Showing posts from 2019

We already live in a society based on love

I often see people proposing that an ideal society would do away with money. It would instead be based, say, on love. Money is a method of social accounting. There are those who abuse it. But for most, it's what compels us to do lots of boring things that we're good at, which help others; instead of fun things we're not so good at, which help only a few. We already have a society based on love. The fact is that the love of other people is not easy: the sacrifices it requires are hard. Money is a measure of how many boring, unfun things we've done to help other people, as if we loved them, for little benefit to us. Anyone who wants to do these things out of love, can already do so and collect payment as an afterthought. Since most of us don't actually feel this much love for others, money motivates us to do this work for those we do love. What people are actually proposing is an economy based on fun. This would create about as much material well-being as a chi

denis tries to teach foreign policy

If pseudonymous claims on Reddit can be believed (narrator: "Usually not" ), this was the culmination of an exchange with someone who claimed to be "much more than a voter": a holder of a master's degree in international relations, an active participant in the Intelligence Community, and (from many comments I won't reproduce) a holder of a low emotional quotient. The following started with my suggestion that the US bombing weddings in the Middle East is a bad thing: Me: It seems it hasn't occurred to you that "Look at all this power!" isn't an ethical reason to be in the region. Fighting the commies might have been, but that is over. "Much more than a voter": This isn't about ethics. No one cares about your subjective beliefs. Please look into international relations. Here's what some say is the predominant school in it, but the truth is that it has subsumed all other schools of thought within it. Poke around a bit

Reinventing wheels: A better, sliding-matrix diff algorithm

A week ago, I posted about a simple diff algorithm which works, produces tolerable results, but is ultimately a toy. I wanted an algorithm that produces excellent results while keeping consistent worst-case performance. I didn't want to implement the Myers algorithm because: I find it hard to understand. I'd need a better understanding to implement it. It uses recursion. This is unfit for production. I would need to understand the algorithm even better to fix this. It has worst-case performance O(NM) . This is unfit for production. I would need to understand it completely, inside-out, to figure out how to implement a compromise between optimality and performance. My capable colleague already attempted all of the above, suggesting a different approach is worthwhile. I was inspired by this excellent visualization from Robert Elder's page about the Myers diff: I built on the core idea from my simple diff , the unique unit map , to devise a sliding matrix algorithm

Reinventing wheels: A straightforward, two-pass diff algorithm

For over two decades of writing software, I was scared of writing a diff algorithm. It seemed so formidable, like something an impressively bearded inventor of Unix might do, while the rest of us are doomed to fail and suffer in our cluelessness. If you want to be discouraged, just look it up! Instead of finding a simple algorithm anyone could implement, you'll find that diffs are a special case of the Longest Common Subsequence problem. You'll learn this is a difficult problem. It's NP-hard. You'll find solutions that are mathematical and arcane and recursive, with horrible worst-case performance. There will be suggestions of wisdom along these lines: How to put N grains of sugar in coffee: - If N=0, stop algorithm. - Otherwise, pick first grain of sugar. Mix it with coffee. - Repeat for remaining N-1 grains. When I needed a diff algorithm, on two separate occasions, in two separate decades, I hired two separate people to do it. They studied the same literature, fou

My beloved aunt and her All-Adoption

Across the ocean lives my superficially kind, perfidiously manipulative aunt. Before I talk shit, I must note she was a second mother figure for me growing up. My actual mother is not quite a functional human, and my dad came to see me every two weeks. The occasional visits I had from my dad, along with visits to my aunt, were invaluable to me. It helped me grow up less screwed up than I could be. I needed that, so I am eternally grateful. My aunt has also gone out of her way to help me. Most recently this year, she spent quite a bit of effort on a favor I asked, while refusing compensation beyond the costs. Back in 2007, she contributed awesomely at Jana and I's wedding with games * , poetry, and singing † . Overall, in my life, she has been a kind, if subtly calculating presence. She comes across as the nicest person. Practically a saint. That makes it disconcerting when you realize she finagles her way to be everyone's friend – only to smugly judge and diss them when the

Forced-birth activists as paperclip maximizers

Related to previous post: Life continues, not begins, at conception Through further arguments with forced-birth fundamentalists – those who call themselves "pro-life" – I've come to some interesting conclusions. They don't care about suffering! The fact that their policies lead to suffering is irrelevant to them. They care about minimizing gray areas . What fundamentally bothers them is how, if the rights of a person are granted at any other time than conception, the stage where these rights are granted is a judgment call. It bothers them there's no one-size answer that fits all. The ultimate purpose of forced-birth activism is not to reduce suffering, or to maximize the number of people, or to increase happiness. It's a cover-your-ass, bureaucratic type of ethics that provides deniability . If the rules are clear, we can be sure we didn't break them. The purpose is not to try and do what's most right, but to avoid being wrong at any cost. T

