All posts by admin

Differently-Named Atoms: I

Uncategorized

1: Most people know it by its colloquial name, ‘Hydrogen‘, but in more formal settings, it is known as ‘Hyllodrogen’. These more formal settings are usually at ISM[1] meetings, where Hyllodrogen wears its classier allotrope, H3+.

2: Similarly, most people are not aware that ‘Helium‘ actually has atoms of multiple genders. The two most common are called ‘Helium’ and ‘Shelium’.

3: ‘Lithium‘ is more properly known as ‘Lilithium'[2], due to its properties of reacting with whichever molecules it wishes, ignoring the restrictions of others. It is postulated that this aggressiveness is what causes its therapeutic effects.

4: ‘Beryllium‘, or ‘Beeryllium’ was made up long ago on a drunken dare, but then was surprisingly discovered to actually exist.

5: ‘Boron‘ and ‘Boroff’ are two sides of the same non-interesting coin. Specifically, not interesting to stars in the main sequence, as they have to wait for cosmic rays to make it.

6: The name ‘Carbon‘ comes from the Latin ‘Carrusbon‘, meaning ‘what is left behind when you burn a vehicle’.

7: ‘Nitrogen‘ was originally dubbed ‘NitroGennifer’, after Daniel Rutherford’s stage name. It is said that his bonding flexibility is only exceeded by that of his namesake.

8: ‘Oxygen‘ was a favourite of the ‘Oxygentry‘, the name for the select group of chemists who did work on the Phlogiston and acids since ancient times.

9: ‘Fluorine‘ is the past participle of ‘Flyrine’, which explains its intense reactivity and corrosiveness.

10: As we reach the foot of the second row of the periodic table, it is only fitting that we mention ‘Neon‘, or ‘Kneeon’, so named because of the bend in early versions of the periodic table, before the discovery of noble gases.

[1]Interstellar Medium.

[2]Lilith(NSFW)

Dada Science

Idle Speculation, Internet Culture, Puns, Thoughts on Thoughts, Words!

So, I was talking to G earlier today, after our coaching session, and I was struck by the misheard word: ‘Dada Science’.

I was immediately struck. *Of course!* That’s *exactly* what I try to do!

It’s all about Between. The space between meaning, the difference between art.

But what exactly is Dada? Or Dadaism? As Dadaist Jean Arp is reputed to have said, ‘To be a Dadaist means to be against Dada. Dada equals anti-Dada.’

The following really speaks to me about Dada:

“

Cubism and the development of collage, combined with Wassily Kandinsky’s theoretical writings and abstraction, detached the movement from the constraints of reality and convention. The influence of French poets and the writings of German Expressionists liberated Dada from the tight correlation between words and meaning.

”

But what is ‘Dada Science’? Namespace being what it is, there are already two others with a claim to the phrase.

For me, it’s all about helping people get to that space between meaning, where their minds are just a little more open to the possibilities. I quite enjoy being put in that state. Terry Pratchett might have likened it to ‘Thlabber‘, ” a recognised scientific term used by wizards to describe the precise instant during any magical transformation where, after a period of feeling elongated, stretched, altered, or reduced to a single point in the space-time continuum, things have just returned to normal and the subject is feeling the first hints of relief and disorientation.”

Perhaps the space is not created by the stretching, but by the reaction and recovery to the stretching.

Stupid Hackathon Toronto Ideas

Idle Speculation, Internet Culture, Machine Learning, Puns, Words!

WARNING: SOME OF THE LINKS BELOW MAY LEAD TO NSFW OR TRIGGERING THINGS STOP YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED STOP

Some of you may be familiar with the ‘Stupid Hackathon‘, which I believe was started by Amelia Winger-Bearskin and Sam Lavigne at ITP in New York a few years ago.

