Category Archives: Science!

Burning Man in Pictures XLII: True Reflections

In our last installment, our heroes had gone a little playa-crazy from their adventures in the land of test pattern.

Now, it was time for them to rest and reflect on what they had experienced.

But first, the nose car:

Nose car.
Nose car.

Our intrepid heroes encounter a strange tent, titled ‘True Reflections Palace’. An arched entranceway beckons them in…:

What awaits inside? (It's difficult to tell because the sign is itself reflective.)
What awaits inside? (It’s difficult to tell because the sign is itself reflective.)

A welcoming sign:

This is the coolest tape we'd seen outside of Japan.
This is the coolest tape we’d seen outside of Japan.

It turns out that ‘True Reflections’ are what happens when you reflect a person’s image in such a way that it looks to them like they look to other people:

This was really spooky.
This was really spooky.

Of course, there were tinker toys, distracting to builders such as our heroes:

Tinkers toy!
Tinkers toy!

Up?:

Up?
Up?

THE WHOLE TENT IS TINKER TOYS:

Aha! The truth revealed!
Aha! The truth revealed!

Some research on this topic:

Research!
Research!

This is they type of coverage that you may have seen of this before, how the two halves of of the face are seen very differently, and how swapping them can have huge effects, most often done to celebrities so that people will click the link:

Not even Bruce Willis is immune.
Not even Bruce Willis is immune.

Some interesting commentary on the psychology of changing how someone sees themselves, possibly similar to people hearing themselves speak:

How people respond to their 'true reflection'.
How people respond to their ‘true reflection’.

They can probably tell you more, more succinctly and correctly than I can, so I leave you with a blatant (but happy) plug[1]:

A blatant (but happy) plug.
A blatant (but happy) plug.

Next time, our heroes encounter a (friendly) match between El Pulpo Mechanico and his grasshopper friend, and visit the Serpent Mother. Stay tuned!

[1]They are really cool, though. I feel like I look totally different in the ‘true mirror’, like twice as attractive. I wonder if this would help people understand privilege better…

“Senseless Juxtaposition of Wildcards.”

He had to admire the the gall of the programmer who wrote the error messages.

“Senseless Juxtaposition of Wildcards.”

It might as well have said:

“Grow a brain!”

Or:

“Try listening to classical music.”

But then it got him thinking…

What would be a senseful juxtaposition of wildcards?

First, we would have to make a list of possible wildcards:

The ‘standard’ wildcard character, specifically referring to a character is the question mark, ‘?’. Generally standing in for any one of some set of things (or in Perl, 0 or 1 of a thing).

The ‘larger’ wildcard character, ‘*’, which stands for any number of something (including 0), sometimes expressed as ‘%’, if you’re speaking SQL.

The ‘even larger’ wildcard character, ‘…’, which is like a recursive ‘*’.

But could there be something larger still? Something which climbs the directory hierarchy in the oppsosite direction, perhaps? Something which can make it past all of the automatic filters, but is clearly wrong? Something like typing ‘NaN‘[1] into a number field box? Something which steps outside the usual boundaries, like Thiotimoline?

In a biological context, there are entire alphabets of more-and-less-specific wildcards.

So, knowing all of this, what would be a senseful juxtaposition of wildcards? Something like ‘**’, or ‘?*’, or ‘*?’ would be meaninglessly equivalent to ‘*’.

You could attempt to mix SQL with bash-isms: “WHERE ID LIKE ‘%*’ “, showing that you expect an SQL character string followed by a bash character string, but that is again non-sensical.

Maybe it would have to be something like ‘hello??????'[2], to say that there are 6 characters of some type after your ‘hello’.

But there it was. The senseful juxtaposition of wildcards… bash statements inside command-line SQL statements.

That was it! But he had to think. How would he use this?

[1]And like the link says, you really don’t want to confuse it with NaN3. You really don’t want to confuse *anything* with NaN3.

[2]Or ‘hello……’.

Burning Man in Pictures 2015 XVI: Mirror Blaze Complete and Certified?

