home
on exploration, introspection and creation

Archive for February, 2010

A visit from an Apple Rep

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

You should check out the music visualizer that comes with iTunes 7. It’s actually quite good; miles above the built-in visualizers that used to come with Windows Media Player and older versions of iTunes. Apple bought it from one guy, a passionate and creative programmer. Here’s a hypothetical for how this played out and how it involved Steve Jobs’ greatest strengths — his ability to know the customer, and his ability to make money out of it (in a way, Steve Jobs is a brilliant business analyst and a brilliant product manager).

Just like he knows the customers who buy his products, he also got to know that dude that created the visualizer. Say that this is the kind of dude who prefers to have put hundreds of hours of programming time to sell a thousand copies of his visualizer, even though if he had worked at a tech company he would have been worth more (the fact that our dude sold the visualizer, as opposed to having offered it for free, makes it more realistic to make sure comparisons). This fact means that to this single programmer, it’s more important to produce something by himself, either out of passion for technology or out of desire to be famous. In either case, it’s to the dude’s advantage if his visualizer appears in the newest version of iTunes.

This means that Apple will be able to negotiate a great deal, and will probably have to pay much less than the software is worth. Plus, there’s an ace up Apple’s sleeve. Consider what a visit from an Apple rep would look like for this guy.

  • Apple Rep: Hey, do you want to sell the visualizer to us? It will appear in the newest version of iTunes.
  • Dude: Will everyone know I wrote it?
  • Apple Rep: No. We’ll use this and that legal technicality so you appear to be an Apple employee and all Apple employees produce their software anonymously for us.
  • Dude: How much will you pay me?
  • Apple Rep: The fair market value of your software is X. We’ll pay you 80% of that.
  • Dude: So, let me get this straight. You’ll pay me less than my software is worth and nobody will know I wrote it?
  • Apple Rep: That’s right.
  • Dude: Even if for some reason I was OK with this, I am going to say no on principle.
  • Apple Rep: OK, we’ll go to another dude who wrote a similar visualizer. And then another. Ultimately one of them will say yes.
  • Dude: Damn you, you know that I know that it’s very unlikely that every freelance programmer out there will refuse on the basis of principles. I hesitantly agree.
  • Apple Rep: (Casually announces as he’s half way through exiting the room) You know what? For being such a sport we’ll give you an iPod thus make you euphoric over the fact that you managed to make the first friend on your new mercenary path of life.

The Collider

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

On February 20th, the Large Hadron Collider ramped up its output to three-and-a-half trillion electron-volts. That February 20th–despite what the skeptics had presumed–was not the day the world ended. No, the end of the world has not dawned upon us yet. But now we know that it will–and we know that it will come soon.

Skeptics and religious zealots aside, scientifically, February 20th was actually supposed to be rather uneventful. At three-and-a-half, the Collider operated at half its target energy, and the Higgs boson was unlikely to rear its coveted head. At seven–it was theorized–it should, but the Collider wasn’t ready for seven; that wouldn’t be happening until 2012. Unsurprisingly then, on February 21st, in the absence of any sensation to report, the headlines of some European newspapers (and Page 2 blurbs of others) focused on the questionable value of this very expensive scientific experiment–the most expensive experiment in human history, in fact–calling it “the World’s Greatest Waste of Money”.

The Collider’s computers pumped experimental data at a staggering rate of twenty gigabytes per day. CERN was kind enough to make the data available to the scientific community (or rather, to the tiny fraction of the community capable of consuming data that quickly) but there was a widespread understanding that results–if any–would take weeks to hunt down in the jungle of zeroes and ones.

Consequently, the revelation that came on February 25th startled absolutely everyone. All six detectors embedded in the accelerator’s hull reported several major anomalies. It seemed, based on CERN’s back-of-the-envelope analysis, that the space throughout the accelerator manifested pockets of non-relativistic properties. Particles twice as heavy as electrons have been detected. The electroweak and strong forces seemed to switch places. The events were short-lived and highly localized yet nobody knew what to make out of it.

The prevailing mood at CERN was one of bewilderment although there were obviously some who were elated–hoping for “easy” Nobel prizes or dreaming of proving the likes of Steven Weinberg wrong–and many more who were highly critical. Following a policy that could only come out of an institute desperate for wonders, the management board at CERN allowed an occasional anomaly so long as they were within the prevailing safety guardrails; the experiment was allowed to continue.