(I also know of a San Francisco Stupid Hackathon, hosted by Noisebridge (of course).[1])

Setting aside the issues of privilege and the General Malaise required to make such an event work, I wanted to talk about a similar event happening in Toronto in late May:

http://stupidhacktoronto.com/

The categories (APOLOGIES FOR YELLING STOP THEY WERE ALSO YELLING ON THE SITE STOP):

MARGINALLY IMPROVED FOOD DELIVERY
– Is this the purchasing of food on margin? Speculating on food ‘Futures’? Or ‘Presents’?
– Is this finally the incarnation of AirHamAndCheese.com, the sharing economy startup[2] for fractional sandwich ownership? Only time will tell.
– Is this anything like ‘The Food Lift‘?

REDUCTIONIST BOLTZMANN MACHINES
– How many neurons are required for full reductionism?
– What happens when you only have one neuron? Does it talk to itself?
– If it can talk to itself in multiple ways, is that still turing-complete?
– Do you get one of these by taking the PCA of your Restricted Boltzmann Machine and dropping the 90% least used neurons?

EMOJIANAL INTELLIGENCE
– I think I know what they mean here, and I’m not talking about this topic here.

QUICKTIME FOR PEGASI
– Is this about a phase-cloaking video display?
– Perhaps hacking a 6502-based console to run video?
– Perhaps a squadron flying horses in a hurry?
– Thinking about it, what would you need in video for a flying horse? Some type of HUD? Probably something very light.

MILLENIAL FALCONS
– I was looking at our new condo building, and what looked like a Red-tailed Hawk was perched on top. I hope we can become friends. They can live to 25 years old in the wild, so it might have been a millenial.
– How would you feed a stooping bird? Would you put food out on a flexible holder a few feet out halfway up a very tall building? Gotta practice that stoop somehow…

MAYBE PUT SOME SENSORS ON IT I GUESS CAN I HAVE MONEY NOW
– See ‘The Internet of Thins‘

VIRTUAL FEALTY
– Cue ‘Second Life’ references.
– You could talk about player organizations within MMORPGs, but what could you build to actually (not) help them?
– This topic is a pyramid scheme.

PENTACOPTERS
– For starfish, of course.
– Or this guy.

A FUCKING FITNESS TRACKER
– I feel like this would require a considerable amount of calibration for each user
– Alternatively, this could be a hide-and-seek game

THE INTERNET OF BEES
– See my post about ‘Beenary’ logic for some ideas on this.

[1]If you’ve never heard of Noisebridge, check out their website! All of the warnings at the top of this post probably apply.

[2]S suggests ‘Sandwich Rental’ for the ultimate experience.

The Line Between Art

Idle Speculation, Internet Culture, Thoughts on Thoughts, Words!

Yesterday, we were talking about the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Making’.

Over lunch today, I was talking with A & D, and they raised a couple of (unrelated) questions[1].

1. Yesterday, we had talked about the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Making’. But what about the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Destruction’? Auto-destructive art a reasonably recent example[2], but think about sculpture. In general, sculptures made from stone are just very (sometimes very very) finely controlled destruction.

Is it the intentionality? You could write an essay about the meaning of it, then hit a cube of concrete once with a sledgehammer and call it art. In the right context, that could be very provocative. So, where’s the line? Is it someone trying to make ‘Art’? Is it someone trying to create an emotional response? Because I would argue there are plenty of people who have destroyed things to create an emotional response[3], but that is not art. Is it destruction with the intent to help someone by creating an emotional response? Destroying a prized but hurtful possession can be helpful, but I would argue it is not art. So where’s the line?

2. On a more minor note, they also mentioned the line between graffiti and art. I would argue that a simple tag (especially tagging a mural) is not art. Often, it is vandalism. But when you draw an entire mural of your tag, with shading and curlicues, I would argue that that is art. It may be ‘pop-art’, it is likely still vandalism, but is still art.

So, where is the line here? Is it percentage art vs. percentage vandalism? Is it intentionality? Is it the amount of time spent? In the words of the immortal Duke Nukem, ‘Where is it?’

[1]I always really enjoy hanging out with sysadmins, and people who have been sysadmins in a previous life. They are endlessly fascinated by people and their design (or lack thereof) of complex systems. Complex systems which inevitably try to fly apart at the slightest provocation.

