# Competition

We recently had some work done on our water system. Several jobs that required us to interview half a dozen plumbers all of whom, except for one company, came free of charge to assess the problem and give written estimate for the cost of their work. We ended up hiring a company whose employees all spoke Spanish.

The work was done very well. The plumber kept at working for most of the day. They were quiet and clean. They are so professional, it makes me jealous. How come we can’t find a Chinese plumber who worked so honestly and kept at his job until he finished? How come we couldn’t find a Chinese speaking plumber who charged the same amount or less?

The perception to many Americans that Chinese people somehow charge low price for their product and work to gain unfairly from America is just absurd. America had a competition driven economy. For every job, there is another who will fo the same work for money. And that’s not just programming. Every single product and job in this economy has competition and Chinese humans also must compete.

The end result is that I am a happy consumer. If I have to learn some Spanish (I didn’t have to) for it, I will learn it.

But I do hope that Chinese Americans can gain the respect they deserve–the respect I have for my recent plumbers–after their respective long day of work, that yes, it was the cheapest plumber but they were clean and quiet and professional in every way. They are honorable hardworking competing people in this free market economy worthy of other humans’ respect.

# Axiom of Meaning

Thoughts are meaningful.

The unthinkable is meaningless.

Thinking is meaning.

Only thinking is meaning.

One cannot think the meaningless.

Those that I cannot think of or about have no meaning.

I can think of all that are meaningful.

All that are thinkable have meaning.

The only meaning the unthinkable have is that they are unthinkable.

# Gripe practice

I’m having severe headaches today. I find it to be correlated with looking at my iPhone XS Max.

Imagination runs wild as always. Is this yet another ploy by Apple, Inc. To nudge me towards buying a new phone? Every time I look at the screen my head hurts now.

Let’s suppose for a moment that Apple actually did that. In a recent OS update, the surreptitiously introduced a bug that gradually changes some refresh properties of this screen so as to accidentally cause eye strain and subsequently headaches. What exactly is wrong with that? Given that apple settled the court case admitting to have slowed down iPhones, it seems reasonable that they may be doing it again. There is nothing wrong with doing something sneaky and then later paying money for it. I don’t for a second imagine that any human felt any remorse for having caused or facilitated that slow down. The lack of such expectation sets my mind on a slippery track to imagine the worst about this recent experience. Apple needs sales, and my head, and maybe a few hundred million dollars paid at a later date, is acceptable to the people doing it.

Sure, you can say that my class in that class action lawsuits settled too low. The payment apple makes is hardly punitive. If we had fought harder, Apple would have paid more and they be more hesitant to do it again.

It pains me to think about these things. I recall the first night I spent with my brand new iPhone XS Max. The screen was one of its biggest features. I remember looking very gently at the screen, as if in fear of damaging it if I looked too harshly. The brilliant colors shone gently back at me. Everything looks so clear. There’s some kind of light being emitted or reflected from the screen that uplift my visual senses. I am made to see more clearly. It isn’t quite as brilliant and welcoming as the body of a new girlfriend, but definitely makes a world of its own and pulls me into it.

I share with it all my most intimate thoughts, unfinished thoughts, and FAM blogs. I get all my information through it: news, entertainment, sms, messaging,… I entrust it with full access to my banks and investments and subscriptions to stuff I pay. I even pay it a monthly subscription fee so it can be happy.

But now, that display technology magic may have been reversed to attack my eyes and make my head ache. It throughs a constant tantrum. I can’t even get the most basic thing done without a grimace. Man, how far has our relationship sunk that the mere sight of… I should stop, my head hurts too much to anthropomorphize further.

# Does Toy Rhyme with Employee ? !

I’m watching a Disney+ short movie Toy Story: That Time Forgot. The time is a Christmas after Andy went to College and Bonnie is the mistress of the house.

