Grammar School Inspirations

Posted on by under Artifice Intelligence, GAGI, Machine Learning, Privacy, Sad, TAS, Technology

My kid is nearing the end of her tenure in our local public elementary school. However, for some reason they have had trouble mastering required elements of the language art. After I struggle to answer some of her homework questions, I felt giving up. I had to read some of the text 4-5 times before coming up with very tenuous answers.

Finally, I decided to dispense my massive wisdom instead of trying to demonstrate the correct.

Child, there are several different things you are learning here. In the least you have expression. Expression is the minimum you must do to in the context of speaking, writing, and other performances—let’s just call all these activities performances. Expression can be very basic, chicken scratches, a whole page filled by pencil, a hand print, a foot print, a bark, a cry, Hayden’s Trumpet Concerto performed on a Eb. there are no limits to what constitutes as expression. In America we have laws that protect human vocal expression as a basic rights. Modern arts have taken these to the limits of our imagination. Therefore the minimum is that you must express.

Next thing the teachers teach you is the skill of information communication. An idea in your head, be it information you know to be factual or a feeling, can be communicated to others through performances. Some of the skills in information communication include: summarization, listing information, relating information, serialization, causation etc. the skill of information communication is one of human’s proudest achievements. We can do it efficiently and to great precision. Therefore it is vital that you learn how to do this for both simple and implicit information.

Another purpose of performances is one of affectation. (Here we use it in the first person and speak to skills of affectation, later in a different perspective.) Many of the devices and techniques the school teach are methods of affectation. “How do I grab the readers’ attention?” One often hears echos of classes past… “How do I prepare the reader for this complex concept?” And “How do I surprise/scare/alert/depress the reader/listener/viewer(consumer)?” These skills, for performance learners are geared towards achieving specific goals affecting the consumers. Their successful application reasonably leads to manifestation of intended changes.

So then, for elementary school, you can focus on learning skills and identifying which of expression, communication, and affectation each skill element aims to accomplish….

Me

Now, then, I realized I digressed so much that it is now bed time and her homework is unfinished—because of me. But these thoughts are racing through my head unstoppable.

In truth grammar school performance skill classification actually helped me understand a mess of confusing things. For starters, the fact that expression, as in the freedom of expression, is actually a very nebulous… err… expression. But viewed from a complexity or mental effort to produce, it does not require much. It would appear that freedom of expression is an upper bound on permissible performances. It says that our system of thinking imposes no upper limit to speech or other forms of expression.

EXCEPT, we actually can and indeed do impose restrictions on performances. What comes to mind immediately are NDA’s, trade secrets, government secrets, passwords, etc. There are also lower bounds such as real estate mandatory disclosure rules and SEC filings where specific fields of information are required to be included in any performance. It would appear that we have (or that we have expressed, ala functional relativism—adopting relativistic view to enable computability/functionality/operability) indeed put restrictions on performances that communicate. Even though they are expressive performances, due to their informative functions. The detailed consideration of this type of expression can partially be taken up by a new branch of law covering information property which I proposed as a different type of property from those that we already have laws for, e.g real estate, chattel etc, due to the advancing and emerging science and technology of information. Briefly, we want to quantify it quality information communication using modern and future formal theories of information(such as the idea of information gain). That would enable us to make more precise statements about what we want/can/should communicate.

FURTHERMORE, performances with affectatious nature can further be restricted. Most prominently, in many professional circumstances (teacher, doctor, CPA, police) and in the court of law, it is never permitted for a person to perform so as to (mis)lead the consumer to believe information that is false. They are not permitted to perform so as to induce a damaging or undesirable action of the consumer.

Aside from expression, communication and affectation can be subjective. Whether a person has mislead and whether the performance as intentional or inadvertent, these are determinations that we do not have objective criterion’s for. In the future we may have the technology to measure them, but right now, our society tend to resort to functional relativism by identifying authorities on matters of lying and manipulation—judges in the court system, managers in the professional environment, etc. We, as a society, tend to agree with the judgement of these authorities. “Judge xyz has ruled on such and such matter.” says xyz made a decision , but it also says we hold that decision to be good or true enough to proceed.

