home
on exploration, introspection and creation

Archive for September, 2009

What is an “amp;” [sic] doing on this taxicab’s newsfeed?

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Look very closely at the newsfeed at the bottom of screens installed at the back of some New York City’s taxicabs. If the newsfeed includes an ampersand, instead of it you will see a mysterious amp; (so, for example, “Crate & Barrel reports quarterly loss” turns into “Crate amp; Barrel reports quarterly loss”). The first few times this didn’t even reach my threshold of detail — I’m so used to seeing bugs that are a result of common programming mistakes that this error made a lot of sense to me (which wasn’t at all an excuse — in fact, I’m surprised that this defect was allowed to exist for so long!). But then I stepped back and realized that this bug that I’m taking for granted is a fascinating case of how prevalent various technologies are, and how likely one technology is to build on another. If I were to explain the cause of this error to my mom, I thought to myself, I would find it very difficult (I feared that there is so much context that I just assume is broadly known that the exercise would turn into telling the history of computing).

I like to do difficult things so I decided to try (explaining this to my mom):

1. This is a bug — which is just a phrase for an error that was caused by a mistake in the programming of the device

2. It happens whenever the newsfeed needs to display an ampersand — instead, that ampersand gets replaced with the word amp followed immediately by a semicolon

3. The device needs to somehow know what it is supposed to display. I don’t know for sure the way it is done but programmers like to reuse parts of code, and standards, and conventions that have been widely accepted, so I have an idea for how this works

4. The device is connected to some kind of a component whose task it is to receive information from the outside (after all, the newsfeed is regularly updated with fresh news) and pass it on to the device to it can be ultimately displayed on screen

5. It doesn’t matter what that component is — it may be a radio receiver which receives all the information periodically from a radio transmitter somewhere in the City (just like the RDS on the radio which allows you to see what band is currently playing), or a 3G receiver which receives the information from a cell tower (just like your cell phone is able to receive email), or maybe the cab driver is plugging the device in to some kind of box when he parks the cab at the end of his shift, and the data is transferred then

6. In any case, the data is transmitted to the device. There are many ways to transmit the data — remember that the transmission is digital which means that there has to be some code for each character of the newsfeed. This is similar to Morse code. A convention that is used a lot is to use a code called ASCII which assigns every character a combination of eight bits — each bit is either a zero or a one. I’m guessing this data is transmitted this way. I’m guessing this because I haven’t seen anything more complicated in the newsfeed than regular text — if I saw little icons, or Greek characters, I would have to go for a more complicated code (ASCII lets you encode at most 256 different characters)

7. But the newsfeed is not the only thing that gets transmitted. Weather information gets transmitted (and displayed as a number — the temperature — and an icon — rain, snow, etc.); those annoying commercials must also be transmitted the same way. The latter is a lot more information than the newsfeed, but the fundamental way of transmission is the same

8. Because there is more than one different piece of information to transmit, there has to be some way to organize this information. ASCII has no built-in way to do this because all it does it encode individual characters. For example, if the device received just a “stream of consciousness” information like this:

Crate & Barrel reports quarterly loss. President Obama arrived in Denmark. Monday 67 degrees sunny. Tuesday 70 degrees heavy rain.

it would be difficult for the device to decipher what belongs to the newsfeed, and what belongs to the weather forecast. Within each group, there are structures as well (the newsfeed has individual ticker items; each day of forecast contains the day of the week, the temperature, and the weather conditions). So programmers use another convention called XML which allows them to organize information in a way that computer programs can read. XML allows you to surround text with special words enclosed in brackets which are interpreted specially. There are a few rules that stuck (for example, to use angular brackets, and to use a slash for the word at the end). So, for example, the above transmission would look like this:

<news>
  <item>Crate & Barrel reports quarterly loss.</item>
  <item>President Obama arrived in Denmark.</item>
</news>
<weather>
  <item>
    <day>Monday</day>
    <temperature>67</temperature>
    <condition>sunny</condition>
  </item>
  <item>
    <day>Tuesday</day>
    <temperature>70</temperature>
    <condition>heavy rain</condition>
  </item>
</weather>

You will see that all information is there, it’s just highly structured. A computer program can then ask for things like, “give me every item in the weather block, and for every item, piece together what’s in the day block, what’s in the temperature block (adding the word “degrees” to the end), and what’s in the condition block.”