Does anybody ever hear woody screaming: “YOU ARE A EMPLOYEEEEE!!!” To Buzz Lightyear? When he says “YOU ARE A TOYEEEE!!!” that to other toys? The long-e makes it really rhyme with employee.

Originally, the exasperated exclamation is reserved for stubborn new toys that do not realize that their whole life whole believes and built in intuitions are all not real and that they are toys. The “truth” is that toys need a child owner and that they are forever bound both emotionally and dutifully to said child. The “truth” is that a toy belongs to a child and its whole purpose for existing is to serve this child master. The happiness of the slaver is each slave’s only true salvation.

26 years ago I watched the first movie in its theatric release. But now I understand, this Disney movie is made to subliminally influence people of America (and the world) into believing that servitude is ultimate, noble and inevitable. This is propaganda from slave masters to slaves! Look at those highly intelligent, caring, moral, very human-like toys, look at how joyous they are after they become enlightened as to their true purpose of servitude to a superior being. That is how everything is, that is the truth of our world! Servitude and willing slavery, this is the way it should be. This is entertainment written in slave language designed for those harboring slave nature, bearing slave names, enshrining slave morals, practicing slave rituals and traditions, making slave sacrifices, enduring slave sufferings, manifesting slave destinies.

On the flip side, say you are one of the “slave owners”, what ever religious, social or economic caste that may be in your country, you may be delighted to see this film. Your child, is the human child who is born with given gifts of subjects. Your child will learn to know that these highly intelligent, caring, moral, very human-like subjects are there to please them. That these subjects should feel “right” when they “belong” to you and serve your needs. This, is free education, for your kids, and indoctrination, for the masses, in your favor.

According to Wikipedia, Disney reworked Pixar’s treatment many times to instill the theme that “toys deeply want children to play with them, and … this desire drives their hopes, fears, and actions” OMG! OMFG! What evilness be this?! A G rated film, this film had free reign to brainwash children as young as 0-years old! Some even heard it through their young mommies’ bellies.

Need more evidence? Take a look at Google’s image of cast

The only black people are those from black and white photos. Asians have great representation though, you may say, look at those nine(9) Japanese in the cast and crew! Isn’t that diversity enough for you, the present blogger being Asian, that’s a whole lot of Asians participating in brainwashing American kids, right!?

Thankfully, I am not one of those Asians. I am, however, one of those Asians who has the predisposition of falling for this kind of crap!

I am angry. I am angry as a victim of this massive brain washing!

UuhhhhhhhGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

I hate myself for not realizing this earlier in life… after myself, I hate these subliminal, enslaving, cultural indoctrinating machines of our world and all that partook.

This is all so very wrong.

I! Am NOT! A toyEeeeeeeeee!!

(But I do own Disney stocks.)

# DSC S3E13 finale

That’s a great season! I cannot believe this show evolved so much. In many ways it is an evolution for Trek: capitalism with family on board will be an interesting thing to explore.

I suppose I should kick myself for noticing but not thinking about Saru being too by-the-book in this season. Trek has always had a distain for rules and regulations. From its first capitain till last, doing the right best thing has always been a key feature of successful Trek leaders. Saru didn’t get it… Burnham is born with it. Done!

I mean seriously, ejecting the warp core and waiting for Book to figure out how to zap them out of there… that’s some serious fly by the seat of her pants leadership.

The personal growth experienced by each member of the crew is well developed and now established. Burnham from pointing a phaser at deadly departed captain Georgio to being named captain a thousand and odd years later AFTER she revived the whole of Federation… wow!

I suppose it is still premature. Purportedly, TNG didn’t really get established until season 4, where as TOS only lasted 3… We’ve surpassed TOS and heading towards Enterprise’s 4, and then only Trek legend status of 7 seasons. I guess season 4 is really make or break season.

