lisa's for the entirety of his response. It made her feel awkward about being stared at, and Bob awkward for being in a conversation where the other two conversers were just staring at each other. An awkward silence followed. Finally Lisa broke the silence with a smug voice.<br />
<br />
"Do you consider yourself a smart man?"<br />
<br />
Frank smiled. "I can't say that. Others can, if they like."<br />
<br />
Cocky, she thought. Especially for someone who didn't do much that they could notice. He'd put them all up for the night and covered all of their necessities. But nobody really knew why he did it, or what he was up to. All they knew was that George trusted him, and so would they. Why did George trust him, when he so obviously disliked him? Why did Frank risk exposure by helping them hide?<br />
<br />
What bothered Lisa most of all was that for her, Frank did not seem like the type to do anything without personal gain, even if it was for a friend. And it did not seem like he had owed anything to George. So Frank had to have his own agenda that he would not reveal, something to gain from being helpful. They were but pieces on a chess board, being manipulated by Frank to some kind of purpose. She hated being used.<br />
<br />
"I'll keep that in mind. Be cautious of smart men, I think I can remember that."<br />
<br />
She gave a quick smile, and left the two men by themselves. She wanted rest, for tomorrow was probably going to be a long day.<br />
<br />
"See what I mean by women who are equal measures smart and beautiful?"<br />
<br />
The question was aimed at Bob, but Frank's eyes were still fixated at the door through which he had watched her exit. Bob knew well enough not to answer.<br />
<br />
"There is nothing more dangerous than a woman who knows she has you by the short and curlies."<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/24FsoxcPHTw?rel=0" width="560"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-81501854024396411862015-03-16T19:17:00.001+02:002015-03-16T19:17:13.945+02:00Any house ought to stand a gust of windProfessional guidance. The polite way of saying 'manipulation'.<br />
<br />
It has come to my attention that a TV show about manipulation has become somewhat popular, so I decided to seek it out. See if it caught my fancy in a way such as the Blacklist has - every episode shows slight nudging, behind-the-scenes manipulation, all to make one man's plans come to life. Just a man's plans to ensure his survival, for it is a man who has many enemies.<br />
<br />
The fresh show that appears to be more popular? House of Cards, you may have heard of it. After all, I'd be surprised if you hadn't. It is about a politician trying to be a good and proper politician - by that I mean the scummiest scum of a person anyone has ever heard of. So he makes sure bad things happen to his enemies and good things happen to him. In this pursuit, he takes risks that can give him little gain, but could cause his complete and utter failure. And so his victories are small. He has probably read Sun Tzu's 'Art of War' for he knows himself and his opponents, and thus triumphs at pretty much every turn. What bothers me is that every step he makes is small, and it has huge consequences. In just two seasons, he's become the president, and has appalling approval ratings, a wife that tolerates him solely due to his power, a lover that was disappeared, one friend (played by the ever-wonderful Mahershalalhashbaz Ali (The 4400)) and has magically succeeded in getting BOTH parties to work together against him. I mean seriously, American parties NEVER work together. It is an astonishing achievement to have people who disagree for a living to agree that what you are doing is completely and utterly counterproductive. It is as if someone in their infinite wisdom decided to reclassify an university's Department of Law as a subdepartment under Social Sciences. When you get that much opposition, especially from politicians and/or lawyers you know you're doing something wrong.<br />
<br />
The show is also slow-paced. By this I mean each episode gets dragged out with lots of filler. As such, it becomes even more shocking that the protagonist has become a president in just two seasons, whereas Blacklist's protagonist has only just revealed his aim after two and a half seasons of constant action towards his goals. But House of Cards isn't all bad. It has slight non-complex manipulation, many believable characters, a long story arc.... and it reminds me of YPM.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5FRVvjGL2C0?rel=0" width="480"></iframe><br />
To those who don't know, Yes, (Prime) Minister was (the new version isn't as good) a British satire show about politics. In it, a journalist becomes a minister following general elections, and meets his staff. The staff - civil servants - are the people who are actually in charge, regardless of which party is in office. As such, they seek out ministers who look good and are willing to follow their... professional guidance. As it happens, the protagonist Jim Hacker is quickly promoted to the position of Prime Minister by no fault of his own. On the way he becomes aware of the ploys of the civil servants, often spearheaded by his own Permanent Secretary, and tries to wiggle his way out, wanting to be independent. He even attempts to use these ploys to advance his own agendas. All this in a satire that even The Iron Lady enjoyed. But it is an excellent study of manipulation, game theory, politics etc.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G5P34nJzsaY" width="480"></iframe>
This said, House of Cards moves at the pace of a small-budget drama, but has the influences of old successful classics. It isn't awesome in itself, but it is a surprisingly good introduction to more serious pieces of work, be they satire or not.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-16675776625404824332015-03-01T23:57:00.002+02:002015-04-19T23:53:32.548+03:00Excerpt. Original work.John sat down in a large armchair slightly turned towards the fireplace. Opposite him was Frank, encouched in his own armchair. Frank observed his face and found it bland, full of disappointment.<br />
<br />
"Is there something on your mind?"<br />
<br />
No reaction. John kept staring at the fire, bright reflection of the fire danced in his still eyes.<br />
<br />
"John?" Frank insisted. This sparked a reaction in John. His eyes widened, and he inhaled slowly.<br />
<br />
"When all of it began, when I was thrown in the middle of it, I knew the fight would be all uphill. I knew I needed friends to survive. I just never imagined...."<br />
<br />
"...that they would be so ordinary?"<br />
<br />
John looked at Frank. The firm gaze was all the confirmation Frank needed.<br />
<br />
"You thought you would go a journey. Travel the world, meet exciting people, have fun."<br />
<br />
"Not fun." Frank interrupted.<br />
<br />