[2]And the first thing to appear when I searched for ‘destructive art’.

[3]I will not enumerate these here. This falls under the category of ‘memes I will not spread’.

The Line Between Art and Making

Idle Speculation, Internet Culture, Things We've Built, Words!

Note: I am part of the Site 3 Fire Arts collective (S3FA), but I am speaking for myself, not them/us.

Some friends of mine went to FITC earlier today, ‘a three-day professional celebration of the best the world has to offer in design, web development, media and innovation in creative technologies.‘[1]

To me, reading the list of presentations, it feels like a software/design/digital/’creatives’ conference, and I’d always heard good things about it.

One of the presentations earlier today was about ‘Future Arcades‘, about how arcades and interactive installations can learn from each other. They even showed pictures of S3FA’s Riskee Ball! Yay! (Although, there was no attribution[2]. Boo!)

This naturally sparked a discussion about attribution, and how important it is. Whether people should be happy that their art/installation/etc is getting out there, or should be insisting on attribution and making sure people do so.

For S and I, this sparked a conversation about the line between ‘Making’ and ‘Art’. Is the attribution requirement different? Even if you’re copying the phone book, it feels polite to credit those whose shoulders you’re standing on.

Moving back to the title of this post, the more interesting[3] (for me) conversation was about the placement of the line between ‘Making’ and ‘Art'[4]. S mentioned that while we were designing and building Mirror Blaze, she always thought of it as a ‘Fire Installation’ more than ‘Art’. I had always referred to the group as ‘a fire art collective’, at which point most people asked if we spun poi. Some people in the group say that we build ‘Big Dumb Fire Art’.

So, how do you reconcile these views? I’ve always like the “I don’t know art, but I know what I like” statement, that like many things, you’ll know it when you see it. A common theme seems to be that there needs to be significant personal time and work invested by the artist(s) involved[5]. S suggests that intention of ‘Emotional Impact’ is what makes something ‘Art’ for her. (I’m the kind of person that takes great enjoyment in finding faces in everyday objects[6], so I guess that’s where the intentionality comes in.)

We also briefly touched on the line[7] between ‘Art’ and ‘Illustration’, but agreed that ’emotional intentionality’ also applied.

Comments? Questions? Rotten tomatoes? Comment below!

A note about ‘Art’ vs. ‘art’. I use the term ‘Art’ to refer to ‘what people generally think art is’, with all the associated baggage and politics that comes along with social pressures and millennia of history. Personally, I see art as whatever someone calls art, because at that point, they’re asking you to think and/or feel about the definition of art, if nothing else. I think there are also a number of things not described as art that qualify, but that’s another post.

[1]It always feels better to use peoples’ own ‘about’ statements.

[2]Maybe it’s my background in academia, where attribution is everything. Maybe it’s the fact that I seem to be good at Google, so it seems easy to me.

[3]Although I clearly had ‘feelings’ about attribution. Interesting the things you find in yourself while writing.

[4]I had originally had ‘Building’ here instead of ‘Making’. There’s a subtle difference, but ‘Making’ seems to be term more often used, and feels like it speaks better to what we do. (Even though there’s a *lot* of building. 😀 )

[5]I also feel like a lot of ‘Art’ presupposes one ‘Artist’, even if they have apprentices or other helpers.

[6]While researching this post, I came across this gem.

[7]Ha!

DS9: The Power of Adversaries, Season 1

Analysis, Internet Culture, Science!, Space!

Continuing our adversaries series, we’re starting today looking at DS9. I’m curious to know how it will diverge from TNG, and when. Or maybe it won’t. Which will mean there’s something about the Star Trek formula, or perhaps the general television formula[1].

S1:

High: 8
Equal: 2
Low: 9
Self: 0

So, this presents a significant departure from TNG. Even though DS9 is supposed to be grittier and have opportunities amongst the main cast, this is never the main adversary or obstacle in an episode. Also interestingly, the episodes almost exclusively separate into ‘very powerful outside force’ and ‘morality play where we try to solve problems without anyone getting hurt’.