I pointed out previously that TOS spend a lot of scenes admiring humans. like you’d watch it and there would just be 5 seconds when the camera is staring at a nurse in a miniskirt and she holds pose but not completely still. TNG likes to admire the beautiful ship that is the Enterprise D, and some other spacial phenomenons. Here you will just find scenes of D flying at warp, or another one is Picard staring out his ready room window at the beautiful stars. DS9 too loves to just orbit the space station I. Super high resolution and watch background stars rotate, and warm hole opening and closing…. DSC, I have to say, does retain a lot of TOS’s human study shots. I do enjoy admiring the characters in almost-poses, they move, but largely the lighting, their skin and facial expressions are largely the same (at 4K, these people look terrific!) in these shots, but the extended focus help the audience to fully appreciate the character and their feelings and thinkings. I do think we have lost the TNG’s wonderment about beautiful ships and DS9’s love for spacial phenomenons. And DSC is a little too posh to have Enterprise’s quick and dirty (and mainly small) feel. So DSC can’t really put that small-but-hyper-functional visual on display.

I would suggest stop the progression of decreasing episodes (15,14,13), and make something like 20 episodes and take the time to show us something grand and beautiful. True, the spirit and the principle is what we truly want to show, but the imagery of a proud starship with power throbbing through its veins and plenty of machinery to skip along in space, it is well provisioned to easily resurrect a whole civilization… show us this visual slowly and beautifully as an expression of hope and strength.

Alas, Picard will surely take care of my needs here, it already has. But it would be a bit of shame for DSC to not have enough of that.

Anyways, looking forward to season 4.