I really enjoy my conversations with my children. They make me think hard about what I know and believe. They ask “why” and “what” so much that it trains me to have more critical assessment of the nature of my realities…. and spelling. I can’t wait to talk to them again and again…

What comes after Rococo?

Posted on by under Uncategorized

For those who know both computer science and art history, you might chance upon an observation that early decades of 21st century computer programming has developed to the art of rococo period.

It’s hard for me to hold a chuckle as I learn more about rococo period art and recall the amount of literal decorators my code was required to have at a, possibly fictional, job that I once may have had or heard about. (Obviously, there’s often more decorators than code.)

If you know, you know.

Beyond the formalized linguistic decorations used by the code base, there are also implicit requirements about documentation, formatting of documentation, linkage to code, spelling, grammar, flow and search-ability, ease of maintenance of documentation to correspond to code… Here I interpret the documentation as decorative additions to code which does not require documentation to run.

Sure, today we still feel that code documentation is essential to correctness of code. But I bet most baroque and rococo artists also felt that decorative extravagance is necessary to produce art.

And last but certainly not the least, every machine learning paper is obligated to have open source code and theorems proved in math proof language. Although they often in the appendix and footnote, they tend to be quite more substantial than the paper itself. I’ve even come to discard papers that do not include them. We consider proofs and implementation essential to peer reviewed academic papers. Can these extravagantly implemented extras be like the decorative aspects of art from rococo period?

Will we discard these? Decorators and natural language documentation in code, and paper source code and proofs? Will we collectively be able to develop to an intellectual level where these things are integrated and homogenized together? Will we realize larger artistic structural patterns, forms, themes, etc.

Perhaps we will arrive at a day of “neoclassic computer age” during which we reject and explicitly discard some of the elements we think to be essential today. Can you imagine a paper that works very hard to not include mathematical proof? @paperswithoutcode #provablyprooflesss #illogical #programvariance #BIGOMEGA anyone?

Or a piece of code striving to be without documentation? or perhaps we would even write code deliberately and systematically incorporating what we consider software bugs today like they’ve done with dissonance and atonality last century. Proofs with the most subtle errors anyone ?

The code without doc actually seem quite feasible, even using just the technologies we have today. But my mind’s mind dissipates like fog in the sun when I think of the others…

🧐

🤔

P.s. a child is preparing for a California Music Teacher Association Certificate of Merit test (level 1) I have the opportunity to learn more about these periods that I’ve known since Mr. Wilkerson’s world history class late last century. Very late and slow learner I am… but I learn, nonetheless. ✌️

The wisdom of problems solved past has bounds

Posted on by under Uncategorized

One time, a dear family member told me of a trick for drinking ice water. I’m told that drinking it very slowly will tend to soften the discomfort of the very cold water hitting the stomach—the water warms up as you swallows.

Recently, I’ve found a situation where this doesn’t end well. If one is to drink some very cold ice water (think 32oz cup filled with ice cube, then add water), due to the cold temperature, the water may sooner cool your throat than warm up. The resulting shrinkage of blood and other liquid filled vessels causes tiny little bubbles to pop up on the tip of the tongue. my guess is the construction of blood vessels actually ends up pushing some blood back into the tongue causing the pressure increase.

The good news is that if you then take another sip of the same cold water and hold it on your tongue, the coldness causes the bubble to shrink. This is likely caused by one of several things: the liquid inside the bubbles shrinks due to cooling; the blood vessels in the tongue constricts and helps to equalize the pressure; or it could also be that the cold kills your sensations of pain.

In all cases this whole problem arose in the application of a symbolically learned heuristic (somebody told me) One often needs a reminder that what must have seemed to be very wise solutions to a physical problem in the past may not be useful to new problems due to the bounds of their effectiveness.

Is Big too Supernatural to be Good?

Posted on by under Environment, Uncategorized

Is it true that larger enterprises are always.mote efficient at achieving the goals that they set out to accomplish? Be it to organize the world’s information or to deliver happiness, are they really good at it?

The surge and resurgence of tech stocks market capitaization would suggest that the answer, aseasured by a.modern human value system, is an resoundingly and enduringly yes. Yes, they do what they set.out to do very very well by synergryically harmonizing human means-of-production aggregates.