The proportion of lower powered adversaries might be part of showing how powerful the Federation really is, as discussed by Garak and Quark[2] in ‘The Way of the Warrior‘.

You can also see this very clearly in the ‘Federation Maps‘ (direct link here). Just look at the size of the Federation compared to all of the other powers. Even if they’re not especially warlike, as any good Civilization player knows, if you have an economy four times the size of your opponent, they’re not really much of a threat. Add in the Federation-Klingon alliance, and they should be unstoppable. Gives you an idea of how powerful the Dominion and the Jem’Hadar must have been.

Perhaps it’s because the adversaries which are ‘just the right amount of challenge’ for the Federation haven’t really discovered the station yet, perhaps because the seasons-spanning plots haven’t started yet.

But I think a lot of it is the nature of the beast. A ship exploring will encounter all kinds of different adversaries and challenges. They can travel to see the Klingons or Romulans whenever they want. A space station will be visited by small numbers of beings at any time. Some will be spatial anomalies which threaten to destroy the station. Many will be travelers on their own missions, but not significantly powerful in their own right. Rarely, representatives from other governments will visit, even more rarely will they have warlike intentions.

(I’ve copied my rationale below, as the results were o surprising. Please check out Jammer’s Reviews and/or Memory Alpha and tell me how I’m wrong in the comments below!)

2 (celestial temple, convincing by Sisko)
1 (Cardassians)
0 (Bajoran person)
2 (virus)
0 (3 aliens)
“Were we interfering with these people, their philosophy, their society? At the same time, what has happening there wasn’t fair. It was a classic Star Trek story” – Colm Meaney
2 (Q)
0 (courtroom)
1 (contamination from destroying ship)
2 (alien game)
0 (Ferengi)

0 (1 criminal)
2 (immortal self-healing people)
0 (Bajorans)
0 (reluctant evacuee)
2 (spatial anomaly)

2 (entity in the computer)
2 (telepathic matrix)
0 (one Cardassian)
0 (Bajorans)

[1]After DS9, I should do Community!

[2]If the link is broken.

Six Seasons…

Idle Speculation, Internet Culture, Nostalgia

…and a movie?

So, today was the end of Community for us. For me, it was all the more poignant because I knew there would truly be no more seasons. They had been talking about the cancellation for years, preparing each season for it to be their last, but this felt much more final, with the original cast of seven whittled down to four, and two of those moving away.

Perhaps it was the knowledge that it was the last series of any note put out by Yahoo TV, but I didn’t know that until afterwards.

Perhaps it was because the endings of the last few episodes were so nihilistic so as to break five or six walls[1].

The interesting thing for me was how Jeff became the one to want to keep everyone at Greendale, having to learn to let things (and people) go. One could say that a lot of the series is about his character development, how it taught him to feel for others, to feel their pain, but that enabled him to feel his own pain, and perhaps learn to accept it[2]

It’s also clear to me that there’s a lot of pain in Dan Harmon, and perhaps the rest of the writers, to be able to so viscerally show that on screen. I feel this last season was where they really let that go. I wonder if something changed there, or if they knew this was really the end, with all of the actors growing up and having other major roles elsewhere.

Either way, I’m looking forward to what each of these people can do, and maybe even the movie. 😀

[1]Characters in a commercial discovering a script for their commercial, thereby proving that they don’t actually exist? Classic, but so so dark.

[2]Maybe I notice him more because I’m also a tall white guy. YMMV.

Toy Boxes and Connections

Internet Culture, Nostalgia, Organizing Systems, Space!, Things We've Built

Recently, I spent a few hours going through my old toy box from my childhood. I found a number of curiosities (which I’ll share later), but I wanted to give my first impressions.

The toybox my dad made for me so many years ago.
The toybox my dad made for me so many years ago.