"An expression. You thought it would be a tale worth telling. You wanted it to be like an adventure story. You wanted your friends to be cogs in a machine of your devising. For them to be weak alone, but unstoppable with you. You think you are a hero just because you are a victim."<br />
<br />
"**** you."<br />
<br />
Frank smirked. He didn't want to, he wanted to keep a straight face to seem more erudite. He wanted John to take him seriously, he just couldn't stop himself from enjoying John's reaction. He himself usually showed little emotion, so much greater was the joy to create some in others.<br />
<br />
"Reality is tough. There are no knights in shining armour, no damsels in distress, no bard spies to help you and no dragons to be slayed. When you meet a person, you meet just a person."<br />
<br />
John redirected his gaze back towards the fire. He seemed even sadder than when he first sat down.<br />
<br />
"What use are they? They can hardly do anything I can't. None of them matter, all they do is go places I cannot go. Ofcourse I wanted more."<br />
<br />
John was becoming more and more agitated. Frank knew that if he was going to make his point, he'd have to do it quickly.<br />
<br />
"You like the fire? People are like that fire. They all look the same, but the more you find, the more you realize you've never seen identical fires. The differences are small, subtle, but they are there. You just need to look closer. You'll find that some fires burn noticeably brighter."<br />
<br />
John looked at Frank again. "You know, I'll never like your little speeches. Too much allegory."<br />
He started to stand from his seat.<br />
<br />
"But you'll always listen to what I say."<br />
Frank gave a little smile and nod at John. He on the other hand walked away in silence.<br />
<br />
<br />
"You know your allegory breaks down at candles?" asked Lisa, standing in the doorway.<br />
<br />
"I know. He does not have to."<br />
<br />
"Am I one of those bright flames?"<br />
<br />
"The brightest I've met. I felt your warmth the moment you walked into earshot."<br />
<br />
Lisa smiled, but nobody could see it in the dark doorway. She knew he had given an answer, but not the answer either of them had wanted.<br />
<br />
"What makes a person a brighter flame than others?" asked Lisa as she walked closer to the fireplace.<br />
<br />
"You remember how we met? It wasn't a good start. What surprised me was how badly I wanted it to be."<br />
<br />
"Maybe there is hope for you yet." She smiled again, and left the room, leaving Frank to stew with his thoughts, and the fire.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/74LXx0wSqMI" width="560"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-18287506078505875122015-01-05T18:59:00.000+02:002015-01-07T21:08:13.360+02:00'Times change, and we change with the times.'“With every increase
of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary, for every such increase
augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our
capacity for evil, if our purposes are unwise.”<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bertrand Russell, Portraits From Memory and
Other Essays. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1956, p. 177.</div>
<br />
It is common knowledge that with every technological advance we run into new problems (and old ones, see <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/305/" target="_blank">Rule #34</a>). These problems can sometimes be foreseen, such as ethical dilemmas of automated <a href="http://koolimaksupettus.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-lesser-evil.html" target="_blank">vehicles</a>. Sometimes the problems come by surprise, such as was the case with bloodletting. It is a result of a common human trait - overreaching.<br />
<br />
And that applies to any advances is knowledge as well. As we grow older, we gain experience, we find ourselves in new places with new people, and in all of that we learn. The more we learn, the more we yearn for more. And the more we know, the more we can do about it.<br />
<br />
What happened last year can stay there. Stuff happened, stuff that was unexpected, stuff that may have seemed unfair. But from those events and from the people involved we have learned. We have learned a bit about our fellow men, about how things work, about what surprising consequences can await some of our actions, and we've learned a bit about ourselves. To acknowledge that is to move on and look towards the future.<br />
<br />
Now is a good time to look forwards. The year has just begun, and as far as arbitrary recurring variable-sized amounts of time go, a year is as good a time period as any. We are now smarter, wiser, and inherently older. That allows for better planning. A change of life style is in order, perhaps? Or a change in the field or place of study? A new BF/GF/BFF? A new entertaining group activity puzzle game to be found and mastered? Or should one go back to the classics, seek out old friends and flames or areas of expertise? The question that goes before any planning remains the same: what is the best course of action for you personally?<br />
<br />
After all, what is good for you doesn't have to be bad for others. But, as Russell might agree, having more knowledge increases the possible ways of increasing gains, good and evil. But it is only up to our knowledge and sense of morality that define and predict the 'evilness' of an action. And that gets easier as time goes by.<br />
<br />
<br />
I, personally, have found myself on a road I started years ago. And that road is now winding to lead me in a direction I had not anticipated when I started walking. I'm not precisely happy about it, nor sad. I accept and embrace the change and hope that the path you, the reader, are on is as acceptable.<br />
<br />
Fate has a funny way of working, it rarely takes you where you want to go, but somehow you keep ending up where you need to be.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4FShc3zcLBw" width="420"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-12974473338790726072014-12-31T22:16:00.001+02:002014-12-31T22:16:42.885+02:00The end of a pass of an arbitrary loop of time is the beginning of another pass of the arbitrary loop of timeShould video games get Olympic representation?<a href="http://toybox.io9.com/should-video-games-get-olympic-representation-1675541132/+rtgonzalez" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></a><br />
<br />
In particular a comment from ManchuCandidate:<br />
<blockquote>
“Hmmm, there's cheating scandals in the sport. Check.
Seems pointless to add them into an already bloated Olympic sched like
ballroom dancing (unless you are the utterly corruptable former head of the IOC
Juan Samaranch.) Check.
If the Olympics bans Red Bull/other energy drinks and Cheetos then there will
be a PEDs issue. Check.
Domination of the sport by a few select nations for easy gold medals. Check.
Way cheaper infrastructure wise than the luge or bobsled runs.