AI can change scenery, can't fix suffering

A number of people I respect work on the problem of AI friendliness. The problem is how to ensure that when a highly capable artificial intelligence arises – either as a sentience, or as a tool for some humans to use – this doesn't kill us. This is a legitimate problem, because highly capable AI will arise – it is arising right now – and humans are problematic. We create a lot of suffering for ourselves and everything that has the misfortune to meet us. To a super-intelligent AI that wants to maximize happiness, ending us might seem a merciful and desirable outcome. The AI could then replace the entire planet with a quivering mass of neurons in a stable, never-ending state of bliss. Maximum happiness! It appears our continued existence – and also all of its accompanying strife – could be ensured if an AI is engineered to respect and defend human free will, including – no, especially! – when this leads to unfortunate outcomes. Lots of people have hopes beyond that: that AI wil

"Support" incompetence at Amazon (and elsewhere)

For a while now, I've been paying Amazon an extra $29.00 per month in hope to get at least perfunctory support if ever needed. Now, I need the most basic thing - remove the SMTP sending limit and create a reverse DNS record for a new IP address - and those $29.00 are accomplishing nothing. I have filed three requests already over several days. I'm just getting canned and inappropriate responses, and it seems nowhere closer to being done. I stand a real risk of not being able to reply to customers if this is not sorted. I've been happy with Amazon Web Services in general. 99% of the time, it works great – as long as you don't have to interact with anyone. But when you need a human to look at something, it's only happening if your request is so ordinary that it just needs to be rubber-stamped. I had no trouble, two times in the past, having Amazon process a similar request for new instances. But now, I'm trying to move an existing email server to a new Elast

What's wrong with computing?

What's wrong is that we are: Using a bad universal data format. Depending on a universe of tools that make this bad format seem like the best choice. The bad universal format are text files. HTML, XML, JSON, and most programming languages are based on them. The universe of tools are all manner of utilities to create, search, process, edit, compile, compare, and store versions of them. We need that universe of tools. But we need them for a better data format. What's wrong with plain text, then? It is fundamentally incongruous with the data we store. Almost all data is structured: HTML, XML, JSON, TOML are all ways to store structured data in text files. Programming languages are structured with complex grammars. Where we use binary formats, almost all of them store structured data. ZIP files, DOC files, PNG files, everything is structured. The incongruity is in the use of in-band signaling to delineate data. We can signal start and end of data in two ways: Length-pr

The case for SSH over UDP

I was recently led to the following excellent, humorous article about the current state of Internet protocols – and the winding road that brought us here: The world in which IPv6 was a good design I agree with Avery as he identifies a future necessity: replacing TCP with an encrypted, UDP-based protocol like QUIC that will no longer identify sessions with a 4-tuple (clientIP, clientPort, serverIP, serverPort), but instead with a random session ID. This would allow clients to change their IP address, e.g. between WiFi connections, while continuing the session state. This is not currently possible with TCP, with IPv6 or not. The Secure Shell protocol is built on top of TCP. This creates for SSH a number of problems: Anyone can send a TCP RST in your name (faking the IP and port; it can be brute-forced), which breaks your connection. Routers that unilaterally decide your connection is "taking too long" are in a special position to do so. If there's a data transmission

Water heater does not work, but no fuses are blown and all circuit breakers seem closed?

Solution: Not all circuit breakers are closed. Check the GFCI for the garage outlets. In case anyone else runs into the same problem...

Biden 2020

So it begins: If the 2016 primary is any measure, during the following year, we can expect: favorable coverage exaggerating Biden's support and success; feature-length articles praising Biden's life, work and character; unfavorable coverage marginalizing support for Sanders and other threats; plentiful assassination articles against Sanders and other threats. By July 2020, we can expect Biden to be crowned Democratic candidate for presidency, largely no matter who else ran. Coverage like the above exists to ensure this happens. Well, at least Biden doesn't seem to be a psychopath. Probably.

Life continues, not begins, at conception

Forced-birth activists – those who call themselves "pro-life", although they often don't support policies that would help the living – tend to claim "life begins at conception". Life has been going on for billions of years. To an eternal observer, there isn't a clear boundary between organisms. Each cell and reshuffling of material is a continuation. A grown man is separate from another grown man, but in the process where an organism arises from another, there is a continuation of life; a reshuffling , not a creation. In abortion, the life or death of an organism would be of no consequence if it did not have consciousness to experience it. Yet the forced-birth activists refuse to acknowledge that the capacity for awareness is necessary to speak of personhood, and insist there is some magic at the union of a sperm and an egg of which there is no evidence.

GDP and the rate of predation: Why can't we protect ALL of the innocent?

In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. In practice, 2% - 10% might be the ratio of innocent people in US prisons. Some people argue that any innocent people punished are too many, and that if we can't guarantee anyone is 100% guilty, we should let all the guilty walk free. Such a policy produces an impoverished society rife with unsolved problems and limited prosperity. High GDP requires people to transact. People transact if they are confident in transaction safety. If people aren't confident, they second-guess every transaction and divert significant resources into individual security. The result are countries with low GDP, lots of corruption, backstabbing and poverty combined with barbed-wire fences and barred windows. Residents of high-GDP countries cannot imagine this, but countries with such quality of living do exist, and they are in fact a majority of low-GDP count