But if we look back at history, is it not true that most alterations to the earth (I mean to the environment and also infrastructure supporting human conditions) Scaling up production ala industrial revolution ultimately lead to large conglomerates that are composed of small units that operate in harmony towards a united goal–making kettles, cars, whatever. The computer and internet revolution (aka that which lead to the information age) was accomplished, Scaling up production and consumption of information, by organizing and merging the work of many many distinct entities. The free and open software that run today’s internet combined work output of a lot of people to create the behemouth complex known as the internet.

Although it is a far fetched comparison to make between industrial enterprises and the entire internet, their similarities are obvious: one person could not do any of it. Humans, being Humans, pride ourselves in having figured out how to combine the efforts of separate people into output that a single one could not achive. As an aside here, the distribution of this collaborative coproduction is one of the biggest controversy in human civilization. The consequence of this production has always been supernatural–items, machines, political power, physical energy, information that individual human being could not naturally produce. (And yes, many of us would even label bisexual reproduction as a devine manifeststion that is supernatural)

These supernatural products of human combinations produce items and powers that individual human cannot manage. For god sakes we have enough trouble just controlling our own bodies and minds, the product of our combined effort is almost always less controllable than our individual products.

The consequence of this is that the more we combine and produce, the more possibility of negative consequences. Due to our lack of control over supernaturally produced physical and psychological artifacts, we wreck more things, supernaturally, as we make more things, supernaturally.

The more information google organizes, the more problems we have with dissemination of (dis)information. The more we socialize on social network, the more we hate and envy and distance ourselves from other natural beings. The more cars we make, the worse the engiroent. And I would definitely hypothesize that clean energy, as a result of human produced supernatural production will surely have aspects that hams cannot control well enough to prevent new and worse supernatural damage–despite all the good intentions.

So one cannot help hut wonder. Would discouragent of large enterprises with united vision and goals ultimately improve the advamcent of our cilvilization? Is Jefferson’s idea of lots of small farms really salvation for out planet?

What about the side effect of reduced production? Wouldn’t people and economies all just starve to death without large corporations?

But our sciences are doing better and tech is better, we can control our output better than we could in the past. American Democracy is an example of improved control over supernatural political power with safety measures? Wouldn’t we expect control to improve as technologies have?

Say I am right, what would be the ideal size and distribution of smaller entities? (In the limit 1, every person is independently able to survive and thrive…) But really what size is not too supernatural?

?

Chikeninator

Posted on by under Uncategorized

So.. apparently, on Phenius and Pherb, there’s this device called a Chikeninator. In its most primitive form; It is a ray gun that when shot at something, the object on which the emitted ray incidents first is exchanged with the nearest chicken

So it so happens the protagonists are stuck on a remote planet fighting dragons. The gun is used to send a dragon to earth, bringing a chicken to the remote planet. Later, the crew find that they’re stuck on the planet without a spaceship. They need another way to return to earth.

This tickles the mind a lot. assuming wolg that there are no chickens other than on earth and the the one on the alien planet.

Obviously, using the Chikeninator again switches the chicken on the planet with the allies so it doesn’t do much. The solution seems to be to shoot at something T, in space, away from Earth, so that the distance from T to aliens planet is longer than distance form aliens planet to earth, but keeping the distance from T to alien planet closer than T to earth.

TE>TP>PE

Shoot (hopefully very small) T, then shoot self with Chikeninator.

Tata!!

p.s. TE>TP ensures the chicken on P is switched with T ; TP>PE ensures second shot picks a chicken on earth and not on T.

P.p.s. And obvious the child points out that this is needed only when proximity is between shootee and chicken. If the proximity is between shooter and chicken then one can just shoot at something on earth(maybe remove the dragon) to return the chicken on P to E and the. Shoot one’s selves to return to earth.

From The Least Effort Pursuit to Financial Freedom

Posted on by under economy, Optimizing Life, Social Order, TAS, Technology

Mumbling to family that spending money is the easiest act to perform. It is akin to the increase of entropy in the Universe. The nature of money is that it wants to be spent.

Then one might also ask that during those expenditure what is the nature of the corresponding or reciprocal change in our socio-economic system? Would it cause a decrease of entropy within certain physical or artificial construct: construction of building and selection of most organized organization to do the construction. Does money expenditure at least guarantee net increase in humanity’s utility due to the use of money?