Plus.”</blockquote>
So eSports might not be as physically demanding as traditional or modern Olympic sports, but seem to satiate all other criteria for it. The benefits of computer games have been widely documented and discussed, and they are surprisingly similar to the benefits of physical sports. After all, to be good at anything on a professional level you need to put a lot of time and training into it. Like athletes, most professional gamers train for hours every single day in order to keep their reflexes sharp, teamwork smooth and anticipation skills up to par. Because video games are not just about point-and-click shooting, they are about being quick, careful and accurate. But most of all, being a team player. Being able to understand the movements, intentions and abilities of your colleagues and opponents. Knowing where to be and when to move for a maximum effect. It is more than quick fun, it's tactics and strategy. Some games more so than others.<br />
<br />
And that last bit is what really throws the idea off. The choice. How do you decide which games to include? Even singling the genre down to 4X you meet a plethora of popular options. Every game's supporters claiming that their game is better than some other game with the same mechanics. But you can't have every game in a competition. Especially one already laden with other events. Even large tournaments have a rather limited selection of games that are competed in. The versus-mechanic means most games will require a series of events similar to football championships. Dragging even one of those events into the Olympic games would be lacklustre. Dragging many would be even worse.<br />
<br />
More importantly, chess is not an Olympic sport. Neither is Xiangqi. Or any other simple game that requires lots of thinking, but not a lot of physical prowess. I mean, if you want easy, play checkers. But keep it out of the Olympics. They have their own tournaments and that is just fine. Just like eSports, or however you like to call them.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hhn-RzMELhY?rel=0" width="560"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-59318914290236431402014-09-17T19:00:00.000+03:002014-09-17T19:00:16.212+03:00"I trust people. It is the devil inside them I cannot trust."Soul. What is it?<br />
<br />
Generally we think of a soul as a whole. Who a person is, what he is like, what drives him, how he thinks etc. It is like a non-localized phenomenon, aether in the air, somehow linked to a physical manifestation - a body. It is further fueled by tales of out-of-body experiences and possessions. Another important factor is without doubt fantasy/sci-fi. Trading bodies for a Friday, absorbing other people's souls, extraordinary abilities, knowledge-downloading, even wiping a soul from a body and creating a new one in its place, the concept of a 'soul' is almost always abstract.<br />
<br />
And there is a really good reason for it. It is magic, a miracle, it is something we do not yet fully comprehend. We know it is somehow the result of neural pathways organized into a neat neural network. We know messing with that network can cause permanent or temporary personality changes, we know damaging it can effectively turn a healthy human into a vegetable. We know that the network is somewhat similar in every single one of us, yet undoubtedly different. We know it is the result of our growth, our experiences, our parents' teachings. Everything that happens to us changes us, creates us. But how?<br />
<br />
The brain itself is an amazing piece of Jello. It is soft as cheese and even has holes (relatively empty connected chambers) in it. Yet it contains enough computing power to allow the invention of phones you can have conversations with. Not to mention making a call. It also has a characteristic called 'neuroplasticity', meaning if a part of it is damaged or missing, the rest of it tries to compensate, reallocate resources to manage the tasks run by the omitted or ineffective part of the brain. It is the reason there are people alive without ever having a cerebellum, a part of the brain with an impressive concentration of effective neurons (as opposed to glial cells that make up a large part of the rest of the brain while basically filling the position of 'support crew' to the effective neurons). It is why people with half a brain can use both hands. So if the brain can somewhat fix itself or reallocate entire areas of itself to new purposes that require more attention, can the soul also be intrinsically mended?
<br />
<br />
The brain can also be fooled. Virtual reality goggles are a reality that have cause plenty of scares by now, making people think they are riding on a rollercoaster while sitting calmly in an office. The phantom hand/penis/whatnot problem is widely documented and interrupted neural pathways have been blamed. Then again, the brain can quickly be taught to think a rubber hand is part of the body. Hypnosis is a relatively popular technique of rewriting the brain. Déjà vu is a very popular event, caused by the brain misinterpreting present events as past events. These are but a few examples of where the brain makes mistakes, either accidentally or because someone wants it to. If we cannot always trust our brains, how can be trust our souls?<br />
<br />
We know what causes a 'soul' to exist, but we have yet to understand why or how. We know what a soul is made of, but we have but an inkling of how it functions. Then again, sometimes we are better of not knowing. Other times knowing just adds to the magic. So, how does that make you feel?
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6BD2qnBozvE?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-9521076036907052902014-09-03T00:01:00.000+03:002014-09-03T00:01:27.545+03:00There is no greater weapon than devotion<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PbyagKSC0S8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Life doesn't always give simple choices. In ways we are challenged by life on a daily basis. It is a challenge to keep doing the same work every day, maintain a hobby with limited time and resources, for many it is a challenge to get out of bed early in the morning every single day. Again and again, routine kills a little bit of motivation to manage the routine. But we keep going, day after day, rinse and repeat.<br />
<br />
Situations life brings us to are never easy, instead they can be demoralizing, devastating, deprived of joy. Some difficulties are hurled at us by our own actions, some are hurled by the lives of others. But no matter the problems, no matter the difficulties, no matter the challenges... the places life brings us to are places where we can learn. About life, the Universe, about yourself and others, about the laws of life, whether they are written or not, about everything. And that keeps us going.<br />
<br />
For we are a curious race. We put a man on the Moon not because it was simple but because it was difficult. We harnessed the power of electricity to have lightbulbs so we can learn during the night. We created a process by which we can get electricity from a reaction on the atomic level. Humans have achieved a lot through stubbornness, laziness and war. Just as with life, bad things have come with great discoveries, good discoveries have had bad consequences. Human history is marked in waves of success and failure, of grandieur and slop, of harmony and noise.<br />
<br />
As is the life of every individual on this beautiful planet. We all get out highs and lows. We keep going on the highs to postpone the lows, keep pushing through the lows for we know we will yet experience highs. And at every step we learn. About ourselves, about others, about the world around us. And we keep running in out giant hamster wheels.<br />
<br />
For we are a curious race. We yearn to learn, we get excited by puzzles, we anticipate questions. Each of us have different questions to answer, some about love, some about life. But after all the pondering and searching we can come up with a single truth, a single thing to take for granted. We are one. And we keep pondering and searching to the best of our abilities.<br />
<br />
For we are a curious race.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-55140545657450891852014-07-24T20:48:00.000+03:002014-07-24T20:48:51.062+03:00What does it mean 'to be'?<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hfUSyoJcbxU?rel=0" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
