Putting the World Into Equation

It may be propaganda, but I have to post this because it's extraordinary. It's the soul of the web and the strength of the mind; the product of a modern will. They may be famous, but it's talent and skill that gives it credibility. Here they're all just voices, no more or less than Lessig (for example). He just wants to say something, and would otherwise have no particular means to do so.

Karl Rove tell us the web changes politics because it opens up new and quicker channels to source donations. But that idea just grows his incredible infamy, and leaves a taste of sickness in our mouths: because we know the real reason the web changes political. It gives us ways to talk about it; clearer and sharper and stronger than before. We start to break free from the horrible minimalism of television journalism, the constriction of complex concepts to misconstrued simplifications.

The web breeds rationality because, at the very least, we understand better why we make crazy decisions. We can take delight in contradiction. We can watch the video and say that general rhetoric and oration are the very cheapest of tools of the politician. But we can point to Lessig and say that the president is a symbol. The president says something about the people of America--and the people of America have something they want to say.

Lastly, we can listen and laugh, as they say on the TV, that "Obama inspires young people": and call that the dieing rasps from the self-strangled throat that for so long filtered meaning; that which we brought to life by our now forgotten need to convince ourselves of a limit to our reasoning.

And yet, this is all contradiction fundamentally, isn't it? Can Will.I.Am do any more than highlight the genericness of Obama's rhetoric? Are we not replacing a society that is complexity-deluded with one that is meaning-deluded? Is the web not full of the most words with the least information, a tide of amateurish thought? Who is Will.I.Am to put forward an opinion on politicians, anyway? Doesn't he say on his site that he isn't interested in politics, and doesn't he suggest he was dragged into supporting the Kerry campaign? Isn't he the perfect model of the web author who believes his opinion counts, and perhaps sees it's impact caused, but is least qualified to fill our hearts and minds? The danger of voice is the propensity to use it.

Go to www.dipdive.com.

Intangible celebrity

This is very good:

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

Lessig is a lawyer who is well know and respected on the internet and has, for a long time, been at the forefront of technology law and the modern outlook on intellectual property. In the video, he talks about Obama and Clinton and why, as it seems to me, that he shares a certain scene of solidarity with Obama.

Lessig talks about Obama being an inspirational leader, and being a leader in the traditional sense: as someone who shows us the moral and ethical path. I've always wandered what it would be like if there were a political leader like that in Australia. But, our Westminister-style of government doesn't really allow for that kind of leader to rise to the position of Prime Minister. Instead, to get to PM, a politician needs practical "survival" skills, you could say. Either political wit and guile, like John Howard or Paul Keating, or knowledge and education, like the "bookish" Kevin Rudd, or an exceptional practical talent, like the treasurer Peter Costello. You can't just engage with people and become prime minister, you can just have a brilliant vision or approach. Hmm... I've been meaning to write a rambling piece on, in part, the executive branch of government. Maybe soon.

Sins committed while inside the womb

It turns out that the Clinton win in the greatest show on earth is actually impossible to explain using modern statistical methods, after all. More anomalous incompetence associated with Diebold machines and their handlers, perhaps.

As with things of this type, there appears to be at least a little misinformation and confused statisticians floating around; but the above link seems a little more reliable than most.

Alien of Extraordinary Ability

I'm posting this because it says "tempus incognito." That is all.

Except for this:

The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.

The School of Athens

Recently there have been some reports floating around about a married couple who found out, in a classic and horrible twist of Oedipusian fate, that they are actually twin brother and sister, separated at birth. It must have been terribly traumatic for them, something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. After, all, one of the most important social taboos disallows incest, it's also outlawed in the bible and, of course, there are the detrimental generic consequences. The couple have since separated, and and I'm sure we all hope they learn to come to terms with the revelation and get on with their lives happily.

Social taboos are a bit of an interesting thing. Clearly, this one is very positive for society, due to the need for genetic diversity in reproduction so that the gene pool adapts and strengthens. But have you ever wondered how this taboo came about? Presumedly it has been around for a long time, if there is a ban in the bible. But, even though I imagine the church would have been a very forwarding thinking and culturally advanced institution back in the early years AD, the study of genetics and the theory of natural selection were still along way off. So what inspired this brilliant leap of logic? How did we end up with such a reasonable taboo? Were genetic defects in the first born incestuous generation so immediately obvious and attributable that there was no question of cause and effect? And if so, did anyone stop to ask why?

