tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post4978236906574528998..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: More: What Would Adults Do? Or what MUST Democrats do, if they get power? Chapter 13 (part 2) of Polemical JudoDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50589246289455654292020-10-21T20:46:57.013-07:002020-10-21T20:46:57.013-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63872044656513785672020-10-21T18:15:48.266-07:002020-10-21T18:15:48.266-07:00Larry Hart:
+ Sorry, my sloppy editing! It should ...Larry Hart:<br />+ Sorry, my sloppy editing! It should have been Tuesday, October 27, 2020. <br />+ Also, at the end of the 5th paragraph I forgot to delete 'Nonetheless, QAnon followers'.<br />+ And this evening, WaPo reports that Trump is considering firing FBI Director Christopher Wray--but not until after the election.<br />Dennis M Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13861850532281473798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26476765005566412512020-10-21T17:28:09.500-07:002020-10-21T17:28:09.500-07:00"I am at this point only saying that is looks..."I am at this point only saying that is looks as if this is Rudi Giuliani's lap."<br /><br />https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/rudy-giuliani-caught-compromising-position-new-borat-film-n1244187<br /><i><br />...<br />The film, which is being released Friday on Amazon Prime Video, shows Giuliani reclining on a bed and then putting his hand down his pants and moving it around for what appears to be a few seconds while the actress playing Borat's teenage daughter, Maria Bakalova, 24, who is pretending to be a television reporter, stands in front of him.<br /><br />NBC News obtained an advance copy of the film, which is titled "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."<br /><br />Giuliani and the woman, recorded by what seem to be hidden cameras, are eventually interrupted by Cohen, who bursts into the bedroom in his Borat persona, shouting: "She's 15. She's too old for you!"<br />...<br /></i><br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60833464232004130952020-10-21T17:22:00.378-07:002020-10-21T17:22:00.378-07:00duncan,
You always have an hypothesis my friend. ...duncan,<br /><br />You always have an hypothesis my friend. Even when you bash it with a hammer. They take the form of if-then statements.<br /><br /><i>If I bash HERE I'll break static friction and the part will begin to roll around the axle properly on a smaller kinetic friction value. Oops. Now the part wobbles. Looks like precession and nutation. Hmm. Inertia tensor isn't diagonalized on that axis. Hmm.</i><br /><br />Humans excel at forming complex hypotheses, but brains of any size will do the basic deed. Even worms hypothesize and learn from error.<br /><br />As a grad student, I SO wanted to pursue grand unified theories. It was the most intense challenge I've faced in my life learning my way up to them. However, once I got there the glamour broke. Shattered into a zillion pieces and fell into dust. <br /><br />It's not that they aren't amazing. They are. The problem is that they weren't novel. I had expected some miraculous understanding. A veil falling away from my eyes. But no. Reality is much more mundane. The best theoretical efforts are mostly more of the same in variations. There are a few basic ideas being tried a zillion ways. Astonishingly good ideas being recycled. Mostly. <br /><br />The tiny miracle that remained was that any of this actually worked. It does. Reductionism really should NOT work, but it does. Sometimes. Sometimes with great power. The closer I looked at it, though, the more I realized it worked on certain problems because we walked away from the other problems where it didn't. Selection Bias in its purest form.<br /><br /><br />If our social problems turn out to be reducible, I shall stand slack-jawed for quite some time and then applaud the genius and their supporting people. I'd love to see it, but I don't think I ever will. Those problems can be attacked via evolutionary methods, but I don't think we will EVER have a viable explanatory falsifiable theory. Well… maybe if Vinge-ian Trancedants show up on our doorstep it will happen. Nothing short of that, though.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-478673827027017122020-10-21T16:56:29.404-07:002020-10-21T16:56:29.404-07:00@Alfred Differ
