home
on exploration, introspection and creation

My Favorite Chord

January 21st, 2012

I have a favorite chord. It’s Fsus4. It is more fascinating than a bland major chord (yes, major chords are harmonious, but they are too aesthetic, they don’t give the music the ability to engage our emotions. It’s difficult to compose an interesting piece of music using only major chords), and more mysterious than a pervasive minor chord. It conveys anticipation, hope, elevation. It used to be frequently used in video game music back when music was more abstract (and minimalist, likely due to space and processing constraints) just after you beat the baddest boss, ascending to the final screen.

Check it out here, followed by a regular F major chord: F Sus 4.

What is your favorite chord?

Recurring Payments

December 11th, 2011

One of the common online services that I find very frustrating is the functionality of many utility providers to set up recurring payments. I would understand it if the functionality was complex, difficult to get right, but recurring payments are pretty straightforward. It’s pretty clear what the right thing to do here is.

When I set up a recurring payment, I want to pay the bill — the bill that until now I used to pay manually (unless this is the first time I’m paying the bill) — automatically. So that I don’t have to worry about it. I don’t want to start paying two months from now, and I don’t want to pay the next month’s bill twice. I just want it to work. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

I never trust the service when I’m doing setting up recurring payments. Many providers don’t make it clear which payments I set up, starting when, and how they may interact with manual payments. The user interface is always complicated, which doesn’t make sense to me because the expected user experience is very simple. And I don’t buy that setting up a recurring payment should take two cycles (seems like an artifact of how things used to be done — when changes made by mail might take a week to reach the processing center, which could cause a race condition; but even then, again, it’s clear that I simply want to ensure I continue paying the bill and never have to pay twice for the same bill).

Thank you to my friend S.C. for inspiration for this.

I’m on Twitter.

December 9th, 2011

Yes, as of recently, I’m on Twitter. I decided to join not out of need or curiosity or the desire to fit in or seem like I know social media or seem like I’m up to speed on technology, but because I decided to open up to the idea that Twitter may actually be useful in allowing me to communicate effectively — let me share my ideas better, let them reach people better.

Twitter (just as any tool, really, and especially just as any platform) is used improperly all the time. By “improperly” I mean used in ways that it wasn’t meant to be used, or in ways that obscure its truly revolutionary, game-changing, unique purpose. I believe that Twitter is unique in that it allows individuals (and groups) to broadcast their thoughts, opinions, reflections (broadly speaking, information) in a lightweight way, and with support for consuming that information.

In other words, As a subscriber, I don’t want articles. I want headlines. And I want them delivered to my doorstep.

The constraint to keep the broadcast lightweight is crucial precisely because we’re letting people broadcast — if the information is too verbose, its sheer volume will make the platform useless. And support for consuming the information lowers the bar for subscriptions. If the information is hard to get, people won’t bother managing their subscriptions.

So yes, I could just have a blog, but by its virtue it will likely contain longer bits of information; and there is no easy way for people to follow my blog unless they subscribe in some way, which will likely be too heavyweight for the number of subscriptions they will likely be maintaining (many of their friends, figures of authority that they trust, companies that they think of, etc.).

Now, a headline might pique your curiosity and then you may want to read more. Twitter supports URLs, which is great. I can have my cake — allow lots of people to go through my content really quickly (so they can go through others’ content too) — and eat it too — still be able to express myself fully.

This blog has a natural connection to Twitter. Many of my posts are snippets of opinion with added context. I should be able to synthesize most of them into something bite-sized. Twitter will create a contract between me and people who may be interested in what I have to say that gives me a scalable forum, and gives them the peace of mind that the content won’t be too time-consuming to get to. I had better be good at synthesizing my content, but it is a great skill to have anyway. In a way, Twitter makes information delivery more democratic.

Of course, that’s not how Twitter is used to a large extent. I think that’s fine — many platforms are abused in some form or another, and different platforms may tolerate different volume of abuse. Since Twitter has such a clear contract, I am okay tolerating abuse because if I do a good job, people who I care about will easily be able to separate me from noise and so I will be able to maximize who I reach out to.

Bumper guards

December 3rd, 2011

Bumper guards — those rubber sheets people stick out of the trunks of their cars to protect their bumpers from dents — are the surest way to:

  1. Make your car look ugly. I understand their appeal — though I haven’t verified it myself, I am sure they protect somehow from small scratches and dents, but at what aesthetic price! It’s like a bib for your car.
  2. Make other drivers bump into you more. Presumably the existence of a rubber surface will protect both cars so the driver who might otherwise be careful will take a few more liberties getting out of that ridiculously cramped parking spot.

I wonder how many people get them having done the research to figure out how effective they are. In other words, is it just a fad, or is there some merit to the idea? (While I should have checked, the disgust I feel for what they make cars look prevents me from spending much time on them. Maybe except for this post.)

Carry-on Luggage? Think again.

November 28th, 2011

It’s saddening that flying has become something akin to colonoscopy – a necessary agony. I don’t know enough to have an opinion on whether I blame the airplane companies for this (who, due to the high barrier of entry, have become near-monopolies and thus don’t innovate and worry only about cost-cutting) or the government (which imposes all these rules and fees on the airline companies) or the industry itself (it’s just bound to suck).