Above is the toybox my dad made for me so many years ago. It was a lot of fun, even going through and unpacking all the things inside.

Interestingly, all the way through, I was thinking about all of the connections I could make with people based on the things in the box. Finally sorting my Lego pieces so that S and I could download instructions (or use the classic instructions still in the box!) and make things together. Taking all of the various parts of games and toys and putting them up on this blog or on fb, to see if people could help me figure out what they were (thinking they might enjoy that challenge (and the nostalgia) too).

Perhaps most poignantly, I came across the numbers ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘8’, written on tape, attached to Lego pieces. I think that they were part of that one time I brought the miniature city I had built[1] and was so proud of, and labeled parts of it. Anyways, I was going to use this as an excuse to ask my dad if he had any pictures of that, or other things I/we had built, so we could bond over that.

And perhaps I could bond a little with that child from so long ago. One of the things I found was a mint. S mentioned that young me was eating mints, and had somehow left one for me, some way of communicating across the decades.

One of the things I want to do there is to build again my favourite spaceship (it had three parts which were each their own ship!), and my favourite town set, the classic fire station.

The toybox all sorted, with Spaceship! (And Fire Station! (And Space Station!))
The toybox all sorted, with Spaceship! (And Fire Station! (And Space Station!))

Happily, it seems that most of (or at least a lot of) the space parts are still there. Sadly, it seems that many of the essential parts for the fire station are not present. It had a really cool slidy-up-and-down front door to each of the fire truck bays. Of the 46 pieces involved, I was only able to find about 10 of the grooves, and three of the roll-top-desk-like part things. But then I remembered the internet! So, brickinstructions.com has a parts list for the fire hall, and they link to Bricklink, where you can purchase the part! And not even that expensive! I love online communities.

Maybe I’ll connect with other people about this, too.

Here’s to connecting with ourselves from so long ago, and maybe helping us connect with ourselves and each other right now.

[1]It even included a hockey rink! With a swimming pool underneath, with real water in it! Lego is surprisingly water-tight. Or maybe there was a lining. I don’t remember. I just remember the paper rink surface getting wet. 😀

What Do You Want to Do With Your Life?

Idle Speculation, Nostalgia, Things We've Built, Thoughts on Thoughts

Warming spring days bring with them the scent of renewal, of life waking up again. And as it’s waking up again, it’s starting to ask questions. Like ‘What do you want to do with your life?’ and ‘Why am I here?’

For me, a substantial part of this is the desire to build things.

My thought map for this might look like the following:

“I want to build things.”
– ‘I’
– Does this need to be only me? :: No, I like working people, but I also like entering flow by myself (this is a conundrum)
– ‘want’
– Is this a want or a need? How strong is this? :: I don’t think I will ever be satisfied if I don’t build. Perhaps not even then.
– ‘to’
– I can’t think of any reasonable way to disassemble this word. :: No.
– ‘build’
– What does ‘building’ mean? How firmly am I wedded to this definition? :: Assembling might be fine. The key is that it is easily recognizable that I had substantive creative input into the process. For example, ‘Biggle’, while a copy of an established game had clear creative input because of the absurd larginess, as well as the fact that I(we) made it by hand.
– ‘things’
– How broad is ‘things’? Could this include an organization? :: In this context, I mean things, I have a separate category for organization(s).

So, what do *you* want to do with your life?

‘Memorize! No Time to Derive!’

Uncategorized

Back when I was in engineering, there was a story told about one of the profs:

He would say ‘Memorize! No time to derive!’, meaning that in order to do the questions on the exam quickly enough, you would have to memorize the formulae in their applicable form, instead of deriving them from first principles each time.

For me, there is a clear analogy to the regular brain remapping you do everyday through your choices of what to do and think about.

There’s also a clear analogy to performance, whether that is singing, dancing, or powerpoint. It’s important to know your ‘words and notes’ off by heart, backwards and forwards, so that you can focus on the task at hand, whether it’s entertaining people, conveying a message[1], or solving a problem.

[1]These are often one and the same.