Agreed. On Social Darwinism, doubl...@Alfred Differ<br /><br />Agreed. On Social Darwinism, double plus agreed. The selection idea is all that evildoers ever focus on. But the key to evolutionary gradients is really diversity. Fisher explained it in mathematical terms way better than Darwin ever did. But going all-in on diversity is an awkward position for racists and the like. Humanity in not a bonsai tree. Pruning is almost never a smart idea in the long term because the environment is ever-changing. As I often say, either we all get to the stars or none of us do. Not Pollyanna-ism, just Fisher-ism.scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04992209167553267488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89016487144915028232020-10-21T16:07:57.942-07:002020-10-21T16:07:57.942-07:00Alfred Differ:
A little later I encountered what ...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />A little later I encountered what I understood at the time his 'Uplift' concept. Seriously. Who here thinks that term has anything to do with elevators anymore? 8)<br /></i><br /><br />Y'know, I never put together that Jacob Demwa's backstory for <i>Sundiver</i> revolved so heavily around an elevator. "What's the significance to <b>you</b>?"<br /><br /><i><br />...THEN came more mathematics experience and the realization that such theories were likely doomed the moment we tried to build heuristics. Maybe we'd get lucky, but the odds are astronomically large against us. <br />...<br />Not Asimov's fault.<br /></i><br /><br />I bought Asimov's three pre-Foundation "universe" novels* as a paperback set in the 1980s. Each of the three books had a new forward by the author explaining that some aspect of science that the book relied upon had seemed at least plausible back when the book was written, but had become outdated by the time of this printing. He hoped the reader could forgive him and enjoy the novels for what they were. To me, that's all an author has to do in that position. Re-writing whole sections of an already-published work, or publishing new works whose purpose is to pound the old square pegs into round holes just diminishes everything.<br /><br />* <i>The Stars Like Dust</i>, <i>The Currents of Space</i>, and <i>Pebble in the Sky</i>Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47073293902662755572020-10-21T15:28:57.883-07:002020-10-21T15:28:57.883-07:00"der oger you surprise me. In the Parliamenta..."der oger you surprise me. In the Parliamentary system, party is everything. It is embedded so deeply there is no possible escape.But until the late Reagan years, US Senators and reps were known more for their personal characteristics than for their loyalty to party. It is POSSIBLE in our system for reps to be quirky mixes and party 'discipline' was not huge till Hastert."<br /><br />Well ... that is not how I perceive it, at least not during the past few years here in Germany. Most news center around intra-party conflicts and power struggles, not inter-party fights. Enemy < Archenemy < Party Friend. Most parties (except for the Libertarians) have 2+ competing wings ... and the ruling conservatives are divided into at least 4 wings and 2 different parties.<br /><br />But I'll admit that different countries will provide different results. Great Britain would be an example for your view. Der Ogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00977602334642769985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75302408859073722492020-10-21T15:21:56.371-07:002020-10-21T15:21:56.371-07:00Alfred is correct
The Scientific Method is to for...Alfred is correct<br /><br />The Scientific Method is to formulate the hypothesis and test it<br /><br />Th Engineering Method is similar - except if we don't have a useful hypothesis then we alter things ANYWAY to make use of the "evolutionary method"<br />The "Hit it with a hammer theory" <br /><br />With our economic system we do not have a "Grand Unified Theory" <br /><br />But we do have lots of "rules of thumb" that can be used to make things better<br /><br />Thinking about it even in Physics - the mother of science - we still don't have a "Grand Unified Theory" but we can still go ahead and make computers and stuffduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59328962972387903742020-10-21T14:35:20.100-07:002020-10-21T14:35:20.100-07:00scidata,
I don't fault science fiction author...scidata,<br /><br />I don't fault science fiction authors of past generations for failing to envision the world of today. As long as they are adding to our understanding by expanding our concept library of 'what can plausibly be' I'm good with them. Asimov did that far better than most AND he understood how to teach science fact. I used to eat his fact stuff up starting shortly after starting grade school. His fact articles alone were enough to expand the universe I understood and my mother eventually got me to read his fiction too. More of the same happened.