Just lost a round $32 to the Atlantis Casino Reno. I had wanted to come to a corner of this casino and mope about landscaping. That’s right, landscaping. Today, I finally admitted to my wife that I have never before understood why so many people plant so much vegetation near their houses, and by near I mean touching. Why do people do so when it has been well known for decades that trees pull up moisture and rots wood used to build the house? The phenomenon is quite prevalent in the Bay Area. People do landscaping to their houses all the time like people do drugs to their own bodies. And then it dawned on me today that they do it out of hedonic needs. The trees and flowers, so close you can touch and smell, they make people happy. So what if the house will fall down in 20 to 30 years? What comparison can you make with the happiness of the house’s residents for those number of years? A modern human being would always choose happiness of people over the happiness of dead wood. An ancient human being may also argue that since god created everything for humans, that this destructive servitude is most holy. There is no why. It just happens, by will of God and Humans. There is no why. But I choose not to mope about soiled by my realization of how normal people think. Another idea to write about is the wonderful buildings of casinos. The Atlantis has two gigantic torches outside that blows 5-stories-tall flames every 30 minutes. The other casinos are also decadently extravagant. The artwork, the fanciful lighting, the domes, arches, fountains,… a single casino could have many architectural and distinctive features that come from centuries of history and art. Combined with modern day lighting, they look fantastic. The casinos here look like the originals of buildings and paintings that belong to a future museum. How do they get white walls so white? How do they make yellow walls work? But this fantasizing is colored with the lens of twenty-teens. We go to museums to see these historical buildings because they are beautiful, difficult to create, and original (when they were created) in a few centuries time, what will actually attract humans to museums? It is not going to be casinos for sure. I mean, they won’t be able to get the smoke out of these buildings for another millennium. Occasionally, some of us has the experience of being reminded that classic, museum-worthy, privately collectible and perpetually appreciating, transcendental art works from the past, they might have been nouvo and scandalous at their time of production, and they might have taken hundreds of years to gain their due desert of acceptance and appreciation. What we know for sure is that some sufficient number of human beings, at some remarkable times in the past, found such works appealing and decided to preserve them and propagate appreciation for them. Here and now I remark upon Reno casinos… I appreciate these whole buildings that art art. Museum put on display historical intellectual arguments: who said what and influenced whom… visualized or represented in multi-media ways. We can watch great historical debates about politics and sciences. We can watch humanity decide what it wants to believe and wants to do. We can put on display Creationist Science versus Evolutionary Sciences, Climate change spectrum, Bayesian versus Frequentists, Empirical risk minimization versus… We can put on display the battle among titans of industries–IBM versus Apple, Tesla versus the rest, Intel versus Asia, AC versus DC, Amd versus NVIDIA, Ford versus Ferrari, … possibly many other struggle for dominance or survival. Perhaps these will be the legacies we will be remembered by. Our modern marvels will be the process that got us to that time and place where we are museum-worthy relics. # Right Quit-right Right During my thanksgiving-induced food coma, I had run into a problem in my mind. Recall that we had begun to think about right and wrong, just and unjust, should and shouldn’t, could and couldn’t, could do to and could do onto, etc. in an abstract mind conception of the Action Space. Roughly speaking, with the rigor required at the outset of Nichomachean Ethics, Action Space is a set of all possible actions anybody or any body could do to another at a specified time. For a significant portion of this space, a subspace, we can describe actions in English sentence: “Eve gives Adam a forbidden fruit(at any time).” But we do not unnecessarily restrict us to these at this stage. Sets have interesting but practical operators that we use to model other aspects of our world, including: membership and subset relations, union and disjunction operators, etc. A hope is that using sets of actions we can both cover a lot of ground in representing our real world, and we leverage our innate understanding of these concepts to interpret the matters of Actions. This framing gives us an immediate idea to compare the size of action spaces. Suppose there is an Action Space that represent the actions permitted by the U.S. constitution L. Now, we can also have the action space specified by the United State Code(USC). We can very safely demand that when interpreted their action spaces $USC \subset C$. And we say that the Constitution of the United States of America grants strictly more freedom than the USC. The set of actions permitted by the prior is a strict superset of those permitted by the latter. More actions means more rights, liberties and freedoms. Fewer actions means more constrained and fewer choices. Strictly more free is a partial ordering of all action spaces. In a less strict sense of freedom, we can also compare cardinalities of two action spaces. But clearly this ordering is not very useful: have all the rights to sneeze in various poses is not nearly as important as the right to take a sip of water. Of course that can too be ameliorated with utilitarian’s individual utility function or the social welfare function, and other such attempts so as to produce a useful ordering of preference over action spaces. Having considered many perspectives on permissibility and selection of actions, and considering conservative believes about our physical universe and all that we could possibly be concerned with, we have come to designate an API with which thinking and controlling systems may interact with our faculties that deal with rules of law and right and wrong. We suspend our fear of making a homunculus argument as we do not say we have found or made such modules of this artificial intelligence, but merely that we want to separate these concerns to reduce the complexity of reasoning. The separation is not physical, all the thinking could be produced on the same gray matter or CPU. The interface can also be defined implicitly, for visualization, consider looking at a hyperplane through which these two separate functions connect. For the purpose of characterizing whether an action is permitted by a determining agent or subcomponent $E$, we ask that a permission function$latest P_E$to be accessible. $P_E(a, t, H, n=N) -> [permissible|impermissible]$ The parameters are typed: • $a \in A$ is an action of the action space • $t \in T$ is a set of timestamps in question. •$latex T” is a predesignated time indexing which is a set of objects known as timestamps. It is is totally ordered. For convenience we also include the open and closed contiguous sets of timestamp called intervals or ranges using ‘[]()’ symbols. We use the symbol < to mean before, > to mean after and = to mean at the same time.
• time $t$ can be a single timestamp or a set of timestamps. The function is polymorphic.
• The type of time parameters should be be inferred from context if ambiguous: happening at “a time $t$” means a single timestamp, “happening at time/times $t$” means occurring for all time in set $t$.
• Often $T$ is specified to be the real numbers or integers. In this case a reference must be set for the time 0, as well as scale explaining what duration of 1 means in the physical world.
• $H$ is the whole history of the world up to $t$.
• History has, among other information, the timestamp of now $H_n$ which is the maximal time about which we have information through $H$. Calling it now is more positive than the end of history.
• Regarding performed actions, $H$ is a log of actions that have been taken each with timestamp of when they were taken. We use a convenience expression $did(a,h,t=T,n=N)$ to check if an action was reportedly taken in $h$ at time $t$. Not specifying $t$ asks if the action was ever taken. $did(a,h=h)$ is an injective function. An action is taken or not taken, it cannot be unknown.
• $n$ is the nature of the world. It may contain matter such as the laws of physics, existence of god, etc. Since we care most about the nature that we are in, by default this parameter is specified as the nature of our world. We should be able to query for information such as number: $\pi$, e, c, $N_A$ etc.