But the event that–in retrospect–was far greater in magnitude, occurred that day not in Europe, but at the Fermilab particle accelerator in Illinois. One of the particle colliders–similar in design to the Large Hadron Collider but capable of producing only much less spectacular collisions–reported spontaneous particle activity. Somehow particle collisions were being observed despite the fact that the accelerator had not been launched. Similar events at various accelerators throughout the globe were reported shortly afterwards, roughly in decreasing order of the accelerator’s sizes.

What was going on? One theory put forth somewhat hastily was that due to some unknown “particle tunelling” phenomenon all the major accelerators developed a kind of coupling, wherefore an event in one accelerator triggered a respective reaction in all the others. The theory likened this effect to that of quantum tunelling (a phenomenon known to the wide quasi-scientific New Scientist-and-the-like community as being the one making teleportation plausible) but on a large scale. The theory gathered widespread adoption despite being entirely unsubstantiated; it did not help explain how such a mechanism was possible, how–if at all–the Large Hadron Collider triggered it, and–most importantly–what the implications of the emergence of such a tunnel were.

The events of February 26th helped answer, at least partially, the latter questions. Concerned about possibly having caused an event that they didn’t fully understand, the scientists at CERN decided to turn off the Collider. A “controlled shutdown” was ordered: the energy would be slowly reduced to zero to allow teams all around the world to observe how the decrease in the Collider’s energy affected the coupled accelerators. The hope was that, if the Collider was the origin of the phenomenon, a shutdown would reduce the intensity of the individual tunnels. Most events in physics, after all, are reversible.

As the Collider’s power approached 95%, the Fermilab team (and then all the others) observed miniature black holes emerge at the sites of the anomalies. As an increasing number of short-lived, microscopic black holes popped up and as their size and life began to increase, it became clear to all that further power reductions would not be prudent. Evidently, following another theory put forth a few days later, the particle tunelling effect was not reversible; the only way to eliminate the tunnel is to let Nature create a black hole large enough to collapse the endpoints of a tunnel into one point. As there were by now dozens of tunnels between most major particle accelerators throughout the world, to stop the tunnel would have a disastrous consequence of witnessing the creation of a black hole large enough to consume all of Earth.

Here we are, barely seven days after the Large Hadron Collider started smashing electrons with never-before seen energies, equipped with the damned knowledge that the Collider is a ticking time-bomb and that the days of our planet are numbered. How much we have, nobody knows for sure. It all depends on how much longer we can keep the Collider running.

The world is watching the Collider–the tool of our demise–with suspended breath. If it breaks down or suddenly drops its power output, we are all going to vanish spectacularly, consumed by a black hole we will have accidentally created in the name of the elusive, impalpable knowledge. As anything man-made, it’s bound to break down. It’s just a matter of time.

February 20th was the day mankind doomed itself.

Webcomic, xkcd-style

Thursday, February 18th, 2010
My own take at the xkcd style

My own take at the xkcd style

The mysteries of evolution

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

As I mentioned before, evolution is probably the most fascinating of all epiphenomena that we deal with every day (I’m not going to focus on alternate representations of evolution). Even though it’s simple in its premise, it continues to baffle us (with scientists coming up with new theories about it all the time). I have lots of questions about this epiphenomenon.

Evolution as a greedy process: evolution is a statistical process coupled with individuals’ mutation that, when viewed at a very high level, creates the impression of progress of species over time. Species evolve from one state to another that gives them immediately higher survival value. It is impossible to evolve to a state through an intermediate state that may be of lower value.
Hence, evolution is a greedy process, always aiming to incrementally provide value. This means that many “features” of species which could be extremely beneficial may never appear through evolution because they would necessitate going through an intermediate stage: in other words, evolution is susceptible to local maxima.

Arguably, this is why species never evolved to have wheels, which we now know to be the most efficient mode of transit. No incremental process can create a wheel (I should imagine that additional arguments may point to the fact that such a wheel would be difficult to maintain).