<br /><br />I have a special place in my heart for science fiction authors who know their science. Consider our host for a moment. When I came across his first novel (years ago now) I had no idea who he was. Without reading the book flap, though, I could tell he had physics and astrophysics experience. The description of the cooling laser was too detailed for any other option to make sense. I was mostly into hard-tech style science fiction back them, so I was riveted by that laser. When I encountered the topic of coherent stimulated emission later in one of my courses, I was mentally ready to gobble it up. May I have seconds please? THAT's the kind of expansion these authors create in the minds around them. A little later I encountered what I understood at the time his 'Uplift' concept. Seriously. Who here thinks that term has anything to do with elevators anymore? 8)<br /><br />My issue with psychohistory came later when I came to understand how much of a dismal failure the field of 'theoretical history' had become. My inner boy scout realized it was a cover for social darwinism in various forms which covered for racism, eugenics, and all sorts of horrors. Asimov intended none of that, of course. Few did, right? Those few we know as monsters nowadays. THEN came more mathematics experience and the realization that such theories were likely doomed the moment we tried to build heuristics. Maybe we'd get lucky, but the odds are astronomically large against us. In other words, the problem to solve in social theories is hideously complex and likely irreducible. No matter, though, say most of us. We believe! That's enough to find our way forward to find a viable theory informing us what is ethical and what is not. Pfft!<br /><br />Not Asimov's fault. In fact, I like to think he'd be proud of some of us for learning from him and others and then reacting so strongly against an inhumane impulse to dictate to others.<br /><br /><br /><br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72181511553265935742020-10-21T14:08:22.175-07:002020-10-21T14:08:22.175-07:00Darrell,
Duncan says shit is complicated so you h...Darrell,<br /><br /><i>Duncan says shit is complicated so you have to be careful, while you are saying, no, you don't get it. Shit is really complicated.</i><br /><br />Ha ha! Well done. I love the paraphrased version of our little debate. I'm going to chuckle all day now.<br /><br />The process you describe is (of course) the scientific method in one of its variations. It is a wonderful EVOLUTIONARY process. There is one big exception, though, between how Duncan and I would keep it working in our communities.<br /><br />1. Typically in one of the science fields, there is a theory in play from which hypotheses are formed. Only hypotheses get tested and failure can lead us to question the theory, the way one hypothesis was formed, or both.<br /><br />2. In an open-society evolutionary system, there is no theory. The hypothesis tested is always about fitness and reproduction whether the field is about biology or economics. Essentially it's the question "Does this work well enough to reproduce?"<br /><br />Shit is REALLY complicated. SO complicated, we are deluding ourselves pretending our local heuristics are viable theory.<br /><br /><i>You make it sound as if we simply can not make progress towards goals except by leaving things in the hands of unguided processes because reality is just too complicated…</i><br /><br />… but it's not THIS bad. We do guide locally and have proven successes. The evolutionary process wouldn't work at all if we didn't. That 'guiding' is a selection factor. Weeding the garden so to speak.<br /><br />What I advocate for is <br /><br />1) Humility to prevent our smaller scale plans from cohering into bigger ones that produce de facto coercive forces preventing others from employing their local knowledge locally, and<br /><br />2) even more humility to prevent the delusional belief that we ACTUALLY understand the problem we are solving. We don't… mostly because it isn't even definable. Evolutionary systems don't progress toward a goal. They simply progress. I might believe that this civilization is the best thing ever worthy of well defined goals toward which we should all progress, but that belief ACTUALLY HINDERS our progress if too many of us fall into hubris.<br /><br />Sorry about the all caps stuff, but I get on a soap box when this topic comes around in the cycle. The stars are in reach and this civilization IS a wonder. I want to live long enough to see it so bad that my teeth hurt. Grr! Grr! Hulk smash anyone in the way! Duncan is cool, though. I get him better nowadays. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18050623520159000922020-10-21T13:24:21.200-07:002020-10-21T13:24:21.200-07:00Packy - This statement, "I will say this for ...Packy - This statement, "I will say this for having Republicans in positions of power....things don't get swept under the rug" is the biggest deliberate lie I've heard this month. It is a dirty, pernicious lie. Full stop. matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32748124024972118992020-10-21T13:15:32.659-07:002020-10-21T13:15:32.659-07:00Dennis M Davidson:
OCTOBER SURPRISE: Tuesday, Oct...Dennis M Davidson:<br /><i><br />OCTOBER SURPRISE: Tuesday, October 23, 2020<br /></i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but in which universe is that date on a Tuesday? :)Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34402064489510708302020-10-21T12:51:29.011-07:002020-10-21T12:51:29.011-07:00Dr Brin:
“I find few compelling reasons to suppor...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />“I find few compelling reasons to support Trump, but I will say this for having Republicans in positions of power....things don't get swept under the rug.’<br /><br />I stared at that assertion, then looked again unbelievingly. I blinked, swallowed, and read it again, unable to parse it and believe I was a member of the same species as anyone who could type those words in that order.<br /></i><br /><br />Now, I'm in the uneviable position of defending Pachydermis2.<br /><br />Because I did the same thing you did, except that on the third pass or so, I did figure out what he was saying. That when Republicans are in power, <b>the press</b> uncovers all of their wrongdoings, but when Dems are in power, the press sweeps their wrongdoings under the rug.<br /><br />I'm not in agreement with that assessment--I think the press actually bends over backwards to prove that they are <b>not</b> in bed with the left, and that their going after Trump is a case of "In a fit of pique, he napalmed Chelsea. Even the police had to sit up and take notice." But at least this interpretation belongs on our planet spoken by a member of homo sapiens sapiens.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27800810156799994852020-10-21T12:48:28.167-07:002020-10-21T12:48:28.167-07:00I find it very hard to take anyone seriously who u...I find it very hard to take anyone seriously who uses Biden bragging about getting that prosecutor fired as evidence of any wrongdoing. There's ample evidence that there were very good reasons that the US as well as other countries wanted him removed. Biden bragging about getting him removed is similar to a prosecutor bragging about getting a murderer convicted. <br /><br />The idea that it's evidence of any malfeasance is ridiculous and the fact that I keep seeing this claim pop up again and again in right-wing commentary makes me wonder how many of these people are truly this ill informed, and how many just don't care about the legitimacy of their arguments.<br /><br />Pachydermis, if you want people to actually think you're anything other than a shill or partisan, come up with some better argument please.Cari Bursteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05812444306433659243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7014193125811172432020-10-21T12:42:54.020-07:002020-10-21T12:42:54.020-07:00Pachydermis2:
You have all become a decidedly unc...Pachydermis2:<br /><i><br />You have all become a decidedly uncurious bunch. This is ironic given the great passion with which all manner of conspiracy theories casting negative light on Republicans, Conservatives, etc have been loudly, er, trumpeted in this forum over the last decade.<br /></i><br /><br />It doesn't occur to you that there's a reason for this? That maybe our bullshit detectors are functioning accurately, and they point overwhelmingly in one direction?<br /><br /><i><br />You've all gotten past that video where the VP brags about getting the prosecutor fired before Ukraine gets aid money, I find it difficult.<br /></i><br /><br />Will you stop it with the FOX talking points?<br /><br />The prosecutor who Biden helped force out <b>was</b> the corrupt one working for Vladimir Putin. In lobbying against him with Ukraine, Biden was acting on US State Department <b>policy</b> and the will of not only the US government but all of our European allies. He was not on some sort of lone wolf, self-serving mission like Benedict Donald was when he, <b>in defiance of the State Department and Congress</b>, withheld money from Ukraine in order to blackmail their president into doing what you are doing without even the bribe.<br /><br />Look, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are engaging in sealioning rather than treason. I am <b>this</b> close to deciding you're not worth my time any more than locumranch was. But so far, you're at least more coherent (if misguided) and only engage in name-calling rather than outright slander. So there's that.