9. XML has some limitations. For example, an opening angle bracket cannot be used anywhere in the text because the program will think that it’s the beginning of a special block and probably not allow this transmission:

<item>To write that 2+2<5 will confuse the hell out of this program</item>

By “not allow” I mean, it’s possible that the part of the program doing the transmitting is expecting correct XML (that is, every opening angle bracket has a corresponding closing angle bracket, and so on). Perhaps the part of the program doing the receiving is expecting correct XML. Very likely both do (because programmers reuse code — somebody else wrote code for interpreting XML and they probably wrote it in a way that prevents common mistakes from happening).

10. To get around this problem, if you want to display an opening angle bracket, you have to use a special code instead. This code (again, by convention) is &lt; (which stands for “less than”): the ampersand denotes the beginning of a special code, and the semicolon ends it (you need both; otherwise the word “altitude” would be rendered as “a<itude”). Similarly, &gt; is the closing angle bracket (“greater than”). So the above really needs to be written as

<item>To write that 2+2&lt;5 will confuse the hell out of this program</item>

11. We’re almost there. This is a cool way to solve one problem, but unfortunately it introduces another one: you can’t display an ampersand! (because the program will think that you mean a special character). The way programmers solved this problem is to create a special code for ampersand itself — &amp;. So the news item that gets transferred to the device probably looks like this:

<news>
  <item>Crate &amp; Barrel reports quarterly loss.</item>
</news>

12. I’m pretty confident that so far I’ve been fairly right — &amp; is seen pretty much whenever XML is involved. One can come up with many theories at this point. Here is one.

13. I already mentioned that usually, programmers would include a frequently-used piece of code that does the proper decoding (i.e. turns &amp; into an ampersand). It’s possible that in this case, they didn’t use that common code, and instead wrote their own (thinking it’s easy to write something simple like this). That code may simply be ignoring all special codes and just passing whatever it encountered on. Then, down the road, another piece of code would pick up whatever it received (at this point it’s no longer aware that the text came from XML), and, as a safety measure, simply stripped any characters that it didn’t expect. This includes ampersands.

14. Why is this a safety measure? Programs are usually written in a defensive way, that is, they make very few assumptions about what they are given. Instead, they err on the safe side and double, triple check everything. One of the checks commonly performed is called sanitization, and it’s a process of turning possibly erroneous input into a correct one by stripping bad data or data that could be malicious (if interpreted literally). For example, suppose that the same newsfeed has a command that defines how fast the newsfeed is moving on screen (since the XML data is structured, we can just add a special block for this):

<news>
  <item>Crate & Barrel reports quarterly loss.</item>
  <speed>16</speed>
</news>

So if the program ever encounters a speed block, it knows to set the speed of the ticker to the given number. Now suppose that I can submit my own news items and they will be displayed. Suppose that this gets integrated with all the other news items by replacing the word CUSTOM below with the user-provided item:

<news>
  <item>This is the regular news item.</item>
  <item>CUSTOM</item>
</news>

This is all fine for simple news items (for example, if I provide “Hello world”, the word “CUSTOM” will be replaced with the phrase “Hello world” and everything is good). But if I knew about the speed command, I could submit an item that looks like this (read carefully!):

My news item.&lt;/item&gt;&lt;speed&gt;99999&lt;/speed&gt;&lt;item&gt;

All the &lt; and &gt; will be interpreted as opening and closing brackets and so here is what the transmission will look like:

<news>
  <item>This is the regular news item.</item>
  <item>My news item.</item><speed>99999</speed><item></item>
</news>

I just added a speed command to the feed even though I wasn’t allowed to! If this is not caught, I could crash the program by, for example, passing in a really large value for speed (or a negative value, or zero, or some nonsense). If the program didn’t strip certain characters (such as angle brackets), it could be vulnerable to attacks like this (this, by the way, is called an injection attack because I’m injecting special code into the data that I’m allowed to provide). Ampersands can also be interpreted as special characters (because &lt; is translated into an angular bracket which I can use to form a news item that changes the speed!) so they are stripped.

15. Hence, &amp; becomes amp;. Now the newsfeed contains no special characters and hence we see amp; on the screen.

Hopefully now my mom can see where all those years of computer science education went… and at the same time she learned about injection attacks. Pretty good for one post.

Belts: an accessory clearly inferior to braces

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

It’s less of a Badness and more of a Suboptimality, but I think it’s still worth calling out: belts are inferior to braces.

Call me sentimental, but I miss the good old times of braces being in fashion (you must forgive me the Britishism but calling them “suspenders” would just be too weird; some say that the difference is not one of dialect but one of how they are attached to the trousers). I decided to turn my feeling into something more manifestable so I’ve recently sewn on six buttons into my pants as one of the weekend projects and started wearing braces occasionally. I really enjoyed the experience they offered; it seemed to me that they improve much on the experience that belts have to offer, for several reasons.

  • The majority of belts come in discrete steps; good belts are mostly of that variety. This is a problem because if you wear such belts you might often find your pants either a little too loose, or too tight. Moreover (but maybe this is just me) belts always seem to have too few holes. In my experience, DIY piercing of belts has always led to disastrous results.
  • Belts increase the (often already sizeable) girth of a person (usually male) wearing them
  • Belts take some work to take off!

In short, if you’re thin, belts don’t work; if you’re fat, they look embarrassing; if you’re not on a quantum of girth (usually there’s a one-inch space between the holes), they are uncomfortable; and if you’re in a hurry, you’re out of luck (in my case they often double the amount of time it takes me to take the pants off — I timed myself!).

I found braces to not suffer from any of the above problems. They also cause tension only when it’s necessary — i.e. when you’re standing up and you need your pants to be kept up. When you sit down, the tension is gone which is much more comfortable than the constant tension that characterizes belts.

Apparently fashion is not always aligned with comfort… but there again, fashion is cyclical too so I would not be surprised if braces became popular again. And when they do, I’ll be ready.

Backwards-compatible electrical outlets

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Spot the difference between these two outlets:

Outlet A

Outlet A


and
Outlet B

Outlet B

The latter has a T-shaped slot in place of one of the two blades. As everything in engineering, this is not random. This extended slot gives you (or should be giving you) useful information about your electrical connection. It turns out that an outlet with a T-shaped slot is configured to feed up to 20 amps of current while the regular two-blade outlet can guarantee at most 15 amps (of course, if the outlet is not installed to code, this may not hold).

What I like about this, though, is that the 20-amp outlet is backwards compatible for devices that don’t need as much power, i.e. you can plug in a device that only needs at most 15 amps into a 20-amp outlet (which is fine, an outlet will give you as much current as you need, up to a limit). However, you can’t do the reverse, i.e. plug a device that needs 20 amps (presumably if I equip a device with a plug with a T-shaped prong, I’m claiming that 15 amps is not enough) into a 15-amp outlet — its plug will simply not fit into a two-blade outlet! This is a great safety feature.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like the more advanced outlets follow the same convention.

True versus compensated qualities

Monday, September 28th, 2009

I’ve always thought of myself as a very organized person, to the point of slight compulsive behavior. I make lists of things to do (as a one-off, every week, or asap); lists of things done; lists of thoughts I’ve had; lists of sites I like visiting; lists of quotes, etc. I have great systems for keeping myself organized that ensures I never forget anything and allows me to prioritize my tasks.

