Category Archives: Internet Culture

Computers Win when the Rules are Fixed

One of the important reminders from game four of Alpha Go vs. Lee Sodol was the difference between what computers and humans are each best at.

Traditionally, computers were best at the most repetitive tasks, that were well understood and could be completely described.

If you talk to any release or test engineer, they will tell you that once you can fully describe a process, it’s only a few more steps to be able to automate it.

What makes Machine Learning so tantalizing is that it’s been giving hints of being able to learn to perform not-fully-described tasks, most recently Go.

At the same time, Machine Learning still requires thousands or millions of examples in order to be able to ‘see’ things, whereas humans can understand and make inferences with many fewer examples. It’s unclear to me (and I’m guessing most people) exactly why this is. It’s like there’s something about the way we learn things which helps us learn other things.

But back to the topic at hand. What game four showed us (yet again) is that the better defined the problem, the better humans perform vs. computers.

A different example of this is how high paid market research analysts are being replaced by automation, doing in minutes what would take the analysts days.

So, how do you stay relevant as things become more and more automated and automateable?

As Lee Sedol showed, one strategy is to play Calvinball[1]. Find the part of your discipline that is the least defined, and pour yourself into pushing that boundary, leaving defined pieces in your wake[2].

Note: Playing Strategema like Data is another ‘fun’ option[3], but most useful only when playing against a computer opponent, not so much for forging your own path. It consists of playing sub-optimal moves so as to confuse or anger the other player, to thrown them off balance. It is postulated that Deep Blue did this to Kasparov.

[1]Calvinball is a mostly fictional game invented by Bill Watterson for Calvin and Hobbes. The game has only one rule, that it can never be played the same way twice.

[2]Technically, Lee Sedol played a very ‘loose’ game, which was difficult to define, where parts of the board far away from each other were more easily related. You can also use this tactic to find things and do them in a way where humans are better than computers.

[3]We called this ‘victory through annoyance’ during undergrad. It had mixed reviews.

I Miss Grand Admiral Thrawn

So, I’m re-reading the Timothy Zahn ‘Heir to the Empire’ trilogy, and I was once again struck by how good it felt to be reading a Star Wars book where there was a real, believable villain who actually knew how to plan and was actually a threat.

This article probably says it best: that Thrawn was a complex and charismatic enough character that you could actually see threatening the New Republic, and able to conquer the galaxy on his own merits.

The new Kylo Ren & sundry associated characters just don’t seem anywhere near as competent. (Just so needlessly destructive.) You have the feeling that Thrawn would conquer them in the matter of weeks. [sigh.] Anyways, here’s hoping that the new Star Wars movies have people on both sides (or even multiple sides?!?) who have reasonable motivations and who are each striving from a place of competence.

If a Taco Wore Pants…

If a taco wore pants, would it wear them like this:

None taco with left pants.
None taco with left pants[1].

or like this?

None taco with all pants.
None taco with all pants.

This arose out of a lunchtime conversation about the amazing idea of lasagna tacos! Which naturally spawned the the question “if you were making a lasagna taco, which direction would you layer it?”

At which point J asked the question above[2].

[1]Note that the description text is a reference to ‘none pizza with left beef’.

[2]Thanks J!

Ethical In-Game Purchases

Throughout the history of computer gaming, people have tried many different business models.

Early on, models included rental and sales of coin-operated machines, shareware, mail-order sales, sales through distributors, and doubtless others that I’m forgetting.

Monthly subscriptions were a more recent innovation, for games such as World of Warcraft, in an effort to find a more consistent revenue stream.

More recently, ‘Downloadable Content’ or ‘DLC’, and ‘in-app purchases’ have become de rigeur.

At their heart, they seem to be trying to solve the same problem as monthly subscription fees, but in a more explicit and a-la-carte fashion.

My recollection is that DLC was first, being a model very similar to the old shareware and multi-episode games. You would try the first one for free, or perhaps pay for it (depending on whether it was shareware), then that would entice you to purchase the next episode, and the next.

You knew pretty much what you were getting, the developers got a more consistent revenue, everyone was happy[1].

DLC then started branching out into partially or mostly cosmetic items, like the Oblvion Horse Armour

This still seems reasonable to me. You were playing a single player game, you wanted more features, the developers gave them to you for more money.

Then the ‘Free to Play’ games started becoming more and more popular. They would start out being free to play, but you would then need to play to continue after a certain point. Almost exactly the same as shareware, no problem. You purchased access after you had tried out the game. Totally reasonable, still very ethical.