$P_E$ therefore yields the result that we use to decide whether an action is permissible or not under some system of determination for propriety and preference. The answer, as given by $E$, is E’s answer at time $t$. An agent, upon receiving the permissible result from $E$ will understand that the action they asked about is permitted at the time in question given history of the world leading up to time $t$, and our nature.

….The E is member of world and accessible as part of nature. We could also imagine historical E’s that are result of history: made computer, wrote programs, program decides…..

In considering the permissibility of actions we should also for functional purposes suppose the existence of the doit function. $doit(a, t, h, n=N)=(h',n')$. All that doit does is that it instantaneously adds the action to history and nature at time $latext t$. and reports the results of that insertion. When specified, a natural action is one which does not change nature: $doit(a, t, h, n=N)=(h',n)$ and a supernatural action is one that changes nature: $doit(a, t, h, n=N)=(h,n')$.

Two actions $a_1, a_2$ are homopotent if $doit(a_1, t, h, n=N) =doit(a_2, t, h, n=N)$. This equivalence relation creates equivalent classes of actions. Such classes exist even the Natural language descriptions can have many descriptions of the exactly same action. We will prefix homopotency with historic and natural for equivalence that match only history and only nature respectively.

For convenience of notation, we can query nature and history for, among other things, the deed of past actions: $did(a, h, t=\emptyset, n=N)$

We are conscientious of many other potential problems of our present endeavors. Mathematicians has given us many concerning thoughts about sets of things. One example of a problem with these innings is that most of our computational machinery have known limitation that terminability of a function is unknowable—eg the Halting Problem.

In practical implementation the function may produce a response that is either permissible nor impermissible. If we have to wait for ever, then this function is not useful. If we do not know whether it terminates or not, then we do not know if we can use the result or not. Of course, Software Engineers have long worked around this issue by creating time-box around functions. Each function evaluation is surrounded by machinery that will wait patiently for a result, but if some preset time box is exceeded, the efforts to evaluate said function is suspended and the invoking agent is informed that the function did not function as expected. Since time pass as surely as we can time it, this time boxing wrapper approach guarantees us that we can implement a function with this signature:

$P_E(a, t, H, n=N) -> [permissible|impermissible|indiscernible]$

Users of our API are warned and required to handle the case when such a component fails to function. Such demand is not unreasonable as there are many such safety implements in most modern artificial computational systems. The result of indiscernible expresses no opinion regarding the action. The user of this API may choose conventions on how to react to the result. A information security implementation may choose to be conservative by reacting to indiscernible as if the answer is impermissible to ensure security. Where as human legal system may choose to be liberal and interpret indiscernible reaction as permissible granting maximal freedom when in doubt.

Another oft-used software engineering safety technique is that of rate limiting. The provider of $P_e$ API may choose to rate limit how much any single agent may query the API. Rate limiting helps to mitigate finial of service(DOS) attacks on the permissions system. In reality, this rate limit is enforced by our limited implementations. In theory, a rate limit on API invocation allows to analyze the ability of a real agent to follow the directions of a permission function under realistic constraints. Rate limits can be expressed as a limit on requests can be made within any contiguous interval of a certain set period of time (ie queries per second (qps)), or it may be a rough restriction in the form of interval between requests, among many other choices.

