alQpr

YES!!!

Source: X Threatens Our Democracy. Canada Should Ban It | The Tyee

This story  about a Jewish man in Miami who shot at two Israeli tourists whom he mistook for Palestinians (and who then posted “Death to Arabs” on social media due to the same misperception) makes me wonder whether ten years from now we’ll have Americans shooting one another in the mistaken belief that they are Canadian freedom-fighters.

A black hole has been spotted heading towards Earth, and we have 200 years before it arrives. Does our species have a chance of survival?

Perhaps. But not on Earth. (Assuming any kind of astronomically plausible black hole, there is no way of avoiding substantial perturbation of the Earth’s orbit followed by tidal distortion and probable destruction of the Sun.)

However, it may be possible to colonize some asteroids and by small manipulation of their orbits ensure that they get slingshotted so as to end up at sufficient distance from the accretion disc (into which the sun and planets will be converted by tidal forces) so that the body of the asteroid is sufficient to shield its residents from the radiation.

Since the colonies will of necessity be small, most humans will be stuck on Earth and not survive; but if sufficient genetic diversity is brought along in the form of germ cells and/or frozen zygotes or blastocysts then perhaps the species itself might survive and adapt to the new low gravity environment.

Source: (1001) Alan Cooper’s answer to A black hole has been spotted heading towards Earth, and we have 200 years before it arrives. Does our species have a chance of survival? – Quora

Even just the title of the article linked to in the post below should make it clear that Prussian Blue stains were NOT found in the homicidal gas chambers but only in the de-lousing ones. And the whole purpose of that article is to explain this absence in terms of how the cyanide preferentially reacted with zinc in the exhaust nozzles. But perhaps the writer here is just a denier in disguise – exploiting the fact that giving false arguments in support of a position actually in the end works in favour of its opponents!

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-concrete-in-the-walls-of-the-homicidal-gas-chambers-porous-thus-allowing-for-some-of-the-Zyklon-B-gas-to-penetrate-deep-into-the-pores-of-the-concrete-thus-leaving-forensic-evidence-of-the-gas/answer/Robert-Clouse?comment_id=453808599&comment_type=2

Source: (1001) Was the concrete in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers porous thus allowing for some of the Zyklon B gas to penetrate deep into the pores of the concrete thus leaving forensic evidence of the gas? – Quora

Sorry Jim Baggott, but I do not for a moment believe that soviet communist philosophy shaped postwar quantum theory .

While I can believe that some believers in social determinism felt threatened by the inherent uncertainties of quantum mechanics I can’t believe that anyone who understood the physics ever thought that there was any link in either direction between the questions of social and physical determinism.

It has been known since before the advent of quantum theory that randomness at the microscopic level can lead to virtually certain determinism of various macroscopic variables  corresponding to just physical thermodynamic and chemical quantities (let alone those associated with the complexities of biological or social sciences); and on the other hand it is also well known that a completely deterministic physical system can have behaviour that is so sensitive to initial conditions that even the tiniest amount of experimental error in the determination of initial conditions can lead to macroscopic differences of outcome that are effectively indistinguishable from the effect of an actual random macroscopic perturbation. [Laplace’s proof of local stability of planetary orbits (while famously eliminating Newton’s need to plead for divine intervention in the face of his own failure to complete that proof) applies only to a very specific class of models, and even there does not preclude wide divergence over time from starting points that are arbitrarily close in their initial conditions; and we now know of models which do exhibit such divergence in a fixed finite time regardless of the accuracy of those initial measurements.]

So I do not think that the political pressures that may have existed (to either underplay or overplay the role of uncertainty in popular press accounts) actually ever had any effect on the thinking of those who were concerned with the physical question of how quantum mechanics might or might not have local deterministic underpinnings.

Source: How Soviet communist philosophy shaped postwar quantum theory | Aeon Essays

Note: This is not a work of scholarship so I have included no references, but all of the claims that follow are true – as can easily be verified by using google searches on the terms used to find links to authoritative documentation.

A random variable which is binary has just two distinct possible values (such as a tossed coin of negligible thickness always landing Heads or Tails – with the edge-based landing being of essentially zero probability, and also quite unstable even when it occurs).

Many people allege that human sex is binary because most humans have two sex chromosomes, one of which is always of ‘X’ type and the other may be either ‘X’ or ‘Y’. But these are not the only possibilities. There are also humans with XXY XYY and various other combinations, which while “abnormal” are vastly more common than edge-on coin landings. So even just in terms of chromosomes, sex is not binary.