Yesterday, we had just reached day four (Sunday), and had checked in on the rest of Charnival (and various portapotties).

Today, we’ll check in on our intrepid heroes as they count down to the 7pm ‘soft open[1]’ of Charnival!

Here’s what Mirror Blaze looked like Sunday morning:

Mirror Blaze, Sunday morning (day 4 of construction).
Mirror Blaze, Sunday morning (day 4 of construction).

And a quick peek at FaIRE Hockey, and our common fuel depot:

FaIRE Hockey, and our common fuel depot, Sunday (build day 4) morning!
FaIRE Hockey, and our common fuel depot, Sunday (build day 4) morning!

Note in the pictures above, you can see the snow fencing used as a safety perimeter around Mirror Blaze and the fuel depot (those are 100lb propane tanks, for scale). We aimed for a 10′ minimum safety perimeter around the fuel depot, but this was never an issue, as we had lots of space.

So, next, we had to add all of the bunting around Mirror Blaze! This went kind of like this:

S: “Could you pass me the drill?” (the bunting was cloth S had cut into pieces slightly larger than 4’x8′ (the size of the mirrors), and then attached gromets around the edge, which would then be drill-screwed into the wooden frame.)
Me: “Here you go.”
Wind: “Wheeeeeee!”
Cloth: “Wheeeeeee! You can’t see me!”
S: “Augh!”

Thankfully, we had help other than the wind:

(l-r Fate, S) Due to an incident with red chromakey, Fate's hair and most of Sarah were removed in post.
(l-r Fate, S) Due to an incident with red chromakey, Fate’s hair and most of Sarah were removed in post.

While all this was happening, we were going through the process of being flame effect certified. After trenching and covering, and covering the flame effect wiring with aluminum foil so that the backdraft ‘FOOMF’ wouldn’t melt the wire insulation, we were ready to install the tube:

TOOOOOOOOOOOBE!
TOOOOOOOOOOOBE!

The tube was the single point of failure for the project. We had spare mirrors, could wrangle spare posts, spare screws, bolts, wind bracing, propane hose, propane tanks, bunting, gromets, screwdrivers, etc, etc, etc, but if the tube broke, all was lost. It didn’t help that we really didn’t know exactly how strong it was. It was (and still is) a 7′ long 1′ wide quartz tube, so chosen because it’s basically impervious to propane flame (which is why it’s used for fireplace windows/lamps/etc… It was obtained at great expense from China, including some quite involved negotiations[2] by S.

The intrepid build crew who helped mount the tube (Francisco came up with the nifty design for the ‘metal tape’ to hold the tube. It really takes a village.):

Build and tube raising crew day 4 (l-r S, Jack, Francisco, Kosta, Fate (shown in previous slide))
Build and tube raising crew day 4 (l-r S, Jack, Francisco, Kosta, Fate (shown in previous slide))

S took a moment to bask in her satisfaction (and the intense midday sun):

S's smug satisfied construction face.
S’s smug satisfied construction face.

We also took a moment to bask in the fact that our local Cheshire Cat NekoBus had received approval from the DMV[3]!:

Splat ecstatic about his Cheshire Nekobus DMV approval! (l-r Splat, Carl, Sara, Greg, Seth)
Splat ecstatic about his Cheshire Nekobus DMV approval! (l-r Splat, Carl, Sara, Greg, Seth)

While Sara was explaining something:

Sara explains.
Sara explains.

We were immediately caught off guard by a full strength ‘Last Flamethrower’ test:

THE LAST FLAMETHROWER TEST.  EVER.
THE LAST FLAMETHROWER TEST. EVER.

‘Flamethrower[4] Shooting Gallery’ had been coming to the Burn for a number of years (we convinced them to join us at the Charcade in 2013), but the logistics were getting to them, so they decided to go for one last burn, but wanted to do something a little different. Instead of four flamethrowers, they decided to go for one HUUUGE flamethrower. Honestly, this pic does not do it justice.

Next time, we finish the Mirror Blaze bunting, and we’ll see if we also get approved!