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18506821040433385362020-10-21T12:31:25.724-07:002020-10-21T12:31:25.724-07:00Pachydermis Biden wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor ...Pachydermis Biden wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he was a Yanukovich Putin-shill holdover who was OBSTRUCTING investigations of corruption! The Ukrainian people knew that. There were street demonstrations demanding the prosecutor’s office go after corrupt oligarchs and that started happening after the firing. <br /><br />And that is comparable to… what?<br /><br />The laptop? Like I should care about the highly unlikely chance that a family black sheep (who had earlier chaired the world effort to feed tens of millions of starving people) tried to parlay an EMAIL INTRODUCTION to his dad into a business contact? Tell me what criminal code that violated please? The Fox yammerers never, ever, ever actually cite one. <br /><br />That’s IF the story is true that he flew across the country to drop 3 $800 laptops at an unsecure repair shop in Atlanta then forgot about them… and… excuse my skepticism… but again, who care? Except if this causes them to get distracted from more dangerous October “surprises.” <br /><br /> Should Hunter’s marginal activities be MADE illegal? Sure! All relatives of politicians and judges should live transparent lives or the pol/judge should resign!<br /><br />“I find few compelling reasons to support Trump, but I will say this for having Republicans in positions of power....things don't get swept under the rug.’<br /><br />I stared at that assertion, then looked again unbelievingly. I blinked, swallowed, and read it again, unable to parse it and believe I was a member of the same species as anyone who could type those words in that order.<br /><br />It is the most blithering-insane assertion I have seen in a year of Foxisms and Trumpisms. But we have adversarial accountability here. So please. Defend it! Better yet. PUT MONEY ON IT! I will give you odds.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92092174597661923872020-10-21T10:52:46.601-07:002020-10-21T10:52:46.601-07:00OCTOBER SURPRISE: Tuesday, October 23, 2020
Atto...OCTOBER SURPRISE: Tuesday, October 23, 2020<br /><br />Attorney General Barr releases his ‘executive summary’ of the DOJ ‘Durham Investigation’ into the origins of the FBI investigation of Russia’s connections to the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign organization. <br /><br />Barr’s summary suggests that rogue FBI agents, in communication with Obama White House staff, might have speculated about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest vis-à-vis a Moscow Trump Hotel. Citing the confidentiality of an on-going investigation, Barr had nothing further to say about Trump and Russia.<br /><br />Later that day at White House campaign rally, POTUS calls for the immediate arrest of Comey, Clinton, Obama and Biden. Among a long list of alleged crimes, Trump claims each has a bank account in China. Complains that their bank balances are higher than his. Calls them ‘Gang of Four’ and ‘Enemies of the People’. <br /><br />Tweetstorm follows, expanding to include false charges against governors of Michigan, Virginia, California and New York. Calls for immediate arrest of mayors of Seattle, Portland, and Washington DC. Tells local police and paramilitary groups that now is the time to STEP UP! And DEFEND democracy.<br /><br />Meanwhile, FBI director Christopher Wray disputes Barr’s interpretation of the Durham report; defends integrity of Comey and FBI’s rank and file. Wray says nothing about Clinton, Obama and Biden. QAnon cites Wray’s silence as evidence that the FBI is actually conspiring to protect Clinton, Obama and Biden. When no arrests are forthcoming, QAnon cites this as proof of a Deep State/FBI conspiracy to overthrown Trump, and to eventually install Hillary Clinton as President. Q does not explain exactly how this will happen. Nonetheless, QAnon followers <br /><br /><br />Trump interprets Wray’s silence on Clinton, Obama and Biden as disloyalty and fires him by tweet. Nominates Rudy Giuliani as interim FBI Director. <br /><br />Trump does not bother to notify anyone in DOJ including the Attorney General who mildly scolds POTUS. Tweetstorm continues. Trump fires Barr for insolence. Nominates Richard Grenell as acting Attorney General. Complains that Grenell, despite being gay, won’t be as tough as Roy Cohn. Left, Center, and Right-Wing press goes woke/PC on POTUS (and each other)—all for different reasons. <br /><br />A day later, Trump thinks better of firing Barr. Says he was joking. <br /><br />Chaos continues. Status of Democracy remains unknown.<br /><br />Dennis M Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13861850532281473798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30548516683064157052020-10-21T10:22:08.967-07:002020-10-21T10:22:08.967-07:00On "originalism"...