But then the ‘Freemium’ games started coming out, the games that which were ostensibly free to play, but you could only play so many turns before you had to wait for your energy or whatever to recharge. However, you could play ‘just one more turn’ if you were to pay a little more money. This has gone from ‘money for content’ to ‘searching out and exploiting addiction‘.

In a somewhat orthogonally unethical category are games which allow you to pay to achieve an unfair advantage over other players in a multiplayer game. One of the games I currently play is an online turn-based strategy game, where you can pay money (about $15CAD) to get unlimited turn undos. This allows you to not pay for scouting units, and know the disposition of all of your enemy’s units, mostly obviating the ‘fog-of-war’ game mechanic. I’m sure it’s also very profitable.

In summary,

Ethical:
– Pay for more content/features
– Pay a subscription fee to keep playing on company-run servers[2]

Not so ethical:
– Pay to take more turns in the game with no ability to unlock as many turns as you want for a reasonable sum of money
– Pay to achieve an unfair advantage over other players

[1]Perhaps not game developers, but that’s a different story.

[2]We haven’t talked about games which stop working when the game company goes under and the server goes down…

A Long Tail of Whales: Half of Mobile Games Money Comes From 0.15 Percent of Players

Peep-to-Peep Computing

[chirrp][chirrp][cheeerp](whirring noises)[chrrreeep][cheeerp]

It started out as a humorous RFC, something that you would share with your friends and have a quick chuckle over.

[chbeep][chrsssssh][weeooweeoo][bloooop?]

But then the solar flares started. They only caused small problems at first, a little more static on your VOIP call, your conference calls became a little more annoying.

[maaa][maaaa]

Soon, it was all they could do to keep the electrical infrastructure in place. It would have to all be refit, and that would take years, if not decades. A different solution had to be found. Luckily, someone had managed to cross pigeons with mockingbirds.

[booooeyp][booooeyp]

You were limited to the speed of sound, but with creative sampling and filtering, you could train the ‘Mimidae Columbida‘ (or MimiCos, as they were called) to only listen for specific types of sound, and to re-chirp them as soon as they heard them.

[beeyooop][chiiiip?]

Many things became simpler. When you could only send data at 300 baud, IRC and MUDs flourished again. Twitter shortened its character limit to 100, then 50 characters. Emoji encodings became even more compact. People became adept at ‘hearing’ the messages before they were decoded, some were even forgoing the decoding stage, and speaking only ‘beakspeak’.

[yeeebeep!][gshhhhh][yeeeniiip]

Oh, that’s an urgent message coming through! Gotta run! [yeeeneepneep!]

#internetofbirds

From S

BOF VII: More Vignettes:

(Some mild editing to protect the more innocent.)

Belleville, Day2.
Science question:
Irritating life partner #1 is going “Aaaugh”.
Irritating life partner #2 is going “Pffftbbbbr” at a 45 degree angle.
At what angle does the associated weather pattern emerge, and which irritating life partner grows more damp as a result?

“The person who rebuffs you… Are they already shiny?”
S, D, and L like this.
GW: wait… if they’re rebuffing you, isn’t it you that was/is shiny?

“Post-modern Rube Goldberg machine. Discuss.”
MC: Facebook? The most convoluted advertising mechanism every built. Founded upon our natural narcissism and need for attention.
Me: Kind of like gossip/tabloids 2.0?

Me: Sherriff = Shire + Reeve. Huh.
K and D like this.
SED: Shire = village, reeve = protector. You’ll never guess where “fireplace” comes from!
Me: A type of fish that lives in fir trees?
RG: Yes that’s right.
AK: Neat. Word etymologies are fun for the whole family. I use this site, which seems pretty nifty: http://www.etymonline.com/
Also, “spitfire” used to be more profane: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spitfire
– Etymonline, a map of the ‘wheel-ruts’ of English.

Me: Do you get your money back when you return an error code?
You, P, and S like this.
IM: Yes, but in bitcoin
DR: yes but…in counterfeit bills?
IM: Or error bills– collectors’ items

<tags and `tags

Note: We went to see Neil deGrasse Tyson speak today, so you get more random musings on tags today!

