10,931 karma · joined November 30, 2011
About 30 years ago, a family came down from the mountains near San Luis Obispo to ask whether my mother could teach them piano. They were an unusual family -- a mother and a number of children; apparently their father wouldn't leave his homestead up in the mountains. The children were all homeschoooled. They were perhaps a bit raggedy, but all quite brilliant and free-thinking, and quickly became excellent piano players. Our family became friends with theirs, and eventually we were invited to visit their homestead up in the mountains.
The homestead was an off-grid hand-built house and working organic dairy farm, lovingly stuffed to the rafters with various arts and crafts, including a large collection of medieval-style musical instruments which the patriarch of the family, Hal, had built by hand. Hal was an enigma within an enigma: he refused to talk about his past, looked like a Santa-clause mountain man, wouldn't engage with the outside world in person, but was relentlessly curious about it -- able to keep up with conversations about the latest in politics and technology. He also had a keen interest in the archaeology of the upper Colorado plateau, and soon we were making trips to the Cal Poly library to check out the latest archaeology books on his behalf. One day, on a whim, we looked for his name in the index of one of those books, and that's when we found out that we already knew who he was.
Haldon Chase[1] had been at the absolute epicenter of the Beat movement. He was the one who introduced Allen Ginsberg to Jack Kerouac, and most of the other Beats to each other. He'd gone by pseudonym "Chad King" in "On the Road". At the time he didn't have a Wikipedia entry, and at the time all anybody knew is that he had vanished at some point. Of course my family felt privileged to know the rest of the story.
Thinking now about Hal's life, in the few retrospectives I've seen of it, he's framed as having rejected the whole Beat lifestyle. I'm not sure that's accurate. In many ways the life he managed to carve out for himself was the apotheosis of much of the beat philosophy: genuinely free-thinking, self-reliant, non-conformist, creative, and in his way, spiritual. All very Beat. What he certainly rejected was the the limelight. The publicity, the drama, the ego. He wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of that. So he managed to get away and just live a good (if unconventional) life. His kids have all gone on to live really good, non-messed-up lives as well.
So when reading stories about messed-up Beats and their messed-up kids, it's worth considering that there's a kind of anti-survivor-bias at play: where everything worked out, where the trauma didn't explode dramatically or get passed down the generations, you're probably not going to hear about it.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldon_Chase -- mostly but not entirely accurate.
B: I miss scroll bars. I really, really miss scroll bars.
Anyhow,hope you eventually got a better girlfriend.
Modern Italian, on the other hand, makes a modicum of sense because it was explicitly constructed during the 19th-century unification of Italy, when somebody had the bright idea that if you wanted to have a nation called "Italy", you should also have a language called "Italian" and it should make a modicum of sense. This is a memo which English has somehow never gotten.
The problem will always be that that English has a lot more phonemes than it does letters, so a 1:1 mapping will never be possible. That said, I do think it would be a good idea to have a 1:1 correlation. Which is why everybody should just learn Esperanto instead.[1]
1: Joking.[2]
2: Well, mostly joking.
1. God separates the light from the darkness, the earth from the water, and creates all the plants and animals and peoples of the world.
2. The LORD God creates the garden of Eden, makes Adam from mud and Eve from his rib, plants a tree of knowledge and tree of life, etc.
Already there's a divergence: Adam is supposedly the first man in the second story, but in the first story, all the peoples of the world have already been created. But the more interesting divergence is in the name of the responsible God. This often flies over the head of readers in English, but notice that the first story isn't the "LORD God", just "God". This is because in Hebrew, the name of God in the first story is "Elohim", while in the second, it's "YHVH" -- a name too holy for Jews to pronounce, so they just say "Hashem" ("the name"), although if you're naughty you can say "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or whatever. Why the difference?