Chatbots are fun little gimmicks<a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1718" target="_blank">.[1]</a> A little while back one chatbot was reported to have passed the Turing test<a href="http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx" target="_blank">.[2]</a> That has been debunked.<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-computer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml" target="_blank">[3]</a> Very much so, in fact. Time to debunk the debunkery, from the last source:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"3. It "beat" the Turing test here by "gaming" the rules -- by telling people the computer was a <a href="http://io9.com/a-chatbot-has-passed-the-turing-test-for-the-first-ti-1587834715?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow">13-year-old boy from Ukraine</a> in order to mentally explain away odd responses."</blockquote>
Against Turing protocol. Also, Turing test is a test of consciousness, not perception. The chatbot doesn't 'believe' it is a 13-year-old boy from Ukraine, it is told to say that. An AI does not need a backstory, the test does not include memories. It tests a 'normal' conversation, not a flashback episode of a TV show. The point repeats the first point - such a gimmick is not worthy of a Turing test. The results mean nothing, regardless of how much the Turing test has been warped to make it passable by a simple chatbot. True again.<br />
<br />
It continues in the same track - Turing test is not a single shot with handpicked judges. The Turing test was designed so that it would be difficult to pass, but easy to understand. Quite simply it meant putting a person (judge) to IM on a computer. After a while he would say whether he was talking to a computer or a person. If people's ability to differentiate between man and machine constantly remains statistically insignificant (you can no longer confidently say a random person can probably make a difference), the test is passed.<br />
<br />
To make the test more reliable, it should be a double-blind (the evaluators don't know if the judge is being tested by a human or a computer) and randomized. In fact, it would be best if the people didn't know there was a chance they are talking to a computer (so they'd go for 'normal' conversations instead of trying to trick the computer).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"6. The whole concept of the Turing Test itself is kind of a joke. While it's fun to think about, creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence. Many in the AI world look on the Turing Test as a needless distraction."</blockquote>
No, it is not. If you can create a chatbot that can convincingly discuss religion and philosophy, art and morality as convincingly as an average human you have indeed created something spectacular. Because to do that you need more than a chatbot, the 'chat' at that point will only be an interface, what goes on in the background is short of creating novels, symphonies, paintings. To fake discussions, you need to simulate emotions. Typically hormonal reactions created by bytes on a board. Manage that and you have revolutionary technology. And the only way to test if you've succeeded in creating the first 'human' computer is that 'needless distraction' commonly known as the Turing test.<br />
<br />
Just think of it, if you can create a proper AI with a personality prototype you will be a leap closer to having plastic pals that are fun to be with.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8xI4ybJ34" target="_blank">[4]</a><br />
<br />
I would not be surprised if in a few months someone declared once again that the Turing test has been passed by a chatbot. And it will be big news once again because news agencies love making huge news out of nothing, regardless of what they report is true or false. Though let's be honest, even some reputable news sources manages to flame this up. But for any readers, take these news with a grain of salt.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/895pIjyRUIk?rel=0" width="640"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-56713237943749703242014-07-23T22:35:00.004+03:002014-07-23T22:35:56.022+03:00Ab uno disce omnesFrom one, learn all.<br />
<br />
But can you really learn all from a single person? Well, no. As long as you cannot know everything about a person, you cannot learn everything from him/her. But how about learning everything you can? Well, that brings up an interesting point.<br />
<br />
People are not snowflakes[<a href="http://koolimaksupettus.blogspot.com/2014/01/people-tend-to-think-time-is-linear.html" target="_blank">1</a>,<a href="http://koolimaksupettus.blogspot.com/2012/11/explaining-emotion-with-logic-is-easy.html" target="_blank">2</a>], there are distinct differences. Some people are better at lying and concealing information, some are better at acquiring it. Some handle numbers better, some have amazing memory capacities. So say you are great at amassing knowledge. Great for you, your persistence keeps you soaring above others when it comes to knowing and navigating details. It is one of the most impressive abilities there are. And then you meet someone who, for the life of him/her, cannot remember stuff they've tried to remember only a few days ago. Even if something is remembered, it is but a piece of what should be. However, that person more than makes up for it with quick wits and icy logic. How can one learn how the other thinks? How is the other able to learn to remember like the first one?<br />
<br />
As a late habit I've started reading other people's code. While solving simple tasks doesn't really show much, even in Java, but complex problems require creative problems. Some people tackle them head-on, some take a more scenic route. Some hammer it in the most brutal manner imaginable. But as one reads what another has created, and once comprehends it, one's mind starts to change. It is not just about learning different solutions to problems, subconsciously it is learning new approaches. You learn new ways of thinking, and that carries over to other less-techy stuff.<br />
<br />
But it gets worse when you bring in emotions. You cannot 'learn' to have emotions. It's like explaining a colour or trying to understand pain while suffering from congenital analgesia. Emotions and perceptions are subjective and intrinsic. They are inherent of being human with the capacity to experience love and lust, hate and madness, value beauty, practicality, companionship. Trust. These are hormonal responses that cannot be taught or learned. Senses, even worse.<br />
<br />
What makes all of it so sad is that while you cannot learn to have emotions, you can forget about them. Bottle them up, shove them to the back of your head, ignore or avoid them. It is easy to forget to enjoy life and no amount of manic pixie dream girl tropes <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA" target="_blank">[3]</a> will fix that. "My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, I have forgotten how to dance." <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k445V4XXo3o" target="_blank">[4]</a> <br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="" src="//player.vimeo.com/video/79306807?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&badge=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="640"></iframe><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
via <a href="http://sploid.gizmodo.com/short-film-shows-why-a-world-without-secrets-would-end-1595196915" target="_blank">Gizmodo</a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-72651267192072944672014-06-24T17:03:00.001+03:002014-06-24T17:03:47.625+03:00"Do or do not. There is no try."<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75515000/png/_75515217_twitter.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75515000/png/_75515217_twitter.png" /></a></div>
<div align="right">
via <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27824701" target="_blank">BBC</a></div>
<div align="right">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This statement has caused quite a bit of dismay. Added to that another quote:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A female character means that you have to redo a lot of animation, a lot of costumes [inaudible]. It would have doubled the work on those things. And I mean it's something the team really wanted, but we had to make a decision... It's unfortunate, but it's a reality of game development."</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: right;">