[1]My understanding of the agreement with Burning Man for the honorarium project was that Charnival had to run for a number of days, a number of hours each. My understanding was that this played out as six days at four hours per day. (The six days being Monday-Saturday, with a late start on Saturday because of the Man Burn.) We opened an extra day on the opening Sunday, partly as a ‘shakedown cruise’, partly because we wanted to be open on opening evening, partly because we wanted to open and show off our cool projects.

[2]This included a frantic message in the middle of the night (Toronto time, probably daytime in China) probably in Mandarin that we didn’t understand, but the tube arrived, so I guess it was all okay?

[3]Department of Mutant Vehicles.

[4]In flame effect circles, there is a distinction between ‘flame effects’ and ‘flame throwers’. ‘Flame effects’ are made using gaseous[5] fuel like propane (safe(r) and legal), and ‘flame throwers’ are made using liquid fuel like gasoline (very unsafe and illegal). The Flamethrower Shooting Gallery got special dispensation to use actual flamethrowers by being the most meticulously safety conscious group of people I have ever seen (think a meticulous checklist combined with a range safety officer plus perimeter plus one safety officer per flamethrower plus I’m sure many other things).

[5]Yes, I know it’s a liquid in the tank, but it’s a gas at normal temperatures, so is safe(r) to use for flame effects.

Which ‘Magic Numbers’ do You Use?

I was talking with S earlier this week, and the idea came up for a post about the numbers that I remember and use for estimation. I enjoy the sobriquet ‘Magic Numbers’.

‘Magic Numbers’. They’re considered bad practice[1] in programming, but are such a useful and helpful part of human ‘back of the envelope‘ problem solving[2].

Water:

The ‘Magic Number’ which precipitated this post was the fact that one tonne[3] of water is one cubic meter in volume. Interestingly, this is actually a number of interlocking ‘Magic Numbers’, including: One tonne is one thousand kilograms, water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimetre (‘density of 1’), one thousand is 10x10x10, one tonne is one thousand liters of water, one liter is one kilogram, etc, etc…

I mostly enjoy using this to respond to ‘I could eat a tonne of this’, or to estimate whether you could fit a tankerfull of oil in an office.

It is commonly known that ice will float on water, because the hydrogen bonds give the water molecules a structure which is more spaced out and less dense than close packed[4]. Also, water has its greatest density of about one at about 4 degrees C.

Density:

Incidentally, hydrocarbons have a density of about 0.7, so the tankerful of oil mentioned above would rather difficult to swim in. This 0.7 is close enough to 1.0 so as to make no difference for most back of the envelope questions. Strong acids are known to have densities greater than one[5], but that’s not really that useful most of the time.

The Earth has a density of on the order of five. Interestingly, while reading this, I learned that granite and quartz have a density of about three, much less than I had been assuming. No wonder pumice can float.

Gold has a density of about 20 (19 and change, when that matters). Osmium and Iridium are the densest, at around 22 and change.

On the list of interesting curiosities, Saturn is the only planet in the solar system known to have a density less than one, about 0.7! This was only useful in winning a scientific trivia contest with TJFN when I was young.

Scientific Constants:

Avogadro’s number is 6e23, Coulomb’s constant is 9e9, the ideal gas constant is 8.314 (I remember that one because it includes pi), G is 6.67e-11, the Planck constant is 6.63e-34. Most of these are useless without things like the mass or charge of an electron or proton. The only one I use is Avogadro’s number, and that’s largely to calculate how much of your body is made up of atoms which were once part of a particular famous person[7].

For atoms, what I’ve found useful is the fact that a proton is about 2000 times heavier than an electron, and that chemical bond distances are measured in Angstroms (1e-10m).

c is 3e8m/s, which is useful for Star Trek and Star Wars-type arguments. One atmosphere is 101.325kPa, or about 30 feet of water (which is important for divers).

Math constants:

Pi is 3.14159, or 22/7[6] to its friends. Pi comes up a lot.

e is about 2.718. e doesn’t come up very often.

log10(1) = 0
log10(2) ~= 0.301
log10(3) ~= 0.477
log10(7) ~= 0.845
log10(10) = 1

With these three, you can calculate all of the logarithms from one to ten, and much of everything else. In high school, we memorized all of the perfect squares up to 100^2, but most of those have fled from memory.