The newest annoyance (or maybe the newest for me as previously I haven’t felt the pain) is the airlines’ decision to charge for checked luggage which incentivizes everyone on the flight to carry large carry-ons. Combined with densely packed seats, this means that there is no room for all the carry-ons on the plane so some passengers are forced to check their carry-on in. Which sucks if you have things in your carry-on that can get damaged, if you don’t want to incur additional delay at arrival, hate how the baggage is handled, worry about it being lost or stolen, and so on — I’m sure the list goes on.

The most annoying thing? Somehow airlines didn’t think it fair to randomize the selection of carry-ons so those in later groups always get penalized while those in group 2 almost never do.

Turn Off All Electronic Devices

November 27th, 2011

Flying gives me all this new material to file under Daily Badness… this Thanksgiving, I was infuriated by a flight attendant who insisted that I “turn off” my Kindle reader while being totally fine with the person next to me listening to music. There are so many things wrong with this, where should I begin.

For one, e-ink screens only consume power when I turn the pages so for the overwhelming majority of time the device is as good as turned off (with the added twist of irony where “turning off” the device would have to be me simply putting it away). The interference such a device might cause is also likely an order of magnitude greater than any interference that a music player may cause. Finally, it’s very likely that the person listening to music wasn’t listening to it on his casette tape player, and the hidden device he used is likely significantly more complex than the Kindle.

People not signaling their intention to turn

November 21st, 2011

Somehow signaling turns has become optional in the U.S. This really bothers me for two very important reasons.

First, I frequently run into drivers stopped at the red light, in the left lane. Only when the light turns green do they magnanimously decide to signal, a fraction of a second before actually turning. This is incredibly frustrating when I’m the sucker stuck behind such a driver, unaware of the driver’s intention to turn left (and thus block the lane for an extended period of time as oncoming traffic passes).

Secondly — and this is more dangerous — this pervasive not signaling has set implicit expectations that other drivers have regarding other vehicles on the road. In some intersections (and there obviously is one right where I work), where most drivers turn left or right and don’t go straight, drivers from the oncoming lane turning left are very likely to assume you are also turning even if you aren’t signaling the turn, and thus fail to give you the right of way. If everyone always signaled, this would not be as common.

A few years ago I spoke to a colleague of mine who said he only signals his intention to change lanes on the highway if he deems it necessary. This is obviously flawed, as many times he can’t be the judge of what is necessary. It just surprises me that people cut corners so much on a motion that you can do without using up an extra hand, simply by moving your finger by half an inch. And if we compromise on that, why not compromise on other laws such as stop signs or driving in the lane?

Communicating with an Alien Race

November 16th, 2011

Let’s assume that there exists other intelligent life somewhere in the Universe. I like to consider the various parameters of the properties of such a life, which would define commonalities between us and them (it), which would help define how we could communicate.

Unsurprisingly, as any topic that tickles our (I’m argue evolutionary!) desire to explore, there has been a lot of thought put into this problem. I’ll do what I do best — start with some of the context I’ve acquired over the years (the Pioneer message, the Arecibo message, a much longer one, or Carl Sagan’s Contact) to see where I can take the idea (a good test of how I’m thinking about it, and possibly a way to think outside the box), and would love to hear from those who know more, or have thought about it, especially if you have differing opinions.

Let’s start with a relatively simple model. An alien race that is based on similar biological mechanisms, thus consisting of individuals that have become intelligent through evolution, that have acquired inter-generational (institutional) memory and thus civilization through some method of communication between individuals. Note that I’m not necessarily assuming many of the aspects of such a life — language (imagine a species that can communicate through some form of telepathy), physical attributes (such a life may be non-carbon based and interact with the environment in wildly different ways than we — for example, be entirely gaseous and receive and generate arbitrary signals along a specific range of electromagnetic spectrum), motivations. Let’s assume, however, that the Universe behaves the same way locally to this alien life form as it does in our environment.

The most interesting aspect in such a case is the mode of communication. What can we assume is common? Nothing physical, for sure. For species that travel in the electromagnetic spectrum (just like light does), our highways and staircases and in general attraction to solid state objects would make very little sense. Instead of trying to start with something most concrete to us, it makes sense to start as broadly as possible. We need a medium and a message.

For the medium, we could use the electromagnetic spectrum. Really, anything we can generate that can travel far, fast, and be distinguishable from everything around us. Don’t be fooled by visible light! — although it’s possible that there is some cosmic law that makes visible light frequencies be a local maximum along some dimension — the energy required to receive it relative to its usefulness in the surrounding environment (seeing X-rays instead of “visible” light would not be all that helpful to early humans) — this is highly dependent on the initial conditions of life. Or maybe it’s a fluke. More generally, anything that generates a force field, though it’s harder to generate ripples in the gravitational field as easily as it is to blast electromagnetic messages. Quantum effects are likely too small to be noticed, although I don’t really know anymore, given all these spooky things happening.