I had a conversation with one of the companies that do personality trait assessment. Usually I don’t find these things particularly useful–anything they tell me I could have told them initially (since I know my strengths and weaknesses well); moreover, the answers they give me are usually limited at trying to get me to realize my strengths and weaknesses (which I already do) and carefully try not to offend me (which is a waste of time since it’s really difficult to offend me). However, there was one thing these guys said that made me stop and think. They said that my great organizational skills and the ability to manage large lists of tasks in the right order are just a way for me to compensate for my natural drawbacks in these areas. In other words, I’ve constructed an elaborate workaround for my problem, to the point where even I believe that I’m efficient.

The interesting thing is, I have no way to prove whether they are right or not (since there is no good test on where your personality traits come from) but I accept the possibility they are right. This allows me to think about some things I could do if they were right that would address the root part of the problem. These root problems are useful to squash, because it’s likely they will cause other problems (not the hypothetical one) later on. In the face of the absence of information, we have to make the most educated guesses and try to precompute what makes sense to precompute.

At the cusp of a new phase in life

Monday, September 28th, 2009

I feel that I’m at the cusp of a new phase in life. It’s particularly exciting because my phases in life, just like the seasons of the year, are usually very difficult to capture as they are changing and instead require retrospection (just like some time needs to pass before an event can be taught in history classes). This is because a phase in life is a combination of many small events and decisions, each one of which changes frequently and smoothly. To see a phase in life changing requires one to predict a trend based on the observations of the current changes. I, however, party because I’ve been thinking about life phases and what makes them so distinct, have been lucky to have noticed indications of a new trend. These indications are often very subtle, but representative of a larger change.

For one, I’m beginning to be more open to be going to NYC. I haven’t really been in New York very much this past summer–perhaps four, five times in three months, compared with going three times a week half a year ago. Most of it is probably due to me not having a car, but I’m also realizing that this is a bit of an excuse–since there is more than one way to get to the City than with your own car. Over the past few weeks I’ve been thinking more about who I could be meeting up with, where I could be going and what I could be exploring in the City. Perhaps, in a way, I miss going there? (Of course, superficial reasons do exist as well–I have a car now, which I like driving, so that provides a good excuse to start going to the City more). Similarly, I’m considering taking more trips to Boston this fall–some of my closest friends are there, and yesterday’s trip there made me realize how much fun road trips are (and how much fun it is to go somewhere relatively far away, even if for a day).

Another subtle change is in my decision to listen to music more. For the past nine months I’ve been almost exclusively sticking to audiobooks and podcasts and I’m beginning to move away from that. For one, it’s much more fun to run when you’re listening to music (audiobooks, for example, may be dull, and even podcasts lack the beat to keep you motivated to run). I’ve also realized that what music I listen to is a great indicator of my life phase–as I’ve reflected on my past phases, I could easily point to some song, or band that reminds me of each phase. This kind of compression (an entire life phase compressed down to one song) is a very easy way to ensure that I don’t forget what phases I went through, even if those phases are difficult to describe. It also shows the power of music, which is able to convey priceless information; something that a page of text will struggle with. This new appreciation of music (and the desire to listen to music so as to generate more representatives for the future me to remember the phase I’m in) causes me to go back to the iPod. Finally, as I spend more time with my closest friends, we listen to music that we all like, and this music creates a kind of shared context that we like to go back to.

These changes are very much linked to the change in seasons: I need to listen to music more because running indoors is boring otherwise; spending time in the City is linked to the temperatures dropping and me not being able to spend much time outside (for example, riding my bike). I love driving in October–the Merritt is incredibly scenic, and being in a car isolates you from the low temperature. Finally, there is something that draws me to spending time in bars and restaurants with my friends when it gets dark quickly, and now that October is almost upon us, such will be the reality.