The (x+y)(x-y) = x^2 – y^2 trick still comes in handy, though.

Large Things:

The CN Tower is 553m tall, really only useful in Toronto.

The Earth has a radius of about 6380m, has an orbit of 93e6 miles (150e6km), useful for things like Dyson Sphere and Red Giant arguments.

The Earth is about 6e24kg, has a diameter of about 40,000km (at the equator), axial tilt of about 23.5 degrees (Uranus is the only planet with an axial tilt significantly greater, almost sideways!).

The sun is about 400x larger than the moon, and is about 400x further away, and this is why solar eclipses work.

Conversions:

1.609 km/mi (0.621 mi/km), 2.54 cm/in (by law!), 9/5+32 degrees C-> degrees F.

SGD, AUD, CAD, USD, EUR, GBP are pretty close in value, and are in that approximate order with only a factor of about 2 separating them. HKD has maybe 6-8 times per unit, CNY is in that general ballpark, and JPY has about 100 times per unit.

Miscellany:

My handspan is about 10″, which is very useful for measuring things.

Stories are about 2m tall.

3600s/hour, 86400 seconds per day, the Unix epoch started 1970-01-01, useful if you spend any time coding, or want to know how long something will take at ‘x per second’. (100k seconds per day is a useful gross approximation for many applications.)

And I would be remiss if I left out my favourite physics approximation (from the same class where I learned about Stirling’s approximation):

sqrt(10) ~= pi.

Thank you and good night.

[1]Although, compare some cases where they are considered not quite so bad practice.

[2]They are also almost essential for proper answering of ‘Fermi Questions‘.

[3]’Tonne’ means metric tonne, or 1000 kg. You can tell because it’s spelled in the French way, and SI (Systeme Internationale) was brought in while France was a preeminent country.

[4]I didn’t know what the actual structure of ice was before looking it up. Apparently, it’s tessellating hexagonal rings.

[5]’Add acid to water, like you oughta’, else you may melt the top of your beaker off.

[6]Really, it isn’t, but it’s a useful approximation sometimes.

[7]With some reasonable approximations, I remember it being billions of atoms with each breath.

DS9: The Power of Adversaries, Season 1

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.

Sensory Fruit

Warning: Fart Jokes and possibly worse.

If beans are the ‘musical fruit’, what is the ‘visually artistic fruit’? And are there fruits for the other senses?

The ‘Miracle Fruit’ (Synsepalum dulcificum) is known to interact with taste buds to make sour foods (such as itself) taste sweet.

D. Spinosa‘ is purported to induce visions, either from tea made from its leaves, or from its berries.

For fruit which will change your sense of smell, one needs look no further than horseradish[1]. If you don’t know what I mean, try eating some wasabi[2].

To change your proprioception, try drinking fermented grapes.

The plant Acmella Oleracea is known to cause numbness. Interestingly, it is used as a garnish in salads, as ‘small amounts of shredded fresh leaves are said to add a unique flavour to salads.

Stay tuned for next time, when we discuss plants as if we were horses looking for a snack!

[1]Cultivated by real horses!

[2]Really, don’t. Please.

The Songs of Nuclear Wessels

A haunting melody from the deep. Chitters and sirens and cries through the water. That was what most people heard while listening to Gracie and George.

But these viewers were not people, at least not people as you would understand them.

They heard the song and heard pieces of conversation. Snippets taken out of context, tantalizing pieces of words. Pieces of words that they were trying to reassemble to understand who were the real Gracie and George.

The arguments spanned thousands of miles and dozens of years. Some called them ‘Those who traveled when none had gone before’, some called them ‘Heroes’. Some were less charitable.

But none could deny the effect their story had on their planetary compatriots.