For a third problematic example, we shall eponymously name it the quit-right problem. It is a shady imitator of the Russel Paradox. The problem is self explanatory: Are quit-right actions members of our action space? Can one consider the right to give up a right? If so, can we quit all quit-rights rights? Can we quit a quit right the action itself?

Legal theory has a convenient solution to this problem. In legal arrangements, one can make something called a default rule and another that is called mandatory rule. A default rule applies if there is no forceful contract or declaration to its contrary. Mandatory rules, on the other hand, are those rules that cannot be overwritten irrespective of contracting or forceful declarations. Certainly quit right is an action we can imagine to be part of a legal action space, but a legal action space will not contain quit right actions for actions that are mandatorily protected. Some commonplace examples are the potency of Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA) in the rules of law. In this case a natural person or other legal entities may contract away their right of speech and other expressions—they quit their right of speech and freedom of expression. However, no matter if you sign with a in $2^10000000$ bits of cryptographic signature carved into stone, you can not sign away your life to be taken by another individual. It will always be called into question whether that other individual is responsible for advertently or inadvertently cause your loss of life irrespective of your renunciation thereof. The force of such system is infinite, the person may not change his right to change his right to life, he may not give himself permission to give himself permission to contract or declare away his life, and is on and so forth.

Now, those are a subject itself quitting its own right. Again using a easy target of human life, the action space still contain actions such as the state killing you. Under some circumstance states maintain the right to kill you in its action space for purpose of capital punishment. The American government actually also has the right to modify its own right regarding capital punishment within the confines of its constitution.

But what does the quit-right action look like in the action space? Let’s for simplicity of expression designate a macro $q(e, a, s, t=\infty)$ to mean the action:

quit the right to take action $a$ in the permissibility determining system $e$ on all such times on or after timestamp $s$ and before time $t$.

The meaning of macro $q(e, a, s, t)$

If $P_e(q(e, a, s, t), s_<, u)$ is permissible, and if $q(e, a, s, t)$ was successively taken in history $u\in h$ then $P_e(a, s_>, h,...)$ returns impermissible.

• Time is a totally ordered set of timestamps. These corresponds to wall clock time in our world. The set has membership as well as open and closed interval as.
• Action Space actions has success and failure return codes.
• doit succeeds only when action is permitted.
• doit returns a history. Suppose we can query that history for whether an action was taken in time range. The behavior of doit is then definable on the function’s input and output.
• other agents can be invoking doit as well, it does not affect present agent…\$
• permit, forbid only when the stated modifications to subactionspace is permitted

The resignation to these rights are targeted for a specific permission function $P_e$ to allow us to perform activities permitted by one system and disallowed by another, e.g. law and conscience, rationality and greed, etc. Since we have not introduced macro and action variables or even functions within the action space, we skirt issues like writing a macro that when expanded produces $q(q(q(q($ ad infinitum. But even when that is enabled, it will not be a problem because for uninterpretable actions we have a convenient indiscernible result to resort to when we receive obnoxious or pathological questions and actions that we can certainly deem unreasonable, irrelevant, or useless.

Now then, we may say that if an agent has taken an action $q(e, a, s, t)$ then we expect $P_e(a, u, H_u)$ to return impermissible $\forall u.s\leq u < t$.

So far we have not distinguished actors(subjects) and objects of action. But it does not hinder our efforts. An action space built constructively using verbs and nouns into a transitive action space. We can also explore by building increasingly more complex action space, for example by increasing valency of verbs used to construct a action space. In such spaces, the action passed to the quit-right macro may contain a subject not covariant with the object. In such a situations, the action $a q(e, b does...)$ in which actor $a$ quits an action for $b$. The DMV($a$), for example, has the right to take an action that forbids a person($b$) from driving according to traffic law($e$) according to $e$: A motorist has the API to ask the question $P_e(q^a(e, b drives...)...)$ and receive an affirmative answer of permissible.