via <a href="http://observationdeck.io9.com/ubisoft-says-adding-women-is-too-difficult-1589134494" target="_blank">io9</a><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So basically what happened was that Ubisoft, the company behind numerous top titles (Including the Ghost Recon series), declared that the new Assassin's Creed game would not include female assassins. The previous games have had them, but making female models for the new one seemed like too much work. While this may be an excellent chance to take pot-shots against game developers being all male and girlfriendless, in my opinion there is a larger issue here. So what if they chose to cut female assassins out of the game (though they had the framework done for the NPCs), it won't be the only game with no female playable characters out there. What bothers me is that they had to cut anything at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The point of making a sequel, aside from making yet another ton of money, is that the original had something to be improved upon. Something that could have been done better or could be done better using new techniques and technologies. Something you think could have been done differently. Those are the sequels that people want and expect, not cheap copies with cut content. DLCs are for adding to the game, not for finishing it. But Assassin's Creed is not the first game to be published before it is a finished product. EA has faced angry criticism to that regard plenty of times.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Time for nostalgia. Back in the good old days when a game came to the market, it was ready. Maybe it required some patches to nail even the tiniest of bugs, but as it was, it had 99.9% of all features and content there would be. Anyone wanted more, there were the modders. When you thought 'hey, this faction would be cool in this game' you did not have to wait for the developers to implement it, you did it yourself or got some people together who would do it together. Developers maintained the project, any more work they did was free extra.<br />
<br />
Nowadays, you can publish the game before you finish it. There are plenty of publishing platforms that will let you start earning profit regardless of whether you actually create a wholesome product. Part of the problem are the preset publishing dates that have often been declared overly optimistically. Fortunately there are some (relatively independent) developers such as Triumph Studios that will give a very foggy release date (year, season) until they can be absolutely sure they can have a finished product by the time the clock runs out.<br />
<br />
But it is not about games, it is about attitude. It is about the creators' willingness to commit to the project, to make it as good as they can, to make it something they are proud of. It is difficult to do with sequels to successful projects because there is very little new to add. Without anything to add, there is no 'new' project. It is redoing what you've already done, nothing significant has changed. And if you can't be bothered to make it at least as good as your previous work (or aren't enabled to by your publisher/boss), the sense of enjoyment somewhat goes missing. Making a successful product is great, but is it as good as you want it to be? After creating the first few epic titles, I'd imagine you get a bit more freedom to improve upon them as you see fit.<br />
<br />
Independent developers often release beta-products. They show what they've done and share it as they develop it. More often than not, these developers do it as their side project. Something they do for fun. They may earn a bit from it, but they rarely put it on sale until it is ready.<br />
<br />
All in all, I get that with strict deadlines everything might not be ready by the time it is due. I don't get that the limits are found too constraining until it is too late. I get why releasing a product too early makes sense where money is concerned, I don't get why it has become more of a rule than an exception.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Dovv9sI0sKU?rel=0" width="640"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-16288432873893838112014-06-15T14:30:00.001+03:002014-06-15T14:30:33.115+03:00Time and tide wait for no manThe doctrine of unintended consequences.<br />
<br />
Recently, I came across this<a href="http://io9.com/continuums-main-time-travel-law-is-the-law-of-unintende-1590826944" target="_blank">[1]</a>.<br />
<br />
It is a recap of a Canadian TV show Continuum which tells a tale about time travel. It also touches upon the problems involved. What started as a skirmish in time between two factions has grown to be one crazy mess where anything is possible and everything hangs in the balance. The reason for that mess: unintended consequences.<br />
<br />
The doctrine thereof is an easier version of chaos theory. Where chaos theory says that everything is in perfect balance and changing something no matter how small by interfering with the past will lead to... yes, chaos. To put it simply, say you go back in time and end up in an art school. You reject a few people who want to enrol because they are simply not good enough. Chaos theory suggests this would lead to total annihilation, everything everywhere would be in ruins. Life might persist, but might not. By the doctrine of unintended consequences all that happens is Hitler rises to power. Not that bad considering the alternative.<br />
<br />
What it all leads up to is that you cannot always predict what happens when you choose to do something. How it affects others, how it affects what happens next. And in a linear world, you don't really need to, you don't care. Sure, what you intend to happen and what does happen doesn't exactly have to be similar, but you have to frame of reference. You don't know what would have happened if you chose to do any differently. Yes, fighting for your ideals may lead to death and destruction, but you don't what what would happen if you didn't. Until you see the results, you don't know whether or not you have caused any negative unintended consequences or not. Thus changing the past... you never know if you've succeeded until you are past the point of no return. Even the attempt to change something significant is a monumental risk.<br />
<br />
All that is well and good, but most of us don't have the power to lead the world into chaos or prosperity. So the unintended consequences don't affect many people, whatever damage we may cause, it remains local. The risks are smaller, but so are the gains. Sometimes we get someone fired over something we did not intend to do, sometimes we get amazing offers just because we decided to take part in something. The best we can do is aim for something, do lots, and hope it works out. Yes, it can turn out badly but it is likely you cannot cause anything catastrophical. On the other hand, you risk more by doing nothing.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UiBa6UyxplA?rel=0" width="640"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-48863916478152045732014-06-13T00:58:00.002+03:002014-06-13T00:58:51.346+03:00Well this may be a bit awkwardI mean <a href="http://www.lifegooroo.com/find-love/what-this-dating-guru-has-to-say-about-women-might-shock-you?utm_source=taboola&utm_campaign=66536" target="_blank">this</a>.<br />
<br />
It is an article that promotes an author of a book about seducing women. In the article is a link to a video about the book and about the fantastic system that is The Tao of Badass. It teaches any man, great or small, rich or poor, pretty or hideous to get any woman they want. Either for a one night stand, a week's dating or even for love. Even keep multiple women happy and in love at the same time. Seems ridiculous, but you've yet to watch the video.<br />
<br />
The video first gives a small taste of what he promises, then leads on to a tragic tale that explains how the author knows so much (apparently he read a lot of books and got horny), then gives a few simple tastes of psychology. The common putting visual or cognitive stress on lips for example. Breaking down tension by uttering babble that can be misinterpreted as showing trust, confidence and convenience. The video is rather lengthy, filled with vague promises and success stories, leaving many watchers glued to the screen. All while making those watchers begging for more - available for a humble sum of money.<br />