My best guess is that this was early Christianity's way of distinguishing itself from other societies of the time that were perhaps heavily inbred. It seems that Christianity imposed a number of precepts to social change away from behaviours it saw as counter-productive. For example, the religion initially outlawed all idols--because this was the preferred mode of worship of Roman pagans. That law seemed to only last as long as it was useful, however, and as paganism in the west declined, idolatry became an important part of the church. Similarly--and I'm speculating here--homophobia in the early church may have been a reaction against all male societies of the time, such as some very early groups of Jewish men, around the time of the writing of the dead sea scrolls.

Now; the proper form of Japanese discourse involves never actually mentioning what you're really talking about until you're almost done. The Japanese are much more skillful with it, but I'm just going to jump across to another topic.

Modern online games have become a bit of a microcosm of real world societies; and following that, they tend to start to display strange habits that seem somehow familiar. For instance, in World of Warcraft, many social rules that developed, above and beyond the rules of the game. These come from no specific source, seem to develop independently on different servers, so that they sometimes exhibit discrepancies from one place to another. There is no central authority (that is, assuming playing with a group composed of the general public, rather than an internal guild group), so these rules are not maintained and recorded in any place; instead they are just accepted by convention, and there is an unsaid expectation that everyone knows them, agrees with them, and will abide by them. This leads to a certain vagueness, and sometimes contention. As a result, the game can sometimes be an exercise in diplomacy. Furthermore, since they are not enforced by the game, the rules can be broken. When that happens, there is no clear recourse, except to publicly condemn the offender before a generally disinterested audience.

And yet, despite the lack of enforcement, the general vagueness, and the location specific; these rules, these taboos, as followed surprisingly well. But the truly surprising thing is, they don't tend to benefit the powerful or well connected. Instead, they tend to even out the playing field. The purpose of the taboos is to make the game more fair than even the "hard-coded" rules would do, and given everyone an equal opportunity to profit. In short, these social rules, which have sprung up naturally and uncalled for universally and across cultural and language boundaries, have not done so to benefit any specific group or social strata. They're there exclusively to make the game more fair for one and all.

The types of rules that fit this form are things like: the "all pass" rule, rules that determine was is appropriate use of "need" and "greed", rules about which classes can legitimately bid on which items, legitimate and illegitimate tactics in AV, and others. One of the most important is the taboo against paid leveling services and use of real cash to purchase gold. These shouldn't be confused with another class of rules--those that determine guild behaviour. Extra-game mechanics such as "DKP," "Suicide Kings," and "Loot Councils". These are very different because there is a central authority. They have been developed to meet specific goals, and are actively researched so that their relative benefits are understood at a conscious level. As a result, these rules are written down, and actually have names.

Now, what's curious about these online taboos is that some people do break them intentionally. It's habitual racism to label some of these people Chinese, but the reality is some are actually Chinese. Being culturally distinct, there are some things they just don't agree with. Or, in the (fondly-intentioned) words of the link below...

on group missions they do not like to respect the tacit rules of profit division. For those "pedantic" European and American gamers, Chinese players are like fearsome pagans...Chinese gamers are better suited to jungle-style gaming.

So imagine my delight to discover that some bright types have found a way to capitalise on that tendency. And in this case, "capitalise" is the right world, because it seems in the Chinese online game "ZT Online," character progress can and must be bought with real money. In other words, the more you spend, the better your character is and the more you enjoy the game. Combine that with a overtly competitive gameplay and desirable social rewards for the powerful, and you've got a compelling, addictive money sink where anything goes.

Here's the link from danwei.org. I haven't read it all, but it's worth a scan.

Ah, here we go. This sound more like the society I know! A game for the wealthy, by the (soon to be) wealthy. These guys know what side of the bread has the butter on it.