Invariants of evolution: evolution has no “plan”, that is, the progress is rather random and depends on a number of conditions in nature. Still, are there any invariants of evolution? That is, are there features that evolution always produces (or produces provided that some criteria are met)? Is photosynthesis a necessary process for species to adopt (in other words, does evolution always produce green organisms?) Similarly (and this is of course a million dollar question) is intelligence an invariant?

I believe the answer to both questions is yes, not because there is some higher purpose to evolution but because, simply put, photosynthesis and intelligence are the most efficient mechanisms at particular modes of operation (vegetative state, and being a hunter-gatherer, respectively). Unlike wheels, they can appear through an incremental process. The only conditions are sufficient sophistication and competition. For photosynthesis–directly using a virtually unlimited energy–is a great solution to the problem of limited resources for immobile organisms; similarly, intelligence is an answer to species reaching physical limits of body construction (further mutations won’t make the species faster, or stronger). However, intelligence is an expensive feature to develop which is why I think it could only have been possible after increased competition between species made cooperation within a species beneficial, which allowed to specialization and thus easier mutations towards intelligence.

I am not an evolutionary biologist and so the above paragraph is simply my theory. It will be difficult to come with proof of it (or a proof to the contrary) because, as with all epiphenomena, the system that would need to be analyzed to gain the threshold level of understanding is too large for us to currently tackle.

Terminals

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

It’s interesting that despite having a very similar function, an air terminal looks and feels drastically different from a train station. The former is impersonal (I’d even say dehumanizing), artificial, large but empty. The latter, on the other hand, feels vibrant, crowded, human.

Consider the visual imagery associated with an airport, and that of a train station. When I think of a train station, I see an old platform, rusty steel beams. The platform is crowded, people interact with each other. There is steam. It’s dark and the golden, point lights suffice barely to illuminate the absolutely necessary parts of the platform. The train–the machine–is a prominent part of the scene, it is right there, close to all the passengers. An airport, on the other hand, is made up of long well-lit corridors with conveyor belts that push people along. It’s sunny and bright out, yet the artificial light indoors makes the passengers feel lethargic, purposeless. Nobody interacts with anyone else. The airplanes, although much bigger than the train, aren’t as majestic because they are all far away and by the time of their tour-de-force (the take off) they are only small points on the horizon to the observer at the terminal.

There are many reasons for this difference, the most important ones being structure (physical attributes and constraints), location, and what I’d call cultural and technological maturity. An airport is usually large because it has to accommodate the physical requirements of the gates; this necessitates conveyor belts, and creates the void. The train station can be much smaller because all it requires is enough platform space for all the simultaneously arriving and departing trains. The airport is most often on the outskirts of the city, and its sole purpose is to be a terminal for airplanes. This single purpose makes it impersonal and monotonous. A train station, usually in the center of the city, is usually a hub for other public transportation–people with diverse purposes mingle in one place (which makes it more crowded and increases interaction, as well as allows for more diverse retail areas).

Finally–and this is probably the reason why these two places have such different visual connotations–the trains have been with us (and thus have been part of our culture) for much longer and represent an element of nostalgia (mature, more “human”, reliable and powerful steam technology, as opposed to prone-to-failure and difficult to grasp technology of air transportation).

A Thousand Ways to Ask a Question

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

I love how there is a spectrum of ways in which I could ask a questions, depending on what answer I would like to hear back. For example, suppose that you want to invite a friend to a party you’re organizing, but depending on how good friend it is, you want to convey more than just the query. For example, consider the following spectrum of asking the same question:

  • “COME TO THE PARTY. TONIGHT.”
  • “You coming to the party, right?”
  • “I’d love to see you at the party.”
  • “Would you like to come to the party?”
  • “In case you’re free, there’s a party I’m having tonight.”
  • “I’m having a party. You’re invited…”
  • “FYI: I’m having a party tonight.”

Football games and reality

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Imagine the world of the future where reality doesn’t just cut it on television (it’s not all that hard to imagine — most news channels sensationalize facts, and reality TV is hardly real anymore), and in order to capture the audience you have to make sure you captivate. Ideally such programming still be labeled as reflecting reality.