This thought is somewhat inspired by reading Bernanke’s book on the federal reserve where they play with monetary system to cause socio-economic changes. Most of the time, we, at least I do, still assume that the motion of money is a result of satisfying a natural human need. I would really like to think that my needs are not a consequence of money’s need to be spent?

Where does one over take the other? Can we measure who’s making whom for what using a single number? We use the freedom from our previous analyses to mean the total actions available to us(an Action Space). An easy start is a probabilistic number called one’s Financial Freedom $math F_F\in [0,1]$ representing the ratio of the cardinality of your money-permitting action space versus your natural-god-given action space. Most of the time, we can make real-world assumptions and estimate this value.

And, corollarily, can we find a certain criterion that can predict this F_F. For example, can a billionaire be above the influence of money’s natures? Can united organizations of sufficient number of natural persons be an entity that is beyond the reach of money? When does F_F approach zero and when does it approach one?

Why should we fear this lack of freedom.

Perhaps a Software Defined Economy can help us to understand the ins and outs of money matters better.

Is the end neigh?

Posted on by under Uncategorized

I’m reading my post on BLM, on the day that Roe v. Wade is over turned by the Supreme Court. My SMS is abuzz with requests from my governor, senator and president tot air action (donate $) to fix this wrong.

I’m honest on the fence about this. I remember a very bubbly social studies teacher in 7th grade explaining to me for the first time the significance of Roe V. Wade. (She also ran the high school cheerleader squad) it was the norm in Pennsylvania to present both side all in one lesson. She was pro-choice, however, when challenged by my classmate who seem to be in the knows, she had to back down and acknowledge that pro-life has significant merits. (Man, talk about indoctrination, these prepubescent boys were taught that new lives are more valuable than girl’s choice) There were a lot of Churches in Pennsylvania. My dad even took after King Richard and tried the Kingdom Hall.🤪Seriously though, they only learn from the Bible, real teachings of Jesus Christ… better than everyone else who don’t do that, these were some devout folks we met.

There is certainly a problem of practical enforcement d monitoring of metric that we may value. For example, I mentioned only BLM post that we should approach racial justice with a reasonable mind. We cannot start by saying every white American man is part of a scheme to hurt minorities here. But I am immediately attacked by unlimited amount of evidence that that’s all they do. Some of these evidence maybe true, some of it may be circumstantial. The reality of our world is that we humans do need to update our believes and behaviors in response to our externalities. The challenge is that often, we do not have a commonly accepted metric for fairness, or freedom. So we resort to the simplest predicate for our brains to evaluate: are we equal?

My past work had proposed QIM, BETAM fairness, and action spaces. In the prior, we sought out a way to achieve a population-wide equality by using quadratic loss on the measurable metric of service. (Service was all the craze back then, so I casted government as a governance service side by side with employer as an employment service…) In BETAM equality, we set the mental expectation in our populace, the ETA of complete equality in a metric of import. Note, although we use statistical expectation in the calculations, it is meant to help the human participants understand what they should expect to happen, or even what they should try to make happen. Finally, our analysis of action spaces available to each individual reveals that there actually is an objective measure of freedom—the size of one’s action space. In the end, we reach equality, fairness and freedom of a higher level than what founders of our country was able to write in sciences they had. We still reach for equality, fairness, and liberty. Only now we have the ability to measure them over an entire population. We have the ability to plan and communicate realistic progress of these measurable metrics in the time axis so as to not induce violent and useless social strife, and to avoid angst and hatred amongst peoples.

So how can we apply this to Roe v Wade? Well simplest matter is that freedom is removed from a swath of recognized citizens—women are no longer given constitutional guarantee of abortion. Infants, whether they are citizen and deserve same kind of protection is still up for debate, and plus their action space is so limited that this change in law does not add liberty to them.

Is this fair?

Is there A BETAM solution?

Yellow faced Trek

Posted on by under Uncategorized

Okay, let me just come out and say it. Having Capitan Lorca hint at Asian heritage because he loves fortune cookies, and the name Una Chin-Reilly looks like some Chinese girl married an English gentleman and then went to some remote galaxy…

But honestly, this is just an yellow face on white actor, and we should say it as it is.