<br />
While I must grant psychology does work when trying to gain attraction from a member of the opposite sex. We are no penguins, we need social interaction before we choose a mate (or to mate), how we interact has obvious consequences pertaining to prolonged contact with that person (fancy words to avoid being too blunt and distasteful). Some psychological effect can be abused in most situations, some hardly ever. But even psychologists know that even though people are not snowflakes, they are somewhat different. Even minute differences in the limbic system (especially the amygdala) or the prefontal cortex change how or what a person feels or does. So vague promises or not, there is no magic bullet to get with any girl.<br />
<br />
But is there a need for a magic bullet? Should a man be able to go after any girl he pleases and have guaranteed success? Is it perhaps okay then for any man to have the following situation every now and then?<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hA1uAxy-OGA?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
For this convergence to work out mathematically, women would have to become extremely active sex-wise. This may be a bit of a slippery slope argument, but would this not lead to a sudden rise in overall sexual activity and lower the importance of meaningful long-term relationships? Not saying that we should immediately assume this is bad, but it's food for thought.<br />
<br />
This may be a bit narrow-minded, but I prefer a traditional approach. Loyalty to your partner. Respect. Having a family that you trust and can trust you. No need to sleep around, no desire to risk everything you have. It doesn't matter if you have a male or a female partner, as long as the relationship is stable and worthwhile for everyone involved. This cannot happen when one or more of these partners doesn't value the relationship enough not to stray. As I said, might be a bit narrow-minded, but it works for me.<br />
<br />
All in all, a playbook that gets any man any woman they want is a fake, it's a scam. It cannot be done. The fact that the salesperson grades women on a ten point scale depending on how they look and stresses how every man should go for the 9s and 10s simply adds insult. Not to just women, degrading them into mere numbers based on looks, but men as well, simplifying them to the extent where all a man wants is frequent intercourse with physically arousing women. To believe such a person would be able to make all that happen? That just manages to insult the intelligence of those he is selling it to. Sometimes a conman can be <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvdLRMpftxI" target="_blank">cool</a>, sometimes... not so much.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-46333608307182168052014-06-01T22:58:00.000+03:002014-06-01T22:58:55.531+03:00Even a tiny pebble can start a rockslideIt's the little things that matter.<br />
<br />
Imagine you meet a person. Let's call him Rico. He's alright when he comes into your circle of friends, eventually he will leave. He does no harm, he's just passing by, sometimes even gets forced out. But give him a dark seed, infect him with foul wishes, and he will bring death and destruction to anyone he meets. In the end, it is the person we blame, it is the person that is evil and is therefore hated. Not the seed.<br />
<br />
While this may seem random, the same is true for microbes. <i>Vibrio cholerae</i> is a tiny little bacterium that nobody really should mind. Yet when you hear of him, you basically know he causes cholera, a disease that can kill, and even if it doesn't, is at the very least very unpleasant. But he doesn't have to, he doesn't even want to. He just wants to live his life to the fullest, making sure he has plenty of offsprings that look just like him, eating away at anything suitable they might find. They don't want to attack anyone. In a normal situation, they don't. They can infect anyone without causing any symptoms, which is why we don't hear about how safe and harmless it is. Well, mostly harmless.<br />
<br />
Because that all changes when it is infected by a virus. The virus isn't just some ordinary cold virus, it is a nasty one, and it aims for <i>V.cholerae</i> with a mighty desire to get under its membrane. Once there, it abuses the bacterium's own proteins to insert some totally badass genes to the bacterium's DNA. These genes include directions to produce a myriad of dangerous toxins. The most famous one: Cholera toxin. But among other genes are other toxins that have similar effect - though through a slightly different action mechanism. Some cause damage to epithelial cells, some weaken the links between them, some activate ion channels in their membranes... but they all cause a sudden efflux of water. That in turn causes severe dehydration that, left untreated, can be fatal. Treatment includes the administering of water. The bacterium itself is safe enough that it gets thrown out by the immune system.<br />
<br />
But for some reason little cute <i>V.cholerae</i> gets the blame for doing something that he was forced to do by some nasty virus. You know the virus' motto: 'Your cells under new management', in this case they take over a bacterium and brutally abuse it for evil schemes. It is not even a situation that can be compared to being held at gunpoint and told to do something you don't want to. In that situation you would have a choice - do or die. In the case of this tiny helpless bacterium there is no 'die' option. It is forced to become a weapon of mass excretion. And even so it gets the blame for it, not the bacteriophage that gave him the wherewithal to be evil and forced him to use it. It is quite unfair.<br />
<br />
After all, when you think of it, we are talking about a virus that uses an innocent bacterium to attack a giant lifeform, even bring about its death. It can kill a healthy individual without ever even entering a human cell. It doesn't have to. Somehow in its evolution it, a virus that cannot even be seen using a light microscope, has specialized to kill humans by way of bacterium-induced diarrhea. That's amazing, but sort of evil nevertheless. I would not root for the underdog.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JFHTC8XbJgY?rel=0" width="480"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-40080049142685442662014-06-01T14:29:00.001+03:002014-06-01T14:29:19.538+03:00The lesser evilWhat should be the preset morality of autonomic cars?<br />
<br />
For background, companies (sadly including Google) are developing systems to make cars that drive on their own. You just sit in, input the destination, and the car makes sure you get there by finding a route, adhering to traffic rules etc. How it reacts in situations where your normal GPS would lead you to a field or into a lake is of much musing, but for now let's just leave it there.<br />
<br />
A car as such would have to be programmed. It would have to follow strict rules regardless of the situation. Avoid a crash if possible, if crash cannot be avoided maximize damage to the front, if there is no crash imminent, follow traffic laws, whatever. What has cause somewhat of a stir are questions about situations when a crash is inevitable. One of the examples is driving an SUV, a tire blows and you have two options. Either steer or let it swerve left into the oncoming lane and traffic... or sharply turn right to compensate, turning the SUV into a sliding box going off the road to the right. If there is a pasture on the right or no oncoming traffic this would not be a problem at all. But what if there is a small car coming on the opposite lane and a cliff on the right? A situation you would probably not happen to experience, but for the purposes of explaining the problem, it works.<br />
<br />
A SUV hitting a small car head-on at great speed (for the purposes of crash damages, the speeds of both vehicles get added up) would probably mean a death sentence for anyone in the small car, but the SUV passengers would probably live, even walk away from the crash. On the other side, a cliff is a cliff and anyone going over would probably die. So, should a car aim to kill people in the wrong place at the wrong time to protect its owner... or should it kill its owner to avoid collateral damage? Either way it is kind of messed up, after all when we buy a car we would assume that the car is built so that it would protect us. But how far should it go to fulfill this aim?<br />