More to come…

# That spider nursery rhyme

Eentsy weensy spider climbed the dragon’s ’nout,

Down came the snots and washed the spider out,

Out came the fire that dries up the snots, and the

Entsy weensy spider went up the snout again.

Just saw NPR news about Gebru being fired/resigning for reason related to publication dispute with Google the company. Some many number of people signed letter to ask for transparency and reconsideration.

Honestly, HR is not the most customer friendly or innovative department of silicone valley companies—on average. There are certainly awesome HR individuals and HR leaders that I’ve encountered, but there surely are some seriously uncaring individuals, senior leaders and policies that acted inhumanely and unreasonably. This quotation from Gebru, as published by a very sympathetic review in the Washington Post, is something that perhaps most minorities can write with significant degree of sincerity:

Gebru recounted her most recent experience in the email as an example of why she had given up on advocating for diversity inside Google. “[S]top writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference,” she wrote. “[Y]our life gets worse when you start advocating for underrepresented people, you start making the other leaders upset when they don’t want to give you good ratings during calibration

This advocacy she speaks of represent a swath of disparate and dissenting opinions regarding various modes in which minorities are treated. When “reasoning” with the employee through normal management chain fails, the mighty HR steps in and uses company business related performance reviews (known as calibrations at Google) to enforce the company’s stance. The only exception here is that one of Gebru’s job is to improve minority inclusion at Google—by losing her own inclusion she has created a self-fulfilling failure to perform her duties to the company. Also, her declaration that writing documents is useless is self defeating as well. As a scientist, a big part of her work will be to document and publish her learnings and believes. Quit writing documents is quitting the job. Sigh… the troubles we have in the computer industry.

It is certainly not surprising that Gebru had to separate from Google. Recall recent episode of her very civilized and reasonable discussion with LeCunn on Twitter. Sadly, I empathize with both of them. Being a minority who likes to think about the reasonable, I definitely feel her frustration from lack of acknowledgement and consideration. But I also feel the scientific curiosity that I imagine LeCunn has for the science.

The problem here is what we do not know. 3 hours after the NPR articles published, I do not see the paper whose quality is in dispute on pre-publication sites. It is highly unlikely that Google will respond publicly to explain why it does not want Gebru at al. to talk about why Google’s core technology is inherently racist and environmentally damaging.

The next day, Jeff Dean published a google doc presenting his view of this incident. One obvious takeaway from Dean’s postmortem write up is that, somewhere in some of her communications, Gebru challenged the mystery, anonymity and opacity of “the official Google internal review process” that assesses scientific qualifications of prospective publications. Her challenge may have been that the review process has excessive and unaudited (white/discriminative and profit-only focused) power. Google apparently has kept that process a secret even to its subjects and in light of this very public revolt.

Interestingly, many academicians and institutions come out in support of Gebru. Some many dozens of hours later MIT tech review published writing based on draft of the paper. MIT seems to also take the position that there is unclear and inconsistent behavior on the part of Google.

This is not a company. This is a center of a civilization. While it is very brave for a few researchers to stand up to it to demand something, the outcome and benefit of this divisive exercise is not clear at all. The signatories of the complaint letter certainly cannot all resign from their jobs under leads who wishes to uphold the values and methods that worked so great at Google.

My firm belief is that we need to build more common ground by working on creating the common ground. We need for people of all kinds to come closer and closer to discuss and improve shared core principles. And I definitely mean that the shared principles are truly shared: when presented with similar situation, different people owning the same principles react and decide essentially for the same reasons.

Despite our biological similarities, despite our common humanity, common ground does not come for free. Despite our shared computer protocols for global exchange of information. All that needs to be said must still be said to build understanding. Demands for apologies and submission to a point of view, while righteous to do for the righteous, doesn’t really build common ground, it doesn’t improve shared understandings.