https://www.nytimes...On "originalism"...<br /><br />https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/opinion/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett.html<br /><i><br />...<br />Also, what often is overlooked is that conservative justices ignore original meaning when it does not serve their purpose. One of the worst decisions in recent years was Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of race discrimination in voting to obtain approval from the attorney general or a panel of judges before making significant changes in their election systems.<br /><br />The court, voting 5-4, said that this violated the principle that Congress must treat all states alike. But no such requirement is found in the Constitution. Moreover, the Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment imposed Reconstruction on Southern states, showing that it did not mean to treat all states alike.<br />...<br />If Hillary Clinton had won the presidency in 2016 and replaced Justices Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, originalism would have faded in importance. Justice Thomas would have been the only originalist on the court and the theory would have been kept alive only by some conservative law professors.<br /><br />But now, with the confirmation of Judge Barrett, it will be a dominant theory on the Supreme Court. Make no mistake, it is just as much a threat to all of our rights as when Robert Bork espoused it more than 30 years ago.<br /></i><br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11599413284548703452020-10-21T10:02:30.021-07:002020-10-21T10:02:30.021-07:00Jon S:
Oh, yeah, and then there's the part wh...Jon S:<br /><i><br />Oh, yeah, and then there's the part where neither the FBI nor Giuliani's attorney notices a crapload of child porn - no, that takes the eagle eye and cybernetic expertise of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Moscow).<br /></i><br /><br /><br />That might say more about Ron Johnson's proclivities than it does about the Bidens. :)<br /><br />By the way, conveniently "finding child porn" on the computer belonging to a political enemy is such a cliche by now that I wouldn't believe it even if it was true in a particular case.<br /><br /><i><br />Basically, Pachy, ol' buddy, this story holds together about as well as tales of the Hollow Earth, and I really don't think we need expeditions to the North Pole to prove there's no gateway there either.<br /></i><br /><br />At this point, any suggestion that we need to evaluate more evidence on this subject falls under the classification of "sealioning", and should be treated accordingly. Any further suggestion that this is something which actually disqualifies Joe Biden as a candidate should be responded to only with "I do not hear the words of traitors!"<br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4987545728660427792020-10-21T07:47:54.337-07:002020-10-21T07:47:54.337-07:00Malcolm Nance on Stephanie Miller's show confi...Malcolm Nance on Stephanie Miller's show confirms.<br /><br />The FBI is not investigating Hunter Biden child pornography. They're investigating whether Giuliani and the Trumpist repair man are actively working with Russian intelligence.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67738631945227542532020-10-21T07:13:40.094-07:002020-10-21T07:13:40.094-07:00@Alfred Differ
Re: Computational Psychohistory
I...@Alfred Differ<br /><br />Re: Computational Psychohistory<br /><br />Isaac Asimov died at the dawn of supercomputing (1992). Given his deep adoration of machine minds (robots, computers, Tandy, the nascent internet), I suspect that he was about to launch into a complete revision of psychohistory, based on massive computation. He had struggled since the 1950s to put more meat on the bones of psychohistory than the sparse pickings in the "Foundation" trilogy. IMHO, he had little success. I was quite disappointed with his later explanations, and those of others who tried. Brin's "Foundation's Triumph" finally sprinkled in a few tantalizing ideas. However, Dr. Brin is a physicist, and they are notorious seekers of simplicity. That's the wrong approach.<br /><br /><i>huge numbers of dimensions… and how we approached problems set in those spaces. It was rather depressing to realize that our simplifications invalidated most of what we believed about successful 'solutions.'</i><br /><br />Yup.<br /><br /><i>At best, we work with heuristics.</i><br /><br />Double yup.