In fact, although the number of possible chromosome combinations is finite, the actual distribution of sexual characteristics is not even discrete. This is because what we identify as the sex of an individual is not determined by the chromosomes alone. What might be expected from the genome in a normal environment can be changed substantially by external factors such as hormones (or hormone-emulating pollutants) absorbed from the mother’s blood, and/or by the effects of other genes such as that for androgen insensitivity syndrome (which can produce a completely normal-looking female form from an XY zygote in a perfectly normal external environment). Sometimes such an individual lives a full life as an apparently very feminine (albeit usually infertile) woman, and other times an infant identified at birth as female develops various kinds of male characteristics at puberty – or conversely, a male-appearing infant may develop various kinds of feminine characteristics (either physical or just mental).

So far as I am aware there is really no sexual characteristic that does not exhibit an essentially continuous range of values; and although sex could be defined as a binary property by choosing an arbitrary dividing point for some particular variable (such as relative location of urethra and erectile tissue), it is possible that the partition would be different if based on different variables (such as the effectiveness or location of testes).

So the claim that “science says that everyone falls into just one of two clearly defined sexes” is entirely wrong.

However it is also true that there are various characteristics commonly used to define sex that are strongly bimodal. This means that the variable in question has a possibly continuous range of possible values with two identifiable peaks in its probability distribution (such as  the distribution of body mass of black widow spiders – but not the combined distribution of heights of men and women because the difference in mean heights of men and women is too small relative to their standard deviations to produce bimodality when the two distribution curves are combined). Of course there are sex-related properties of humans that are more definitely bimodal with a substantial separation of peaks. (Examples include amount of erectile tissue, relative position of urethra, location and functionality of gonads, etc.)  BUT there is still an apparently continuous range of intermediate forms, and it is possible for an individual to be in the “male” range with respect to one such variable but “female” with respect to another.

See also: Spurious Appeals to “Science” | alQpr

This avoidance scheme described below is a good part of the reason why I have always advocated that the value of all gifts should be taxed as income in the year received.

Source: (1001) Colin Riegels’s answer to How do I get the UK government to stop their inheritance tax theft? – Quora

When I was little I enjoyed being read to – or listening to stories being read on the radio. And the performance of a raconteur still has its appeal for what it adds by way of  expression. It can also be enjoyable as a shared experience and is useful as a way of absorbing material when visual attention is required elsewhere (eg driving or walking) or for those whom reading is difficult (eg those with poor vision who have not learned braille). But I have to say that once I discovered the freedom of reading at my own pace I rarely looked back. And I often find it irritating when my search for information or instructions on how to do something leads to a bunch of videos and podcasts but no plain text alternatives.

Source: Audiobooks and Written Books are Different (thank god!)

Source: Kingston ‘health homes’ put Jane Philpott’s vision of primary care to the test – The Globe and Mail

The word “woke” is either real or imagined Afro-American “slang” for figuratively having awakened from a previous state of sleepwalking through life unaware (or in denial) of differences of privilege between ourselves and others. As such its use by me would smack of cultural appropriation of a kind that I consider not politically correct.

This of course now raises the question of what I mean by “politically correct” and “cultural appropriation” (not to mention “privilege”).

The term “politically correct” (or “PC”) is often used dismissively to refer to attitudes that are deemed unfairly critical, but I eschew that usage. For me the question of what is or is not politically correct just means what it says on the box – ie what does or does not seem to me appropriate as a way of thinking and acting in a social or political context. This is consistent with its original use in debates within political groups about what positions to take, and the unqualified use of “correct” for rhetorical emphasis was something that I consider unfortunate.

As to “cultural appropriation”, this is not something I am generally prepared to avoid or disapprove of. It is only when the appropriation has an overt or covert demeaning intent or effect that I am prepared to consider that it might be unacceptable. Unacceptable appropriations might include copying a style of special cultural significance and using it in a context which the originating culture would find offensive, (but I might also be prepared to do that if I thought that giving such offense was for some reason necessary). They also include copying a style of no special significance if done in form of a caricature, and use of the word “woke” does have that kind of a feel for me. It seems a bit like the use of “blackface” in the context of a “minstrel show” with exaggerated gestures – as opposed to the (imo perfectly legitimate) use of makeup to honestly portray a character of different skin colour.

Nate Silver is crowing that his model predicted the actual outcome as “most likely” but that’s a bit like saying that exactly 50 heads is the most likely outcome in a series of 100 coin tosses (which it is) despite its still being extremely unlikely. To actually see results so close to the predicted means in all states is an indication that the variances were grossly over-estimated and so that the likelihood of a Trump win should have been estimated as much higher.