But I will always end my commentary on this subject by saying that my people, my ancestors were not enslaved for centuries. My direct ancestors had not had the pleasure of being subjects or objects of European men. My parents were not firehosed or beaten to shot or burned or segregated for the color of their skin. I will humbly acknowledge that I have lesser cultural and genetic sensitivity and immunity to racism and imperialism. This leaves me with a gaping chasm of doubt about my views regarding the forgoing news. Maybe I really don’t know how bad things really are and what radical means of resistance or revolution are required for a true change for the better.

😬😱

A week later, some big wigs have weighed in. One unavoidable observation is that University of Washington prof is taking Jeff Dean’s side. Perhaps Dean’s matriculation there had this kind of politics. behind it as well?!

Here is one question is if you were behind the veil of ignorance, and you don’t know if you are minority or not, you don’t know if you’re rich or not and you don’t know if you have knowledge or not, would you:

• Want to work with someone like Gebru or Dean.
• Would you want to manage Gebru or Dean?
• Would you want to be managed by Gebru or Dean?
• Would you cite Gebru or Dean regarding the safety and ethics of Google inc taking on the same position as their paper?
• Would you follow either one’s leadership in terms of ethics or social justice.

I cannot imagine myself wanting to be any where near either of these two characters. I would probably have to cite both opposing opinions since BOTH of them have knowledge about the matter far beyond my cognition and experience. But honestly, I do have to factor into consideration that Dean is really protecting a possibly very evil industry that he was instrumental in creating. I also must factor into the citation that Gebru is highly leveraged in the Identity Politics market. One cannot conscientiously discuss the very polarizing political topic without acknowledging these objectively existing aspects of these characters. In either case, although I fear for my own personal safety and sanity to come into proximity of these people, I do have to say that they are highly valuable assets of our society. Their existence enriches us all, and quite possibly quantified in similar orders of magnitude. IMMHO, this is great!

… some time later… 🎇 The formation of a minority union is a nice touch. Hope to see more…

# Mini-batch size and pipeline effects

I have the joy of instructing a child in the techniques of eating recently. It occurs to me that I have not really ever described the chewing process. It took some years for me to finally point out the deficiencies of their eating technique.

First issue may have been caused by our own pedantic habits. We insist to the child that she swallow a bite fully before starting next bite. That’s how we were taught. But after years of struggling with slow eating, I finally decided that perhaps they should put more food into their mouth while the last bite is incomplete. Truth be told that is what I do. The food at the end of chewing is tasteless. Adding more unchewed food in the front helps supplant our taste sensations to stimulate saliva production which in turn helps the food go downs. Our teeth are arranged for staged chewing. Front teeth’s cuts and rear molars grind the food. So pipelining the chewing seems natural.

A second problem with chew-swallow-more procedure is that sometimes the mouth end up with insufficient amount food. The mouth operates inefficiently as the food decreases. This is both in terms of bandwidth (that it is chewing less for every tightening of muscles), and in terms of per-chew efficiency. At the limit where our teeth are close together, the jaw muscles are not terribly strong. At least not mine. The chewing is most forceful when there is at least a quarter inch to an inch of food mass in the mouth. The effect of small bite is that with each tightening of the jaw muscles, less food is being chewed and the food is being chewed less effectively than a fuller mouthful. A similar problem arise when you use batch normalization, the original batch normalization where the normalization stats are literally computed on the mini-batch, if mini-batch size is is too small, the variance will be too high to be very useful.

What a strange thing to have to think about. I have always remembered the opposite directions: small bites, swallow before eating more. But in reality and in reasoning, it seems my de facto strategy of medium amount of food and pipelined chewing is most effective.

I suppose many people figure that out through experimentation, some may even do research in this subject. I wonder what else I did or did not figure out about myself as I grew and grew and grew?

It is, however, pure joy and peace, to be part of childrens’ growing process. Even though often we are made to examine the nature of our realities…, and the letters of our spelling.