There are a few previous entries in this series (and maybe more in the future once you read this!). You can find them all using WordPress’ snazzy search function:

http://nayrb.org/~blog/?s=TAGS

So, back to tags:

<tags are showing that your comment was less than something else. Examples:

“I rode a horse” <Clydesdale

or

“I trained my cat today” <successful

>tags are for showing the opposite, namely:

“I rode a horse” >pony

or

“I felt good today” >yesterday

“tags are substituting for the subset of #hashtags denoting quotations, or to substitute for quotation marks in very character starved tweets, such as:

Live long and prosper “Yoda

‘tags are for inner thoughts, sometimes quoting someone else, sometimes yourself[1].

Live long and prosper “Yoda ‘reallySpock

or

Live long and prosper “Yoda ‘neversaidthatdidI

The last one for the day is the infamous `backticktag, invented by people who love programs like the infamous bash fork bomb:

:(){ :|:& };: [2]

`backticktags are used for when you’re meant to take the previous comment and process it through the `backticktag as program code (as opposed to the |pipetag, where you’re supposed to take the previous comment as data)[3].

Examples of `backticktags:

:(){ :|:& };: `bash

or

10 PRINT “LOOK AROUND YOU” 20 GOTO 10 RUN `bbcbasic

[1]For an exciting treatise on this topic, check out this Slate article!

[2]I recommend you do not try running this unless you are your own sysadmin and you know what you’re doing. Indicentally, Wikipedia has a very nice writeup on how this works, copied below:

:(){ :|:& };:
\_/| |||| ||\- ... the function ':', initiating a chain-reaction: each ':' will start    two more.
 | | |||| |\- Definition ends now, to be able to run ...
 | | |||| \- End of function-block
 | | |||\- disown the functions (make them a background process), so that the children    of a parent
 | | |||   will not be killed when the parent gets auto-killed
 | | ||\- ... another copy of the ':'-function, which has to be loaded into memory.
 | | ||   So, ':|:' simply loads two copies of the function, whenever ':' is called
 | | |\- ... and pipe its output to ...
 | | \- Load a copy of the function ':' into memory ...
 | \- Begin of function-definition
 \- Define the function ':' without any parameters '()' as follows:

[3]If you’re playing with a universal turing machine[4] that can intermingle these, all bets are off.

[4]Or Lisp.

=tags and /tags

Yesterday, I talked about some even-less-frequently-used-tags. Today, we’ll talk about some sparsely-sporadic-tags[1].

Note that many of these alternate tags could be expressed with the #hashtag, but that is more ambiguous, and requires more reading in on the part of the user.

=tags are for when you’re trying to make an equivalence that people might not normally think. Example:

“So, yesterday, I ate an apple” =orange

or, more humourously:

“So, yesterday, I ate an apple” =horse

+tags are for when you want to add an idea to a post. Example:

“So, yesterday, I ate an apple” +alsotoday

/tags or ‘/slashtags[2]’ are for when you have an alternate word that might also fit. Sometimes this is actually what happened, sometimes humourous. A humorous example:

“So, yesterday, I rode a horse.” /goat

An ‘actually what happened’ example:

“So, yesterday, I rode a horse.” /merrygoround

\tags or \backslashtags are for subdivisons within a concept. Example:

“So, yesterday, I rode a horse.” \goldendelicious

|pipetags may be my favourite. These show how you ‘pipe’ a concept through another one, giving it a whole new meaning. Example:

“So, yesterday, I ate an apple.” |pie

[1]Next up are ‘sparsely-sporadically-scanty-tags’.

[2]Possibly the worst children’s game ever invented.

(tags and ][tags

Last week, I talked a little about other types of tags outside of #hashtags.

Today, we’re going to cover a few even-less-frequently-used ‘tags, starting with the bracket family.

(tags and )tags are all about the ordering of operations.

(tags show that things that come after this should be combined with it before this is combined with things that came before. For example:

#shoes (underwearpants

)tags show that you should complete the things that came before, before the things in this tag. For example:

#pants )shoes

[tags and ]tags are used in a number of different ways. Most commonly, they are used to denote a paraphrase, such as:

[87yearsago

or to denote that a comment ‘distributes[1]’ its positivity or negativity over the entire preceding sentence or group of sentences, rather than just the single word. Example:

You are amazing, you are wonderful, you are a Stegosaurus. ]true

More complex usages of the [tags and ]tags include the ][tag, which denotes when a major video game company is about to take some of your pieces[2].