According to commenter ‘Gabe’ on another of Silver’s posts:

Model held pretty well (using NYT website for result numbers):

PA: Model R +.1, Result R +1, Difference .9

MI: Model D +1.2, Result R +1.4, Difference 2.6

WI Model D +1, Result R +.9, Difference 1.9

NC Model R +1.1, Result R +3, Difference 1.9

GA Model R +1 Result R+2, Difference 1

NV Model R +.6, Result R+5, Difference 4.4

AZ Model R +2.4, Result R+5, Difference 2.6

Uuh! NO!! Although these are (almost) all within $#\pm#$3%, the differences are ALL in the same direction – which has almost no chance of happening if they were truly random.

So Silver’s “gut” feeling was a much better predicter than his actual model.

Source: Comments – The story of Trump’s win was foretold in New York City

At the end of an unrelated article, Steven Levy responds to a question from one of his readers (not actually me despite the name coincidence)

Ask Me One Thing

Alan asks, “Why can’t we choose how to pay for online content?”

Thanks for the question, Alan. It’s one that baffles me, too. I do have little tolerance for those who complain when they come across articles that are behind a paywall. At one point, kiddies, everything was in print and you could read nothing for free unless you stood in the newstand and consumed it, hoping the proprietor wouldn’t snatch it away. Folks, it costs money to produce those gems. Admittedly, the news industry didn’t do itself any favors initially by giving its content away online, but now most, if not all, places have abandoned the idea that digital ads alone can fund excellent writing and reporting.

But you are complaining about the lack of choice in how we pay for it. I’m assuming you are unhappy that our current system is subscription or nothing. There’s generally no way to pay a small fee for a single article or even newsletter. How many times have you found a link to something in a newspaper in a town you never visited that might be of interest—and can’t get at it without giving up a credit card to be charged for complete access to news and archives you couldn’t care less about? Literally for decades I have been assuming that an easy-to-use micropayment system will get constructed and implemented. The technical challenges are minimal. Yet despite multiple attempts, none has caught on. One company, Blendle, once promised to “save journalism” with its micropayment system. Last year it announced that it was no longer in the pay-per-article business and was moving to an Apple News–style subscription service that gives access to multiple publications.

The micropayment solution seems dead. Still, when I hit a paywall and can’t access something I want to read, I would certainly hit a button that would move a few cents, or in some cases even a dollar or two, into the account of a publication. It seems so logical. But as all of us know too well, making sense is not a sufficient condition for something actually happening.

The last link there is to a Wired article from 5years ago in which the author expresses exactly the same concern that no micropayment solution has caught on but without any explanation of why that should be the case. The earlier link, though, to a Columbia Journalism Review article from a year later gives more analysis of why the idea may truly be dead. And that is what I want to question here.

The CJR article presents two main arguments for why micropayments are not accepted by publishers. One is the belief by publishers that, of potential readers who are interested in an item, the expected income from those who can be persuaded to buy an expensive subscription (despite preferring a one item payment) is greater than the loss of those who will just turn away. The other has to do with the costs of payment processing.

There is a lot of talk these days about encouraging creators of AI tools to tag the work they produce so people will know that it is fake; but the idea that this would prevent the spread of misinformation is preposterous, as there will always be other sources of tools which don’t advertise their fakery.

The correct solution is not to securely identify lies, but rather to identify what is reliable. This might be done by a system of signing whatever we distribute (and want others to actually believe) with something like a secure watermark(*) identifying the source. Then anyone who wants reliable info can just ignore anything that is not signed by a source they trust. Some will choose to trust unreliable sources; but I do believe that if some sources are truly scrupulous (much more so than the current mainstream media), then eventually they will come to be recognized as such (and in any case people will at least be sure of the source of whatever they are looking at).

(*) for example, if a message or file is encrypted so as to be unreadable without a widely distributed public key that is permanently associated with the sender, then no-one who does not possess the sender’s private key is capable of sending a message which is decodable to other than nonsense by use of that public key. (In a sense, what earns credibility here is not the sender per se, but rather the public key itself – which might eventually become known as unlocking only things that are true.)