This isn't the first example this type of real-wealth sponsored gameplay, either. One of the particularly curious aspects of online games is they open the door to many different funding schemes. A few years back there was a humble web-based space trading style massively multiplayer game that required people to buy fuel for their space craft using real money. Again, the more your spend, the more mobile you are and the quicker you can progress and compete. Straight from the pragmatically capitalist minds of a couple of young American entrepreneurs.

Well, then. So much for socially responsible taboos that arise organically and inexplicably from a diverse society. Clearly it's time for some game developers to step in with a bit of reality of their sleeves, is it not?

That then, brings me finally, and happily, to the last paragraph. Because, as well as delighting my sense of incentive-based economics, these games highlight very clearly what might become a very serious issue for all online games in the near future. That is, at some point, it's difficult to distinguish between an online massively multiplayer game and an online casino type game--even without further innovation in the field. Once that line is blurred, the legislation surrounding online casino games could very quickly bring the oh-so-critical massively multiplayer genre to an abrupt halt. This is, as I understand it, the fundamental reason why Blizzard doesn't allow trading of World of Warcraft items and characters for real money, why tournaments with cash rewards are regarded cautiously, and why in-game simulated casino games between players, for virtual game currency, are strictly banned. The mischaracterisation of WoW as an online casino game is the spectre haunting the massively multiplayer segment of the industry; it seems inevitable that sooner or later there will be public debate about what these games can and cannot do; and, regrettably, every passing quarter it seems more likely, and more worrying. Because exposing children to adult concepts is another taboo, be it within the microcosm, or without.

The Big Sleep Hotel

Apparently, the recent result of the New Hampshire caucus voting is so astonishing, that it's beyond the realms of modern statistical understanding... Or so it would seem. Anomalies like this tend to make me wonder about the effect polling has on the voting process. Presumedly there's an observer effect style influence caused by the polls on voter behaviour—and perhaps, in this case, it wasn't fully accounted for. That is, did New Hampshirites, on seeing the results from Iowa and New Hampshire polls, decide that the relative success of the candidates did seem right, and therefore tried to, on an individual basis, balance it out?

I sometimes, in idle moments wonder what the majority of people think about when deciding how to vote, generally. I can imagine that there are two primary approaches one could take—that is, a voter could either ask “which candidate would benefit the country more,” or “which candidate would benefit me more?”

If everyone considered on the later, we would expect to end up with the candidate that was most focused on the interests and morality of the majority of people. It would seem logical that this would lead to each voter having a smaller range of issues to considering, making it an easier choice, which hopefully equates to a decision better made. Similarly, you might also expect this method to be less susceptible to anomalies on the campaign, and other unexpected occurrences.

But, we end up with a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, in that we only get the best result if everyone votes this way. Furthermore, and perhaps most worryingly, if everyone voted this way, no consideration would be taking into account of the relative significance of the decision for different people. That is for some people, the outcome of an election might have very significant and long term consequences on their lives—particularly when there are major issues at stake (you know the ones; in the US this might be abortions, healthcare, gay marriages, war, and plenty others). However, you would expect that the people who are most effected by policy change will always be a minority. That is to say, for the majority of people in a stable country, the difference between one candidate and other will have only relatively minor impact on their lives. And yet, while in many government schemes votes are effectively weighted by various means, we would never expect them to be weighted to meet this ideal of consequentiality.

On the flip side attempting to vote in the best interests of the country is, presumedly, error prone, open to subjective judgements and vulnerable to aberrations and overly powerful rhetoric. I wonder if we misjudge the ways in which the interests of the majority can often benefit the minority. History has a cruel sense of irony about it; perhaps the indecisiveness of society comes from the realisation that sometimes our benevolence only makes things worse.

A depressingly extreme example involves a chap named Malthus who, at the end of the eighteenth century, proved that the Poor Law (in which donations were given to the unskilled poor) could never, ever improve the living conditions of the English poor. It should be noted that the beneficiaries of the Poor Law, as I understand it, were far better off than today's homeless. Malthus even came to the gloomy conclusion of eternal subsistence for the great majority. Fortunately he was proven wrong by the industrial revolution. However, ironically enough, this may not have occurred in England at all if it wasn't for the inequality of income and living conditions.