{tags and }tags are generally used to denote sets and groupings, especially when your intended meaning is at odds with the traditional grouping or non-grouping of the items in question. Examples:

{applesoranges

“…apples” }horses[3]

_tags are meant to underline or underscore a point, to make it abundantly clear. Example:

Timothy Zahn _beststarwarsbooks

-tags, sometimes known as -dashtags[4], are used for remarks which are not directly related to the topic at hand, but which the author wants to bring to your attention as an aside. Example:

“Foam swords can be a very important part of your balanced marriage.” -snlswords[5]

[1]This meaning is from chemistry, where square brackets are used to show that positive and negative charge are distributed over the entire ion.

[2]Atari, and atari.

[3]Even though I’m sure that the horse would like to be grouped with the apples. Of course, that horse would mean that you would have no apples left.

[4]Not to be confused with -houndtags.

[5]’S-Words’, as described in http://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96hjeopardy.phtml

Email as a More Natural Method of Communication?

Recently, I was reading about the history of the ‘smiley'[1] ( 🙂 ), and they mentioned the concept that email may be a more natural form of communication for many people.

Amongst the reasons cited[2] were:
– ‘one could write tersely and type imperfectly, even to an older person in a superior position and even to a person one did not know very well, and the recipient took no offense.’
[compared to the telephone]
– ‘one could proceed immediately to the point without having to engage in small talk first’
– ‘the message services produced a preservable record’
– ‘the sender and receiver did not have to be available at the same time.’

With the benefit of hindsight, one can see large swathes of internet/programmer culture arising from these precepts, from the ‘No one cares if you’re a dog on the internet’, to concerns about the persistence of photos on Facebook.

With the positive aspects of this culture (ease of communication, democratization, expression on many topics) came negative aspects (flame wars, trolling, and abuse). In response to some of these negative aspects, the smiley appeared.

The smiley first appeared to address the deficiencies of email as the first non-verbal broadcast medium. Over email, you couldn’t express tone or emotion, outside of word choice. And when you’re firing off dozens of terse emails a day, you may not always be the most careful with your word choice.

If you’re emailing back and forth with a few co-workers, this can be quickly smoothed over. But when you’re posting to a newsgroup with hundreds or thousands of members, each of whom can broadcast to all readers, a shortcut to demonstrate emotion or tone can be crucial in improving the signal-to-noise ratio.

Interestingly, you can see the glimmers of things like twitter and facebook in early email conversations, because that’s what these really are, a different way for humans to converse and connect, more natural for some, with smileys smoothing the way.

[1]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm


Second, and more important, these authors were publishing their words in a different medium, with different properties. If 100,000 copies of a novel or an essay were distributed in printed form, and if 1% of the readers didn’t get the joke and were outraged at what they had read, there was nothing these clueless readers could do to spoil the enjoyment of the other 99%. But if it were possible for each of the 1000 clueless readers to write a lengthy counter-argument and to flood these into the same distribution channels as the original work, and if others could then jump into the fray in similar fashion, you can see the problems that this would cause. If the judicious use of a few smilies can reduce the frequency of such firestorms, then maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all. Again, we’re talking here about casual writing on the Internet, not great works printed in a one-way medium that is relatively inaccessible to the general public.

[2]https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2002/cmsc434-0101/MUIseum/applications/firstemail.html


But if it caught on like wildfire, it somehow managed to do so almost without notice. For the engineers and scientists who quickly adopted it as the preferred mode of day-to-day communications, it mostly felt like a logical outgrowth of the development of ARPANET.

In fact, it took almost five years for the builders and designers of ARPANET to sit back and realize that in many ways, e-mail had become the real raison d’etre for the new computer network.

“A surprising aspect of the message service is the unplanned, unanticipated, and unsupported nature of its birth and early growth,” reads a report on e-mail written for ARPA in 1976. “It just happened, and its early history has seemed more like the discovery of a natural phenomenon than the deliberate development of a new technology.”

One reason that it was adopted so quickly was that it perfectly suited the communications needs and style of the engineers who built ARPANET.

In a paper published in 1978 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, two of the important figures in the creation of the ARPANET, J. C. R. Licklider and Albert Vezza, explained the popularity of e-mail. “One of the advantages of the message systems over letter mail was that, in an ARPANET message, one could write tersely and type imperfectly, even to an older person in a superior position and even to a person one did not know very well, and the recipient took no offense. . . . Among the advantages of the network message services over the telephone were the fact that one could proceed immediately to the point without having to engage in small talk first, that the message services produced a preservable record, and that the sender and receiver did not have to be available at the same time.”