I personally have zero zeal to exfoliate these matters due to some present physical ailments. But I do think of the trouble Asian actors… nay, Chinese-American actors and actresses had in America… Once eminent Chinese movie star Zhangziyi once said something to the effect that Chinese female actresses can only get roles for “whores and prostitutes…” echoing centuries of “exotic play thing” stereo type for all Asian women. This, really, sucks!

Anyways, it needs to be said because there’s still something really kinky about employing a Chinese women. Like, I don’t know how showbiz works, with revelation of decades of Weinstein, Spacey, I mean even Hanks… the all time wholesome guy that may have been role model to many young kids growing up, myself not completely excluded..

Would it be fair to say that the world has been merciful to Chinese women that they’re not lured and welcomed into this money and fame making machine? Lest they have to regularly perform these degrading sexual acts that they know their family, friends, countryman an ancestors would not tolerate. Would it be unreasonable to express gratitude to the world that these women were not entrenched in backstabbing business practices of this world? That they’re remain the wholesome persons that we think of?

Many will disagree with me. There might even be a (distinctively derogatory) name for the condition that brings about these thoughts in Chinese, and in English…

There’s yellow face in Trek. But it’s okay. I think the people involved are already working extra hard to enhance the world-view of its fans, broadening their ideal works to include Asian people. The fact this fictional future now seem to have Asian descendants of higher proportion, more close to present day proportion than there ever have been in this franchise, is something that we Asian Americans must celebrate.

That the producers and CBS/Paramount have to work in the early 21st century America does not in anyway diminish the significance in demographic shift, even if only in name, is very very heart warming. I never could have imagined today. An Asian Chief petty officer—one of O’Brien caliber, Another Asian face at Ops named Mitchell, a Muslim looking head of section 31, Capital Sulu,… every little bit is worth celebration. Our lives are wonderful. We live in a most marvelous century, best there have ever been!

But yes, there’re some very futuristic yellow faces here as well.

Btw, has anyone noticed that the story writing on this show is quite a different genre than Discovery and Picard? It’s back to more being about the collective known as the Federation discovering and experiencing as it’s individual constituents discover and experience. This vital element of Trek, where the growth of our volkseist hums along with the growth of individual. When Capital Pike grimaces and expresses disgust and intolerance at the child sacrifice in S1E6, it mirrors not only the audience’s feelings but also the feeling of Federation. I don’t see a doomed human fighting to lessen a child’s survival, I see myself and the future humanity fighting for him. This complex projection of tiny flickering pixels onto our psyches.

That is not to say the other shows lack German descriptions. Certainly Picard aims at the zeitgeist at its time of production, and Discovery attempts to attain weltgeist of our galaxy… and all in good fun. Picard calls the Jurati the “Doctor!”, like you know, in the British fantasy Dr. Who where everyone calls the protagonist the doctor. And of course Dr Who series 13 E5-6 just had to use a Trekkie Vulcan long-life-and-prosperity gesture for opening Sontaran ship doors. Great! Which btw, honestly, despite the words coming out of the mouths of the characters, I feel that Dr. Who is more of the Horror Fantasy genre, having poltergeists… I mean what’s with English creative people? Got too much fog? Harry Potter was so horrifying to read, for Ajish’s sake, is this really children’s literature? What in the name of all that’s good and wholesome are they smoking from their smog? Why they make evil Asure so absurdly revolting in a pretty way? That this happens in the founding place of the industrial revolution begs the thoughts that these must be result of multi-generational smog inhalation, exotic heavy metal poisoning and alien manipulation amongst many others. But I digress…

Congestion control protocol

Posted on by under Uncategorized

For older busy people who live stressful and sedentary lives, sometimes one develops constipation. Sometimes lasting for years leading to hemorrhoids and other problems. It seems that consumption of OTC fiber is not recommended for long term use as it can either cause one’s nerves to forget either how to detect the need to defecate., or cause the relevant muscles to forget how to do it.

I think I had accidentally watched some YouTube videos about a miracle formula mixed with a full cup of water. I started drinking large cup full of water just before sleeping. This seems to wake me at wee hours of the day with urgency to use the bathroom. And everything that needs to go passes easily at that time.

So, if you have aforementioned problems, and you are desperate enough to forsake an uninterrupted night of sleep for some regularity, give this trick a try. It might do you some good.