<br />
The problem here is the fact that the car requires rules to follow. These rules must the wide enough to be applicable in most situations, but strict enough to be enforceable. One of these rules would either have to say 'protect the passengers at any cost' or 'protect other people at any cost'. Drawing a line between these extremes would be riddled with a plethora of ethical dilemmas. But the car would always have to act the same way.<br />
<br />
Another situation that people have found troubling is yet another inevitable crash. A crash where the car has a choice - to hit a small car or a large car. If the speeds are low enough that the crash would not mean instant and definite death to all those involved, the basic logic would be 'a larger vehicle can absorb more energy of the crash, thereby decreasing actual damages. Should the car then be programmed to aim for larger vehicles (we are assuming here that damages inflicted to the passengers of the soon-to-be crashing car would sustain similar injuries either way - not going fast enough to kill them, but not slow enough for the choice not to matter; the problem is the jolt of the car hitting the other car that can cause neck and other injuries for the passengers of the other car)? Should car makers punish people driving SUVs? Or let fate take its choice and remove any person from responsibility?<br />
<br />
These are the kinds of problems we didn't have before autonomous machines. But these are also the problems science fiction authors have been dealing with for decades. Even Isaac Asimov's proposed rules seem perfect, but leave a lot of gray area between them. Then again, the problems arise from perceived morality which is always subjective. It is not about the cars or computers, it is about the people.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6IVwkz-BQGc?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-4125535352562609572014-04-16T01:19:00.000+03:002014-04-16T01:19:35.490+03:00Underneath cold logic lies a warm heartObjectivity.<br />
<br />
We might think we are logical. But every now and then someone comes along and smashes our preconception that we are sane, sober. That event makes us rethink who we are, what we know. And in the end, all we can do is state the obvious: we are subjective, no matter how hard we try not to be.<br />
<br />
I am one of the people who take pride in the ability to distance oneself from situations. Just stand back and see what is really going on. It is one of the abilities that Forbes<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2014/02/06/how-successful-people-stay-calm/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span></a> claims successful people use to fight stress. It eases assessment and the following decisions appear to be more solid in nature and turn out to be more effective. For some it is easy, for others it is impossible.<br />
<br />
To train oneself in the art of stepping away from the situation, one can simply look at everyday things, from complex machines to simple devices. And simply think of their essence, how they are put together, what do they do? How does a crane go up, what's the point of having rebar rods in concrete, how do pump valves work? Simple curiousities that open up a whole new world and force you to look beyond what's plainly visible. It forces you to look deeper into any problem, analyze it to find alternative solutions, pros and cons for these solutions to understand why these alternatives are not used. It is a bit of analytical thinking that can be trained with little everyday exercises that one can do almost anywhere at any time. As long as you can think, you can never be truly bored.<br />
<br />
However, training analytical thinking is as effective as Pavlov's dog conditioning. It certainly has effect, but it does not rule out alternative mechanisms, it does not rule out malfunctions. Every once in a while even the most objective mind will miss or ignore something willingly and create subjectivity. Every once in a while it reassesses its values and hopes, thus changing the criteria on which its decisions and evaluations are based. Every once in a while a bit of subjectiveness will come in no matter what we do. After all, we are human. We use our gut instinct, we jump in strange places, we travel in the dark. Just hoping that we make it through, hoping we find a piece of light.<br />
<br />
Sometimes subjectiveness is induced by a certain emotional event or by an emotional reaction to someone we meet. It could be something that rocks your boat, or something that rocks your world. It can range from winning a huge scholarship to seeing a nice smile and sinking in it. As long as it creates a spontaneous emotional response, it creates a high risk of subjectiveness. Which isn't necessarily bad, sometimes things feel funny for a reason. Instincts are what have kept us alive thus far, they have guided us through thick and thin so that we could arrive at this moment in time to read these words, written by someone who reached the point of writing them thanks to listening to his instincts.<br />
<br />
As I mentioned earlier, I am an avid fan of objectivity, of mental distancing. Surprisingly many situations can be solved by it, resulting in mature and responsible decisions. But no extreme is ever effective, and as such, one can hardly ever ignore feelings when we find someone special. Friendships are difficult to form without listening to instincts, relationships are impossible. Our everyday life requires the use of subjective analyses since every single situation in our lives includes unknown variables. The more complicated the situation, the more we need to analyze it before we can trust our instincts, for they can be mistaken. Often enough we cannot see enough, and hence we must use our gut. Then again, if you listen to every gut feeling, you never get anything done.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/EdibJl0sWZQ?rel=0" width="480"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-87230938518310683502014-04-05T13:38:00.001+03:002014-04-05T13:38:50.083+03:00"There is no certainty, only opportunity."The brain is the most important part of the body. According to the brain.<br />
<br />
Neurophysiology is a rather fascinating science. Difficult to research as most methods by necessity are invasive and possibly harmful. Yet infinitely complex in its nature. Just think of the myriad of emotions you are able to experience, think of the information you are able to analyze and store, think of all the creative ideas any person can come up with. And then think about 9% of all Europeans (according to research) have suffered or are suffering from more serious mental problems, most of it being depression. 20% of American homeless people suffer from skizophrenia. How to differentiate brilliance from madness of a molecular or neural scale? How do you know whether a person is depressed, not just feeling a little under the weather?<br />
<br />
It is difficult to tell these states apart by looking at the symptoms, it is more difficult to find the causes. In a way, the causes of mental illnesses use security through obscurity. With all of these different brain functions manifesting at all kinds of different times, how do you tell which specific reaction (or lack thereof!) is causing a specific pathology? Without years, or even decades of thorough research, you just don't. You take a stab in the dark and hope you can solve it in time.<br />
<br />
When speaking of electrical signals, you can think of a brain as a glob of Jello. In fact, the comparison is frighteningly apt. If you were to add electrodes to both (a brain and a glob of actual Jello), you can get brainwaves from both (if the Jello wobbles, which if you have any sense of fun, it will). But as Jello is not really a brain as a whole, sometimes neither is the brain. Alien hands might not be very common, but they do occur. For those that don't know, alien hand occurs when there is a communication problem between the right and the left hemisphere. Just imagine a married couple refusing to talk to each other after a fight. The problem with no communication is that one side does not know or understand what mischiefs the other side is up to, and can panic. Especially if at least one side is irrational. That can lead to one side of the body attempting to harm the other side, inevitably hurting itself in the process.<br />