These two changes — how much I listen to music and how likely I am to go to NYC or Boston — may be fairly small but I have seen them to be leading indicators of a new phase in my life. It’s a fun discovery (if it’s true–it’s quite possible that these will not be representative indicators now; time will tell), but since phases in life just happen, there’s no point elaborating on them too much, getting too sentimental, or trying too hard.

Seasons of the Year

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

Having spent all my life in areas with four distinct seasons of the year, I don’t think I have given their existence enough credit. A lot of people I spoke to seem to have one favorite season of the year (usually the summer) and wish that season lasted the entire year. I think it’s a naive approach–in the very least, it ignores some important effects that the seasons have on our lives.

I like thinking of seasons in terms of how they make me feel, rather than what they enable me to do. While they certainly enable some kinds of activities and not others (biking in the winter is hard!), I think the most fundamental changes in our lives come deep within, in connection with how we feel. The activities that the seasons enable are just a superficial layer that serves to satisfy those fundamentals (for example, sure, biking may be hard in the winter, but if I feel like I want to be more healthy and fit, I can most definitely start going to the gym in the winter). This is also why I probably belong to a small minority of people for whom

  • the summer is not the favorite season of the year, and
  • having that favorite season last the entire year is a bad idea

Let me start with the latter. For one, the cyclical aspect of the seasons (the spring “awakening”, the summer “peaking”, the autumn “deconstruction” and the winter “hibernation” form a fairly smooth cycle) has a lot of influence over our lives. The changing seasons, in my opinion, are a large driving force behind changes we make in our lives. Usually these changes are a few steps removed from the seasons, but I think they are highly correlated to a lot of decisions we make in our lives. If we experienced one season, that major driving force wouldn’t exist and we would be less inclined to change.

Why is change good? It allows you to explore, know yourself more, and learn. It forces you to compare different states you’re in, which forces feedback, which allows you to get better. Without change, we get complacent, we stop improving. David Sedaris joked that the Greeks had invented democracy, built the Acropolis and called it a day, and perhaps there is more than a grain of truth in this.

So having said that, the fact that the seasons need to be changing for me to appreciate them means that they are all important to me (even if all they do is facilitate some transformation). Which season is my favorite? Well, the summer makes me feel energetic and active, but rarely induces changes in my life. I see it more as a season to reap the benefits of the hard work you’ve done prior to it (the most obvious example here are those of us, who spend the winter and the spring going on all sorts of diets to “get in shape” for the summer). The season I like the most, without a doubt, is the autumn. Not because it’s a depressing manifestation of death in nature. Here’s why:

Autumn is an explosion of stimuli to the senses. The sight of leaves of all possible hues; the sound they make when it’s windy or when you step on them; the crisp, sharp touch of the first gust of cold air; the smells and tastes accompanying the season (apples, cinnamon and various other spices) all compound to create a vivid image of something very aesthetically pleasing. It makes autumn a very “visible” season. At least for me, this creates an impetus for reflection. Moreover, we have to start giving up on some activities (put away that sailboat, stop running outside), and that gives us an opportunity to rethink our purpose, our schedule, our goals. It forces us to change many aspects of our lives.

As a sidenote, the seasons of the year have an interesting property that I have noticed in other sequences as well (for example, the phases in my life): while they form a rather continuous, smooth cycle (it’s not as though on September 23rd all leaves suddenly fall on the ground, dead) where changes from day to day are fairly indistinguishable, holistically one can tell very well the high-level differences between the seasons (similarly, in my life, I don’t suddenly decide to drive to NYC instead of taking the train, yet in retrospect I can identify a clear phase when I took the train, and a clear phase when I drove).

What incredible spam I got!

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Did you see this? I had to approve it. It said, I quote,

Dear advise blog engine on the files, there is one condition though – valid! He sat on the strawberry Yasha asleep error -478! Mosquito on the validation gives 107 errors…

It instantaneously reminded me of the comically incoherent babbling of the characters in Paprika, a great animated movie by Yasutaka Tsutsui.