The message? Non-random (non-chaotic), but not too regular (pulsars send out regular messages out in the space). Taking both together, it’s a pretty natural thing to mimic the universe around us — assuming that what we observe of distant stars from Earth, the aliens can also observe from their vantage point — but provide patterns whose complexity is a tad higher than the complexity of similar messages generated by the Universe itself. Prime numbers are good candidates — and in general, anything that is really fundamental and to do with mathematics, because it’s very likely that an alien race knows mathematics (as the study of patterns, totally abstracted from the source of these patterns). Unitless quantities are better than something with an intrinsic measure, because the fewer assumptions, the better.

Can an alien race be sophisticated enough to be able to receive our communication, and interesting enough to talk to, but not understand at least some form of mathematics? Could an alien special have developed (not been born with!) interstellar travel and not understood binary systems. Science fiction scenarios aside (an alien species is decimated along with its cultural heritage and ends up traveling across solar systems without the knowledge of how its machines take it thus far), I think there is universal consensus that the answer is no. And in fact, an ability to think abstractly is very likely a sign of intelligence. But this does not hold the other way — I can imagine a race that is either so sophisticated as to think of mathematics the same way we think about the pulses of Nature and simply ignore any such signal, or so intuitive that they don’t identify mathematics as a discipline. For the former, introducing some obvious and non-obvious error in the message might be a great solution. A race that can enumerate prime numbers is intelligent, but a race that makes a mistake early on must be much more street smart!

But even assuming an alien race does understand the concept of binary arithmetic, it may not be able to understand its encoding. Would a series of dots and dashes in a column corresponding to the numerals necessarily be informational? Not if the aliens don’t have spacial awareness. Would a series of beeps be a good encoding? Not if the aliens can’t hear or — more interestingly — don’t have a notion of time (or cause-and-effect).

Math aside, the fundamental laws of the Universe would probably be a common base, although one can imagine a less curious (or much more sophisticated and thus thinking of the laws of the Universe as irrelevant) life form, or a more precise one where our crude approximations of the Universe map to something incomprehensible to them. We can ask astronomy what quantities are pervasive and communicate their ratios. This is what Pioneer and the Arecibo messages were, and it is a great way to communicate our relative knowledge of the universe with the above assumptions in mind.

There are alternatives to this model that would work similarly in some aspects. Consider a species that is a single individual (instead of many individuals that communicate with one another and thus pass the knowledge). Such an individual may not comprehend the notion of individuality, but may still be able to communicate with us the same way, definitely remotely, where we can approximate mankind as a single individual, at least in the beginning of the dialogue. If their Universe doesn’t behave the same way as ours does (say, the speed of light, due to some quirkiness, is infinite in some valley of the Universe), if the alien race can perceive the different laws elsewhere, they can still compare our crazy patterns of high entropy to the surrounding comparative dead silence. Though such an alien race may not be particularly useful to talk with (if they have no insight that can be understood by us).

The concept of communicating with an alien race is a fascinating one. Clearly, there is no way to think about it in the most abstract way — there are always assumptions that we must accept. Let’s hope that we’ll get to tackle this problem at some point in the near future, and let’s hope that we get some of our assumptions right — we wouldn’t want to miss an alien race that happens to be intelligent in a different way. Or be trampled by one in search of intelligent life.

Drugs of the Future

November 1st, 2011

I had a vision that in thirty years, people people won’t bother buying drugs from some sketchy guy on the streets and fumbling with these analog devices to administer them. In my vision, people print their own drugs, synthesized from basic compounds. Different drugs would have a different recipe — which would simply be a few lines of code.

Let’s face it, that’s probably the future of drugs. Our children will have access to such equipment (likely, the innovations that some of us come up with will aid in the creation of such equipment) capable of synthesizing any molecule.

There is an interesting enforcement question here — how can such a thing, if possible, be controlled? Would it become illegal to own the source code for the drugs? (is this freedom of expression? or intellectual property?) Would it become illegal to own the synthesizer? (why would it be? It’s not illegal to own the vaporizer.) Would it become illegal to own some specific “source compounds” which happen to be a part of the finished products? (although, if the synthesizer technology is advanced, it will probably be possible to start with really generic compounds, i.e. push the burden of the process onto code).

The Afterlife

October 27th, 2011

The best thing about the afterlife is that you can’t reason about it, because life after death is not pertinent to our domain of knowledge. Any “existence” after life would not be existence as we know it, and we wouldn’t be able to define it because it occupies a different realm (not in the supernatural sense, but in the sense of a knowledge base).

When we die, our physical manifestations – what we call our bodies (the physical medium that contains our consciousness and the vehicle that we can most precisely control) – cease to exist. The body disintegrates, and our earthly consciousness — which, I’m beginning to believe more and more strongly, is the recallable continuity of our interaction with the world that surrounds us — ends as well because we are no longer capable of interacting with the world or creating memories. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that there is nothing after death. We just can’t define what it is.

The way I like to think about the afterlife is an extrapolation of a feeling that sometimes overcomes me, a feeling so immense that I momentarily forget what I am supposed to be doing, where I am, even who I am. It’s just a flash, but in that moment I am pure existence.