<br />
So that's all the brain is. A ball of fun directing our every move, regardless of whether it understands why or how. A mix of wires so complex that 'thought' and 'emotion' are possible. Most actual effective neurons are concentrated in a rather tiny spot at the back of the head, with a lot of the rest filled with glial cells that work as isolation and support. Put simply, it is a bunch of tangled wires that by some amazing process have combined into a central processing unit with subunits that process different kinds of informational input. We know how neurons work, but we don't know how the system works. We can't even reproduce the existing networks. That's what modern neuroscientists and computer scientists are trying to do - create a simulation of neurons and see if and how they create a brain-like structure. If it works, who knows, maybe the next step is organic computing.<br />
<br />
If you know that a healthy brain is infinitely complex, just imagine a brain with a quirk in it. Then you understand why mental illnesses are so darn difficult to define, locate cause of, and remedy. Even thinking about it changes your brain, possibly causing a fault or a kink in it. Now that is scary.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XL6cc7YkS4E?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-73340436478611982042014-04-02T22:52:00.001+03:002014-04-02T22:52:31.355+03:00A piece of him, a dash of her, mix it up and you get a new person.'The sale of human organs should be legalized.'<br />
<br />
This topic reminds me of this other quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself."<br />
<br />
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang <br />
"Looking God in the Eye"</blockquote>
Human organs are no more special than the genetic code. Even now scientists can create surprisingly accurate depictions of people by reading their DNA. While this technology is mostly of use in crime fighting, DNA is used, prodded and poked all the time. It is tested on, it is experimented with. Gene-storing centers basically buy and sell gene information to each other. So why not do the same with human organs? After all, in dire situations you are more likely to benefit from somebody else's organ than somebody else's DNA.<br />
<br />
But first things first. Is there a need for a legal human organ market? We already have donors, in some countries the donor system is opt-out (meaning if you do not specifically say you do not wish to be a donor, you are a donor by default). So people in need who meet the demands for a donor recipient are already taken care of, in some part. In others, it is opt-in, which makes keeping the supply up a bit more challenging. But let's be honest, who wouldn't opt-in with the current systems, probably wouldn't opt-in with a free market. Naturally you cannot help people in demand if you have an insufficient supply. But short of organ harvesting from living people, a legal donor market won't increase the supply.<br />
<br />
Sure, one could imagine that the market would encompass the world, whereas the donor program generally only works between countries relatively close to one another. The problem with long-distance organ donorship is transportation and storage. Getting a heart or a lung to a destination thousands of kilometres away without critical deterioration is tricky. It is expensive and extremely time-sensitive. Getting it to work with even longer distances is even more problematic and more dangerous. Simply put, getting the market to go world-wide would be quite a daunting task, and a very possibly impractical one at that. That means the supply won't increase anyways.<br />
<br />
Quite frankly, the only legal way this new open market would increase supply is if the donors were to be reimbursed for their generous contributions. In other words, people would have to sell their dying bodies for spare parts. Even if we manage to keep it on the level, are we as a society ready for that? For argument's sake let's say we are. But even so, is gaining a marginally larger supply of donors worth the painful transition phase from a voluntary donorship policy to a capitalism-based one, and do we lose a bit of our souls doing it? Or are good deeds indeed good regardless of motivation and intent?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1766794119869968562.post-2427545791659090022014-02-26T23:45:00.002+02:002014-02-26T23:45:38.986+02:00To plant intellect, you need the right kind of soilEducation. Something extremely valuable, yet so often ignored. In many cultures education has indeed stalled, or even become worse than before. In some, education has prospered, become something respected and even demanded. But for education to prosper, it needs more than good teachers, good schools and the chance to attend them. For education to prosper, you need to spark interest in it.<br />
<br />
Back in the old days you had A-team, MacGyver on the telly. They showed what can be done when time is of the essence, when resources are plentyful, and when you had a dire need for something unusual. If you wanted to know more about the reactions and principles behind the constructions, you could watch Bill Nye the Science Guy. On a higher level you had Feynman's lectures. The telly was a world of wonder for anyone who was curious about the world and how it works. I mean, who didn't like the machines and fixes made of random conveniently placed objects? They explained everything from chemical buffer systems to electrical fuses, and you had a good time watching them do it.<br />
<br />
Now that's all in the past. Just like video killed the radio star, internet has taken a mallet to educational TV. Sure, you have your Brainiac with its scientific inaccuracy (flat out lies), Mythbusters with little to no explanations and Burn Notice where everything is solved by duct tape and guns. Lots of guns. But quite frankly, these shows lack the jerry-rigging that made the older shows so fun to watch. To see what can be done with random objects you have lying around, to see the world of possibilities around you, expanded by having scrap. That feeling was spectacular. Those days are gone.<br />
<br />
But are they?<br />
<br />
For the past few years there has been a TV show airing in Estonia that pits teenagers against each other in a battle of wits. The participants must show their intelligence as parts of teams and as individuals. In each episode the young stars have to solve three problems of increasing difficulty, often building everyday devices using unusual materials and methods. One by one the weakest performers are eliminated until only the best remains and wins a large scholarship and some additional prizes.<br />
<br />
But the main point of it is not competition, it is about innovative problem solving. It is about inspiring younger people to start exploring and experimenting, to start learning. It is about creating groovy role models out of actual science-curious teenagers for kids to follow. Making 'smart' considered 'cool'. It is about creating the spark of interest in science and education. And it is working - even as a 'edutainment' show, it has a stable viewership of nearly 10% of the country's total population.<br />
<br />
It is a direction the other countries should follow. Education should be valued, it should be propagated. But it should also be done in a way suitable for children - not in commands, but in opportunities. Force a kid to learn chemistry and he might do it, have enormous difficulties with it and forget it the week after. It does not mean he is an addlepate, it means he wasn't given the chance to be curious. Show him what chemistry can do for him, something practical, something he can see, do, and consequently understand. And he will learn more than you could ever force him to. I'm not saying you should deprive the kid of things he has not shown interest in, I'm saying give him a chance to be curious. And you'll be amazed at the results.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="281" mozallowfullscreen="" src="//player.vimeo.com/video/42117991" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0