Crowdsourcing Art, Part Two

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Previously I introduced the idea of a crowdsourced graphic that I would have my friends generate. The experiment is still happening, and I encourage everyone who got a token to participate (so far very few people actually submitted their pixels). If you didn’t get a token, but are subscribing to/occasionally reading/just stumbled on this blog, let me know and I’ll send you one. Similarly, if you used up your tokens, let me know. I don’t want the lack of pixels (or the fear to lose them) to be the reason why people don’t contribute.

The work so far is fun to look at; undisputedly predictable was the penis that found its way on the canvas a few hours after the game started, but there have been efforts to turn it into a happy face (I must admit, I was tempted to use up some of my tokens but in the end I decided this piece of art is a no judgment art and anything goes).

An interesting pattern was that people used the background image and the fact that the canvas was translucent to trace elements of the image onto the canvas. I did not expect that, but I guess that’s an as good place to start as any.

Finally, people are not taking advantage of the collaboration element of the game. I’ll let you in on a secret: the “bonus” you get for merging tokens is actually pretty substantial. In fact, the number of pixels you can set is equal to the “size” of the token (the first three digits) raised to the power 1.25. This may not seem much (it’s close to 1, after all), but consider merging two tokens, each of “size” 10. Each individual token allows you to set 101.25 = 18 pixels, so in total both tokens let you set 36 pixels. If you merge the tokens, you will get one token of size 20 and 201.25 = 42 (you’ve just gained 6 pixels). The differences are even larger for larger tokens (or more tokens). Two tokens of size 20 give you 84 pixels when separate and 101 when merged! You get the idea.

Finally in the spirit of full collaboration I’m making the source code available — I’m not opening up the interface (which contains secret information that allows me to generate and keep track of tokens and make sure people don’t cheat) but most of the implementation is in the helper file below.

Source:
crowdsource-helper.rb

The knowledge of the collective

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Consider the strange cause-and-effect loop involving science fiction. An example I like to bring up is the multi-touch screen as featured in the movie Minority Report, the one where you can scroll through the information by performing sweeping motions with your hands. I was somewhat surprised how much attention this fictional gadget got. Everyone talked about the “Minority Report screen” (particularly as technology was developed that made such a screen possible); when Microsoft came up with its Surface product, it looked surprisingly like those screens in the movie. I think it’s safe to say that science fiction inspired a number of scientists, engineers, product managers to come up with a product that mimicked the fictional entity.

In fact, it’s not the first time this has happened, even if often it’s difficult to trace the elements of our culture that have previously been introduced in a work of fiction. Today’s robots are largely based on renderings by the early science fiction illustrators and movie directors. Cars dropped their box-like shape. In a way, one can say, science fiction predicted what was going to happen. But of course science fiction itself, just like fiction in general, has a power to motivate, inspire, and influence, so one can also say that it influenced what was going to happen (we made cars look what they look because the public was used to seeing images of “futuristic” cars already and why not introduce a product the public is already familiar with. I believe that things such as the Star Trek franchise have been engrained in our culture so much that space ships may very well be similar in structure to USS Enterprise; the doors may slide sideways; and we may be greeted by a warm yet machine-like female voice of an omnipresent “computer” (incidentally, voiced by Gene Roddenberry’s wife, if I remember correctly).

If that’s the case, we may say that we really came up with those inventions of the future already: when we depicted them in the science fiction movies. They haven’t materialized yet but it’s just a matter of time. The future, indeed, is now.

I’ll take one more leap here. These days, as ideas presented in works of fiction (particularly visual works such as movies and TV shows) get tested and engineered more and more, the public becomes to have a controlling stake in what is presented. A small “control” set of viewers, for example, is often asked to rate pilots of TV shows (and decide–not quite as dramatically as the Emperor with his thumb in the ancient Roman Gladiator games, but in a similar fashion–which TV shows see the light of day and which never do) or help decide on which one of the two endings a film should have. I’m going to say that over time, the public will decide more and more on the details of many works of fiction.