<br /><br />Christopher Hitchens wrote of an English high priest at the time of the plague. The priest was vexed by why the virtuous seemed to die at the same rate as the corrupt. He wondered why god would allow such a cruel unfairness. It was almost as if god didn't care, or even see, or... . Hitchens said that the priest came very close indeed to the correct answer. We humans have a dizzying solipsism. We anthropomorphize everything, even god and nature. I'm not knocking it, it's the reason why we conquered the planet. However, the map is not the territory. Simplicity shmimplicity.<br /><br />The world (I'd use 'universe' but that seems presumptuous) is a realm of computation and evolution. We perceive it using a vastly simplified model of reality stored in a 3-lb hominid brain. This model is self-trained, using a life-long (except in troglodytes) bootstrapping process. Heuristics and models are kind of our thing. The history of philosophy is endlessly intriguing, yet utter garbage.<br /><br />Psychohistory was only a quaint trellis that Asimov used to weave a story around. He did a wonderful job (although, perhaps surprisingly, he wasn't the first to explore the machinery of sociology in this way). Computational Psychohistory however, is a real start at a real social theory. It supplants formulae with algorithms. And not contrived algorithms. And not facile 'Big Data' dreck. Monte Carlo <b>analysis</b> may be hopeless against high dimensionality and combinatorial explosions, but Monte Carlo <b>machinery</b> isn't. Proof? It already happened (at least) once in nature - look around you. The secret sauce is this: it's not hammered out by us bags of mostly water. I'm not even convinced that AI will or can manifest it. Rather, I suspect that it lurks in the heaps of silicon and clouds of solder smoke I'm always on about.<br /><br />But how can such a thing be reasonably called a 'theory'? That is indeed the question. This is where SETI comes in. It's why I disagree fundamentally with Brin's Great Silence arguments. I really enjoyed the way that Brin described and employed 'Tiktoks'. He came very close indeed to the correct answer. I think Benford and Bear did too, but I must admit they're both way down on my ponderous and plodding reading list.<br /><br />Re: <i>US is a sea power.</i><br />So is/was Canada (3rd largest fleet in the world at the end of WW2). Perhaps that's why other powers try so hard to drive a wedge between us (because Northwest Passage).<br />scidatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04992209167553267488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40451513205197149892020-10-21T07:01:47.281-07:002020-10-21T07:01:47.281-07:00You have all become a decidedly uncurious bunch. ...You have all become a decidedly uncurious bunch. This is ironic given the great passion with which all manner of conspiracy theories casting negative light on Republicans, Conservatives, etc have been loudly, er, trumpeted in this forum over the last decade.<br /><br />I am at this point only saying that is looks as if this is Hunter Biden's laptop. Regards the matters at hand I'm only interested in whether there is evidence suggesting that Hunter's surprisingly well paid overseas jobs had anything to do with the decision making power of Biden pere. You've all gotten past that video where the VP brags about getting the prosecutor fired before Ukraine gets aid money, I find it difficult.<br /><br />There might be disinformation embedded in real material. That would be the best way to do it after all. So I'm not taking bets. If I find that this is a political hit job and that my skepticism on this point was insufficient (but hardly absent!), I'll say so here. That's worth more than $100 to some. <br /><br />Probably there will be enough ambiguity to let Biden slide on this. Hunter seems like a troubled and at times desperate man. He may well have talked big with nothing to back it up.<br /><br />I find few compelling reasons to support Trump, but I will say this for having Republicans in positions of power....things don't get swept under the rug. I'll take the overheated and often wrong vaporings of the anti Trump press any day over a silent and complacent Fourth Estate. They should scrutinize in a bipartisan fashion. Suppressing stories versus investigating and then confirming/disproving....as a healthy Press used to do.<br /><br />PachyTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69516862545308686982020-10-21T05:44:49.528-07:002020-10-21T05:44:49.528-07:00Alfred,