This leads to some interesting conclusions. Imagine that football games are scripted but filmed in real time. Moreover, the actors (obviously all professional football players) are not told the script before the game so they have to improvise and use the clues given to them during the game. The “real time screenwriters” would have to concoct scenarios that absorb the audience every time, because it will be unacceptable to rely on chance to produce a good game.

In a way, it’s reality TV on steroids.

I like these “conspiracy theories” where cleverly controlled fiction is a substitution for reality. I used to imagine, for example, that top singles are picked for the billboards by the recording executives, who sit down with all the top artists and decide on their fate. “Madonna, your single is next,” they would announce, “and it’s gonna stay as #1 for three weeks”. The artists would all place bids to stay on top. Similarly, celebrities’ private lives would be controlled by executives in a similar way in order to keep the audience entertained. They decide who cheats on their spouse, who gets caught drunk driving, who becomes an alcoholic. They decide who disappears into oblivion never to be heard from again.

To take this further, it’s quite possible that all the news these days is scripted. There are no crazy dictators, no assassinations, no crises. It’s all decided upon by a few people who want to keep us interested.

In reality, nothing interesting ever happens.

The surprising origins of things (part IV)

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

I think that modern mass culture is the defining characteristic of the Twentieth Century. It’s interesting to trace its beginnings to the Great Depression.

People getting out of a parking garage

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

This one’s really annoying, mostly because 99% of people do it.

I often park in a garage adjacent to the train station. It’s a typical sort of a garage–you pick up a ticket when you enter, and pay to the cashier as you leave the garage. More precisely, you give the ticket to the cashier, the cashier tells you how much you owe, you pay (in cash), the cashier gives you the change back, the gate arm opens up, and you leave.

What really annoys me is how everyone spends an additional 10 to 15 seconds putting the money back to their purses/wallets/compartments or whatnot and then drives through the gate. If only they drove a few feet forward, past the gate, so that the next person can pass the ticket to the cashier!

Sure, it’s only 10 to 15 seconds but you can imagine that whenever I need to leave the parking garage, so do many other people who got off the train with me, and so the 15 seconds compound into minutes wasted only because people don’t fundamentally understand the concept of pipelining.

A natural progression

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

There are several stages to adopting new philosophies or new ideas or new principles that I think everyone goes through. These stages may be easier or harder, and may take less or more time, but I think they always exist.

  • At first, we hear about it. Most of us ignore it at first. It usually takes a few mentions to register.
  • We then begin thinking about it. It’s a kind of low-priority thought we give to things like whether we should get the car washed or what’s coming up on TV.
  • As the thought intensifies, our natural reaction is usually one of skepticism, especially if the philosophy or idea is contrary to ours or has implications that are in contrast with what we do.
  • At some point we get convinced that the philosophy or idea is worth trying out. This is the most important step; most people never get there; it’s fine for most ideas but a lot of the time the new idea is better than what we have been living with. We cautiously approach it, perhaps by observing those more successful than us who we perceive as having internalized the philosophy. Finally we decide to adopt the idea.
  • The next step is a deceptive one. We begin to mechanistically apply the philosophy to our lives. We feel good about ourselves because we think we’ve successfully adopted it, but in fact, we lack the deep connection to it. If we never get past this point, we end up failing because we can’t simply continue emulating other people’s actions without the connection to the underlying ideas
  • Those of us who realize problems with the mechanistic approach (no results, or difficulty applying the philosophy), and choose not to give up (yes, it’s a choice!), begin struggling understanding what they are missing. They may try slightly different tactics, or they may try to alter the philosophy slightly. These are just superficial fixes because the deep connection is still missing
  • For some, the “magical” moment happens. They internalize the philosophy, that is, they begin to truly understand what it is about. This moment may never come; it may also take months to come (in fact, without deep probing it’s difficult to say if one has had a true “aha” moment or whether it’s just one’s perception). The philosophy becomes second nature.

There are some good examples of this, say, working out. It takes a while for the workout routine to become something we do because it feels weird not to do it. We start by ridiculing those who do it, then we realize that we should do it too. For a long time we try something that looks on the surface as the thing but in fact we’re just lying to ourselves. The moment we realize we’re internalized it (usually that moment is actually fairly hard to pinpoint; it passes us by), we’ve gained a clarity of mind that’s as beautiful as it is useful.