Source: Google unveils invisible ‘watermark’ for AI-generated text

We are frequently asked these days to confirm that the state of Israel has a “right to exist”. Well, I’m afraid that I have to say NO! No state has the right to exist because states don’t have rights. People do. And while I agree that the current citizens (and other residents) of Israel (and whatever other territories it controls) have the right to live in states of their own choosing (to whatever extent there is sufficient local agreement that that is a practicable situation), I have to admit that the original creation of Israel was (worse than) a mistake. Now mistakes cannot always be reversed, and so I am not saying that the destruction of Israel would in any way be acceptable as a solution. But the fact remains that the actions which endorsed the state of Israel were not just wrong but were motivated in part by antisemitism (or at least by capitulation to antisemitism) on the part of the leadership of those countries (especially Canada!!) which should have opened their arms to welcome any Jews who felt threatened in Europe (or anywhere else for that matter).

Source: None Is Too Many | The Canadian Encyclopedia

Yes! AlphaFold does appear (at least to this non-expert) to actually advance Chemistry. But I have seen nothing that I would call evidence that Hinton’s work on the “Boltzmann machine” has contributed anything to understanding of the physical models that inspired it. I expect that this will be a controversial award!

Source: (15) Two Nobel Prizes for AI, and Two Paths Forward

See also this video  and this from a couple of other surprised physicists.

After reading this article twice, and yet again the paragraph where the author purports to show that “it’s wrong to think that Bergson’s idea of duration can be assimilated into the idea of psychological time”,

I am still unable to find any explanation of the difference between our internally experienced psychological time (which, by the way can not necessarily always be “aligned with external clock time”) and “the first-person experience of (Bergson’s unmeasurable) duration” (which they appear to identify as the “lived time” in terms of which “An hour in the dentist’s chair is very different from an hour over a glass of wine with friends”).

On the other hand Steven Savitt’s “solution” does not address the subjective nature of duration and appears to just identify it with the non-subjective proper time associated with a possible observer’s world line – which seems to be just giving up on the idea of any special “philosophical” time as this has always been the only kind of time that is ever discussed in relativistic physics.

Source: Who really won when Bergson and Einstein debated time? | Aeon Essays

It’s a shame when those who claim to be “Fact Checking” resort to willful misinterpretations, distortions, and exaggerations of their own.

For example this Fact Checker from The Washington Post starts with

• “We’re the cleanest economy in the entire world.” — Vance (False, the United States ranked 17th.)

But while Vance’s claim might be based on an unidentified and inappropriate measure of cleanness, it is certainly not appropriate to judge it as “False” without identifying what it actually claims to be saying, and it is even more ridiculous to assign a particular rank from some unidentified study as if it were gospel. In particular, the claim could be interpreted in terms of total emissions, emissions per capita, or emissions per $ of GDP (which might actually rank the US as cleanest – even if only since a huge proportion of the US GDP comes from clean financial and administrative work managing the exploitation of remote dirty work in other countries).

• “We have 320,000 children that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively lost.” — Vance (False, this is a ginned-up number that includes the Trump years.)

But the quote identified here as “False” is in fact a true statement about the current situation, and it would only be a claim that this was due to Biden/Harris that should be identified as false.

• “Less than 2 percent of that wall [on the border] got built.” —Walz (False, even counting only new barriers, as opposed to replacement barriers, adds up to 8.5 percent.)

Unfortunately it seems that the judgement here is correct – as is also the case for the one below.

• “Their Project 2025 is going to have a registry of pregnancies” — Walz (False, it does not.)

The next is a value judgement that I agree with (about intent and what is “bipartisan”) but not to the extent of declaring Vance’s claim objectively false.

• “Donald Trump could have destroyed [Obamacare]. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.” —Vance (False, Trump acted to kill it repeatedly in a partisan way.)

And finally, the teaser subset concludes with

• “Remember he [Trump] said that on January the 6th, the protesters ought to protest peacefully and on January the 20th, what happened? Joe Biden became the president.” — Vance (False, this is a whitewash of what happened.)

But both of the claims here are objectively true. The urge to protest peacefully may have been made with a wink and a nudge, but it was in fact made at least once; and of course the attempt to prevent the transition actually did fail.

Source: Fact Checker from The Washington Post

I don’t actually think that the prospective nuclear standoff is any more dangerous than the first one. There are currently five nations with the capacity to build unmanned nuclear powered submarine launch platforms which could crawl undetectably to within just a couple of hundred miles of any nation with a shoreline and thence deliver low flying hypersonic steerable drones against which there is no plausible defense. Once these are in place, any devastating attack against any of the nations that own them brings assured destruction on the perpetrator. It may be MAD but so long as all parties understand that it really exists it may actually deter direct aggression just as well as it did in the last century.

Source: The Race That Can’t Be Won | Portside