A clue is that "Elohim" is a pluralised word in Hebrew. Once Judaism became fully monotheistic, this became interpreted as something like "The Wings of God" -- a sort of abstract all-encompassing Godly aura, rather than the pointed and personified manifestation of the divine, which is YHVH. But this is a bit of a tortured post-rationalisation, and isn't explicitly supported by the text. It's much more straightforward to read "Elohim" as simply "the gods", which is probably how it was read when the text was first assembled, with a henotheistic YHVH text being appended to an earlier polytheistic text.
Even the first commandment -- "I am YHVH, your God, and you shall have no other Gods before me" -- reads better as a henotheistic rather than a monotheistic text. It doesn't say there are no other gods. It pretty strongly implies the opposite. It just says that the other gods aren't for you.
Ok the other hand, -2C in London is crisp and invigorating and entirely preferable in every possible way.
I recently visited America after a couple of years away, and spent a couple of weeks in California, driving from SF to LA. The thing which I found the most striking was the sheer insanity of the pickup trucks that were absolutely everywhere. These things were true Idiocracy-class monster trucks, which are clearly lethal to operate in any environment which includes pedestrians. In some cases, my five-year-old's head barely reached the bumper, and my wife's head didn't clear the hood. And these were highly-polished, un-dented behemoths that had clearly never seen a dirt road in their lives. The whole thing is clearly all about aesthetics and identity politics. Absolutely revolting.
(If you haven't visited the US recently, I think it's almost impossible to appreciate how obscene the phenomena is. 10 years ago, trucks were far more restrained, but could still do everything they needed to do. 30 years ago, trucks were fully half the size, but could still carry the same-size loads and do honest work. There's honestly no possible justification for their corpulent growth.)
Anyhow, this thing looks like it can do honest work without killing everyone who crosses its path. I really appreciate that. I hope it starts a trend.
Where the AI fails is in doing anything which requires having a model of the world. I'm writing a simulator which involves agents moving through an environment. A small change in agent behaviour may take many steps of the simulator to produce consequential effects, and thinking through how that happens -- or the reverse: reasoning about the possible upstream causes of some emergent macroscopic behaviour -- requires a mental model of the simulation process, and AI absolutely does _not_ have that. It doesn't know that it doesn't have that, and will therefore hallucinate wildly as it grasps at an answer. Sometimes those hallucinations will even hit the mark. But on the whole, if a mental model is required to arrive at the answer, AI wastes more time than it saves.
I'm familiar with the Mariner camera. It's pretty fascinating. There obviously no way to return film from a Mars flyby, so they had to take a digital approach. But the technology was so crude in 1965 that they literally had to paint the "digital" images by hand in order to get a visual output. It's a fascinating story.
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/first-tv-image-of-mars-han...
Suffice it to say that this technique has essentially no relation to today's digital cameras, apart from using electrons or something. The Apollo missions did not use digital cameras; they used film, which could produce superb high-resolution images, provided you could return it to Earth.
You can actually learn things in this forum, if you listen to people who know what they're talking about.
Here's what Firefly uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography
Hopefully you can see that from a raw tech level, there's practically no overlap between those things at all. The technology has moved on _completely_.
One of the first time I got interested in reading medical studies was when I saw a bunch of headlines announcing that a randomized controlled trial had proved that echinacea was ineffective for treating respiratory problems. This surprised me, because I'd always been a dogmatic drinker of echinacea tea whenever I had a cold, and had thought that it helped. But then again, I come from a culture of damn dirty hippies, so I was open to being wrong about it. Rather than rely on the headlines, I decided to dig up the study itself.
Here's what the study actually found: that rubbing an echinacea-infused ointment on your wrists has no effect on respiratory health.
Er... yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Literally nobody uses echinacea that way. You've just falsified a total straw-man of a hypothesis, and based on the number of headlines generated off the back of this, I think it's reasonable to presume there was some kind of funded apparatus for disseminating that bogus result.
Ever since then, I've learned not to trust the headlines when it comes to trials, reserving judgment until I've looked at the methodology. When I do, a lot come up short.