What Duncan seems to be saying is form hy...Alfred,<br /><br />What Duncan seems to be saying is form hypotheses about how to move something in a certain desired direction, test them against reality, discard or modify based on test results. You keep saying he has a theory. That's not a theory, it's a process.<br /><br />You both seem to be saying nearly the same thing, with one difference. Duncan says shit is complicated so you have to be careful, while you are saying, no, you don't get it. Shit is <i>really</i> complicated.<br /><br />Your constant push back against regulation is, I think, a necessary part of the "conversation." Sort of like the slave whispering in the conquering Roman leader's ear during the victory procession, "All glory is fleeting." Regulation should be undertaken only with great care, humility and the willingness to change things based on the observed results. But two things. 1) You make it sound as if we simply can not make progress towards goals except by leaving things in the hands of unguided processes because reality is just too complicated, and there is plenty of evidence that that is not true. 2) I think you are indeed misinterpreting / mischaracterizing Duncan's view and that the real difference between your two views is merely the degree of pessimism.Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40829974200934373872020-10-21T01:16:10.217-07:002020-10-21T01:16:10.217-07:00jim,
Of course Israel and others have pernicious ...jim,<br /><br />Of course Israel and others have pernicious influence here. All states have geopolitical objectives and many of them involve us. Of course they would try for influence.<br /><br />What Russia needs out of us right now is destabilization. We threaten their stability simply by being strong enough to oppose them… like we did in Ukraine without even mounting a government effort to do it. A few NGO's shrugged and destabilized Russia's perimeter forcing them into a war.<br /><br />What Israel needs is importance in the objectives of a strong ally. They are still surrounded. They are at risk when we are not stable and inclined to take their side.<br /><br />What the Saudi's need is protection and importance in the objectives of a strong ally that doesn't want to rule them. They are NOT historically strong. They sit between two seats of former empires and were RULED by others most of the time. One of those seats is dominated by Shia. They need what they need and it isn't a destabilized us.<br /><br />What WE need is to balance forces we have no intention of ruling by force or by annexation. Israel can tolerate this. So can the Saudi's. Russia cannot. They cannot defend themselves from other adversaries close to them. We sure as heck won't intervene on their behalf. Land Wars in Asia being stupid and all that. {The US is a sea power}Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35964428465565022172020-10-21T01:05:13.279-07:002020-10-21T01:05:13.279-07:00Pachydermis2,
Would an elaborate plot be launched...Pachydermis2,<br /><br /><i>Would an elaborate plot be launched against a guy who had, iirc, never won a primary?</i><br /><br />OH YES! Sure as @#!$ YES.<br /><br />You aren't thinking like an intel agent. That's okay. You trained for medical methods. <br /><br /><br />Intel folks lay huge numbers of plans that mostly don't work out to much of anything because the few that do will make up for it all. Most 'assets' involve tiny investments requiring little handling and little loss if they are ever compromised.<br /><br />Intel folks collect huge volumes of seemingly useless data because the holes in what they can collect partially describe the classified data they can't reach. Data aggregation is HUGELY important for finding what one didn't think existed and as context for what one has seen existence hints.<br /><br /><br />In our particular case, the Russians can't dominate us. At best they can disrupt us. That serves a very useful geopolitical purpose for them since we ARE their primary adversary. It doesn't matter whether we see ourselves that way or not. We ARE even when we are inclined to be friendly with them. We ARE the only nation on Earth that can thwart them without breaking a sweat, thus we are a threat. Period. End of Story. (Think like a Russian to see this. Don't know how? Ask them.)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.com