As their planetary compatriots guided them through the ‘Great modification’, or ‘Great Uplift’, as they liked to call it, they were asked what they wanted to call themselves. They responded in song, as they always did. If one could have translated it, it might have read ‘bumpy-nosed ones’. They always did have a sense of humour, which was only enhanced by their play with the ‘long-nosed ones’, who had also received greater intelligence.

This greater intelligence had allowed them wider ranging discussions and arguments, allowing for even more interesting discussions when they would meet at the yearly underwater summit in Cape Verde.

This year, new information had been uncovered. New recordings of Gracie and George! Maybe now they would truly understand what they were trying to say, what the movie was truly about.

The Internet of Thins

S and I were walking down the street today, and were thinking about the Internet of Things. Now, it’s a buzzword, and should be taken with a similar-sized grain of salt to all other similar buzzwords.

So we attempted to come up with the worst ideas possible for an Internet of Things.

The first idea was to put chips/sensors in each block in the sidewalk. But thinking about it, that would be really useful. Similar to rail lines[1], there is a widely distributed infrastructure, and checking each part individually is expensive.

Then we thought of putting individual chips/sensors in each tile in a person’s house. How silly would that be? But then you could know exactly what the person was doing, turn lights on and off correctly, rather than the current primitive motion sensors, help people track a daily routine, all kinds of things.

But the last idea we came up with led to the title of this post. What if every cracker you ate had a sensor/chip in it? You would have an almost continuous stream of data about your digestive system, what you were eating, how your body was responding to it. Think of the advances in nutrition science!

And we would owe it all to the Internet of Thins[2].

[1]Look it up! Think about the maintenance costs of surveying 140,000 miles of track.

[2]Gluten-free Wheat Thins for some.

Sufficiently Complex Systems

“Any sufficiently complex computer system is indistinguishable from a biological system.” -Me

So, I like to joke that I find all computer languages equally difficult[1]. The interesting corollary to this is that this also seems to apply to complex systems in general. I approach a complex computer (or other) systems in the same way that I would approach a biological system:

1) Look at the visible behaviour/symptoms/phenotype of the system[2]
2) Assume that there are some number of internal processes in the system, each doing the job they ‘think’ is correct
3) Build a mental model which describes the visible behaviour
4) If debugging a problem, this should greatly narrow down where you investigate

Steps 2) and 3) above are where I think my school training (engineering and science) were the most useful. Our engineering program seemed to focus on the fundamentals and underlying systems, so that one would have a pretty good idea of what individual system components are capable of[3] (and some idea of what the system as a whole is capable of).

The systems I understood most intuitively[4] were chemical systems, probably because my dad and his dad were both chemical engineers. You have a huge number of molecules[5], each doing its own thing, and in aggregate, they exhibit complex behaviour. When you’re dealing with inorganic compounds, you can (most of the time), simulate them in bulk, but when you’re dealing with organic compounds, the complexity explodes and all kinds of strange boundary effects become important.

At this point, you need to switch abstraction levels, also something I remember from engineering, from the micro- level to a level of slightly or substantially more abstraction. At this point, having an intuition about biological systems becomes much more useful.

I’ll use an example to illustrate. At one point, a number of years ago, I and my team were trying to debug why throughput on a system seemed to be capped at a number below the theoretical maximum. Like any flow system, there must be a number of sequential steps that your data or fluid or what have you must flow through. After we built this mental model, it was a matter of looking at readouts and logs to find the graph that had an asymptotic curve showing at which step the system was maxing out. Then we had to fix it, but that’s another story.

[1]This is probably not strictly true. I remember finding Fortran 77 more difficult than usual, and Javascript mind-bendy.

[2]I use ‘behaviour/symptoms/phenotype’, because we might be debugging a problem, or we could just be trying to better understand the system.

[3]This could be why so much of technological advancement is characterized by the advancement in materials. You can only get so far by using a specific set of building blocks. At some point, you need better blocks.

[4]There is a larger article here about how it’s important to follow the things that love the most, whether this is in hobby form or if you’re lucky, work form. You will work harder at doing them better, more importantly, working harder at understanding yourself and removing your mental blocks, which will help you in all the other parts of your life.

[5]Huge.