While the Malthusian Trap isn't yet a thing of the past, let's hope that its own observer effect, and the fact that we can recognise and understand it, will soon lead to it being so. But, it's got to make you wonder what other great ironies might lie under the surface of voter and government behaviour. Perhaps, back in the modern world, we end up with a compromise between both schemes--wherein those who do not feel compelled to vote for strong personal reasons, instead take on the overwhelming and massively challenging task of deciding which minority group deserves their attentions. Do we then inherit the worse of both sides? Does every voter then have to deal with the uncertainty that is central to the prisoner's dilemma?

The economy is perhaps a special issue in many elections. They say that it's the primary issue in the American presidential election at the moment--which I assume means that people will vote for the candidate they believe might correct issues with the economy, even if don't believe in that candidate's other policies, even those those seen as morality issues. In Australia, the liberal government retained power for many years, despite considerable animosity, apparently based on its economic promises. But that style of voting brings with it other worries, particularly if you consider that we can't reasonably expect the majority of voters to understand macroeconomics and government fiscal and monetary policy to the extent required to correctly decide on the policies that will most benefit themselves, or the country as a whole. Are we then forced to rely on analysis and opinion from the media? Or do we pick the candidate who blinks less? Furthermore, do we fully understand what controls the different houses and branches of government have over the country? Are we at all concerned that we can't, in the US or Australia, pick out our favourite people to run the central bank? Is it more true the the system of government and the private sector control the economy, rather than any particular elected individual or party? Is it the system as a whole that truly determines prosperity, in such a way that the system's ability to ensure that various powerful people's capabilities and education are up to standard is a far more important determiner of economic prosperity than any decision the general public might make? Surely we would prefer that to be the case.

Ok, perhaps it's not enough to make me lie awake at night, or delve deep into studying democracies; but at least it might serve to help feed the voice in the back of my head that sometimes says, when it comes to election time at home, “surely this can never work.”

An Echo, A Stain

Interesting analysis on the recent high profile assassination from Winter Patriot. Following his line of thought, it is curious to compare the US and Pakistan. I mean, one's a nuclear power with poverty, powerful political dynasties, corruption, questionable elections and an economically uncertain future... And other has only been around for 60 years or so.

Ok, that's a little cynical. But if I'm falling into the fashionable trend of complaining about the US, its only because on some level it still feels necessary, as a kind of counter balance to the seemingly prevalent US outlook on the world. For a long time, down under at least, we looked at the insular nature of parts of the American populace with a kind of detached smirk, even though we're probably not much better. In the post 9/11 world, misunderstandings in the US of the outside world seem somehow threatening, worrying.

So, by making comparisons between US history and recent or historical effects in the world at large, perhaps what we're really trying to do is to appeal to the American people to be empathetic, compassionate, caring. To try to understand wider issues, and particularly the other side of the argument.

This is what I think, at least, when I see comparisons between US christian extremism and Islamic extremism. By drawing lines between the two, and recognising the existence of christian extremism, not only do we understand US Christianity better, but we also understand Islam better (and perhaps we'll even gain some insight on the third Abrahamic religion).

When I say that we can compare the two, I don't necessarily mean that the two are the same--clearly, in many ways, they are quite different. Really, we can learn as much be identifying the differences as we can the similarities. And in time, perhaps we'll all learn to see more clearly the good side; and the bad side; and the side that gives us cause for concern for the future.

The Antikythera Mechanism

This is a 500 billion Yugosalv Dinar note. 500 billion of of the poor little buggers. How did such an extraordinary thing come to exist? Well, it's certaintly didn't involve Bill Gates immigrating.

It turns out, during an uncertain part of General Tito's state, the currency went through an inflation rate of 5 × 10¹⁵ percent per month (prices double every 16 hours). To me, that seems facinating--because it seems more like an abstract mathematical or distant astronomical oddity. But it's not. It was a real phenonomen arising from a real, practical, human oriented system. This was hardly a one-off event, either. We saw and studied many occurances of hyperinflation during the 20th century.

More details here.

Picture courtesy of the National Bank of Serbia. By the way, current Serbian Dinars are far more reasonably valued.