In a way, then, the public may end up collectively deciding what the future will look like. Reducing further, since the public opinion as such is timeless, even though the individual outcomes may vary over time, it seems that today, the public has all the information to know what an arbitrary object, time period or an outcome in the future will look like.

How does that work? Assume that we want to know the status of a future outcome A. This outcome will be influenced by a series of events, and (and this is a big assumption) assume that we can trace this influence to some outcome B in a particular work of fiction, say, a TV show. The producers will want to gauge public opinion on B to maximize the chance of success of the show. Based on how the public reacts to different stimuli, B will be chosen. The value of B which causes A to materialize is therefore a result of a particular class of reactions of the public (it’s not necessarily the case that everyone has to have the same reaction; it’s also possible that many different sets of reactions influence the value of B). We can repeat this experiment many times, each time constructing outcomes based on the set of reactions, and having these outcomes influence some future outcomes.

The public, therefore, today has all the knowledge of the world at any time in the future. This knowledge pertains to a large number of outcomes, so we can compress it to some linear combination of the public’s reactions (we can reconstruct any outcome A by applying this combination to an outcome B and “playing the movie” to see how A would be influenced) the same way we compress a curve that passes through n specific points with a linear combination of monomials. This linear combination consists of a large number of coefficients (just like the curve is actually a polynomial with some coefficients) with which we can express the total future of the world. Hence, these coefficients are a de facto encoding of the world as we know it (now and into the future). Different sets of coefficients lead to different outcomes so they describe different worlds.

The worlds are therefore countably infinite.

Encore and Standing Ovations

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

These are good examples of what I’d call “the inflation of the public’s expression of enthusiasm” that has been in place ever since the “Encore!” call and standing ovations started to be used as devices for the public to express their approval of the artist.

Standing ovations would be used in special circumstances, when the artist’s performance was so spectacular it deserved an expression of gratitude and approval much higher than applause. Often only a subset of the audience would bestow standing ovations, since an opinion of excellence in the area of public performance is no doubt a personal one.

Today standing ovations are given very liberally. Worse still, you just need a “critical mass” of people to stand up and suddenly the entire room stands up. I stand up because the idiot in front of me just stood up and if I want to catch the last glimpse of the performers, I don’t have much choice but to stand up thus contributing to this wave of inflated opinion.

Encore is even more interesting. Again, when the public took a particular liking to a performance, its members would collectively call “Encore!”, asking for more. The artist would oblige. Today, not only does the artist perform an encore almost every single time; the public has in fact stopped asking for it, as if there was some kind of secret hand shake that happened between the collective body of all performers in the world and all the audiences in the world.

I don’t have a big problem with it (a little bit of inflation is generally a good thing) unless the resource that is subject to inflation is bounded. In case of money, something can always cost a little more (I have the cardinality of natural numbers to thank for this, I guess–maybe Peano, maybe Cantor, I don’t know). But I don’t really have much of a choice when it comes to performances. What am I going to do if the performance has been truly spectacular? Am I going to stand on the chair? (I considered throwing roses but that seems archaic, and the logistics!–I would have to have bought roses ahead of time just in case the performance was good; such heightened expectations make it more difficult to really overwhelm me with a performance… lots of problems)

In the case of encore this inflation has reduced to an awkward (to an objective observer that happened to have been on Mars for the past thirty years, I guess) routine where the artist finishes his or her performance early (because they must leave the best piece for the end!), waves everyone goodbye (nowadays this also happens pretty lazily since everyone knows it’s not the real goodbye), and then comes back after a minute or so (what do the artists do in that time? Enjoy their much-needed respite?). We live in a funny world indeed.