Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Most of these self-exposing posts are the result of a comment or criticism somew

    Most of these self-exposing posts are the result of a comment or criticism somewhere that attributes intention to me that I do not possess.

    I like to take opportunity for psychologism off the table. It weakens verbal attacks. So I keep my life achievemnts and my personal life, and my personal thoughts in public. So it then requires opponets to propose an argument that defeats it, rather than for me to defend against opponents.

    I am ruthless and cunning and manipulative, I know I am. I cop to use of all sorts of strategic suggestion. I do that on purpose. That’s something I learned from marketing and running companies with people who have no idea what you’re talking about if you speak on equal terms. Its’ why I use suggestion here online – because i don’t think I can make my points in my native ‘absurd detail’. And smart folks know exactly what I am doing. But … I also lay out the detail elsewhere so you can find it – and people do.

    But honestly, my motivations are what I have said they are – trivially simple. (a) elminate conflict through superior communication, and (b) solve the problem of having to listen to conservatives argumentatively flounder, and (c) give my people someting to fight for. (d) and if all else fails, start a fight so that my people will fight.

    That said. I’m a hamster. I’m gandalf or aristotle, not conan or alexander. And personally I think of myself more as a hobbit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 14:53:00 UTC

  • 90 DAY ADVICE ON USING REACT.JS AND RELATED TECH (revised and expanded) #react #

    90 DAY ADVICE ON USING REACT.JS AND RELATED TECH

    (revised and expanded) #react #mobx #javascript

    I’m using React, Mobx, my own Event manager. I’ve been at it for 90 days. I chose it after spending about 90 days testing the alternatives. I have found it terribly slow, painful, and fragile technology, but technology that DOES deliver on the promised performance at large scale.

    FINDINGS

    1) React is immature. It is poorly architected. The documentation must have been written by an Asian for whom english is a second language, that never wrote documentation before, and for whom the concept of passive voice and low context definitions was never learned in school. The support community is immature and all but useless. BUT … React is fast. That’s it. It’s simple. And the fundamental concept of the DOM as a database for rendering UI’s, and only rendering the DOM elements that change by use of diff-ing from an intermediary database is genius. This is not a novel concept. It has been in the spec for browsers for a long time. But FB actually did it.

    But (and it is a big but) for some reason it appears that the ‘chipmunks’ (kids) at Facebook have never written a text, 2d,or 3d game engine, whether single, multi, or massively multiplayer, or they would have understood that this is the architectural pattern that they are wrestling with: Containers (spaces, or components, or forms, or documents), Nouns(things), Verbs(events, actions), States(Measures that are testable), Transformations (or operations), Render-sequencers, and Renderers(Display for Human Beings). If that was the case, we would not write our react applications as elaborate and tragically fragile pseudocode in javascript (like they force us to), but merely define containers, nous, verbs, states, and renderers, and let React (the engine) make use of that information. In other words, we would define data, and program very little but transformations and renders.

    And then we could write web apps like any of the tens of thousands of other apps that use this architectural pattern do. (It is, after all, what I recommend as the universal application pattern — and is what our product Oversing is based upon. Oversing is an enormous ERP platform, but fundamentally, architecturally, it’s a game engine — which is why you don’t need to code to replace the previous generation of Enterprise Platforms. )

    So, deterministically, I would see React either migrating to the standard game pattern over time, or being replaced by a framework that employs this standard patter over the top of react. React’s primary value is its construction of an alternate DOM, and its diff-ing algorithms. The rest of the architecture is clearly invented by a product of postmodern educational system and totally ignorant of history. If I wasn’t reforming western philosophy, and trying to ship the next generation of business platform software at the same time, I would maybe take up this little project — but I don’t have the juice or time.

    2) Javascript is an inherently fragile language, and an especially, a syntactically fragile language. Most of my recommendations originate in circumventing the many errors that arise in javascript code due to the need to infer developer intentions from the use of syntactical variation within that fragility rather than explicit declarations of intent.

    For some reason there is a bit of a cult in javasccript and functional programming like there was in C, Lisp, and Perl, and too weak of a community to compete with it like there was in Smalltalk and C++ and the eventual scale of object oriented programming. Not that there aren’t uses for both, but the primary difference is in the readability of code. I do like that in javascript you can program in Pascal style (functions within functions). But I don’t like that we can’t choose strong typing, scope, and object declarations so that the compilers can take the place of three testers per developer, or halving the productivity of developers because of the fragility of the language.

    That said, Javascript is now the intermediary language and the future looks certain: various languages complile to javascript with a variety of options, and basic javascript will replace bytecode as a more human readable pre-execution language. What does this mean? it means that you won’t see javascript in a few years, because it will be replaced by more stable languages that improve your productivity. And today’s Babel and Webpack will take the place of compilers of yesteryear. (This is obvious but for newbies I think it might be helpful in career planning.)

    There is no reason that if we use Babel and Webpack today and Hot loading we do not produce javascript as the output of that ‘process of compiling’. We are just compiling to javascript the way we have always compiled software — with the virtue that compiling to javascript is machine independent like byte-code, but even better, it’s largely human-readable.

    There is a lot of babble in the javascript community over the future of the language, and huffing and puffing over the features coming down the line — and I think this is going to result in hot air. No one writes in assembler any more (I used to write my graphics and AI routines in assembler), and I see javascript going the way of assembly language. When? As soon as we see a framework that solves all its problems AND uses the underlying strategy of React.

    Why? Because what we are all spending billions of dollars and millions of hours on writing today in order to circumvent an archaic set of technologies: The MS operating system imported from Digital Equipment and designed to run continuous processes on expensive hardware, the superiority of the whatever-nix operating systems at running temporary processes on cheaper hardware; the (finally) arrival of node.js and the many variations it’s generating to overcome this archaic operating system limitation; the archaic browser architecture based on the dom, the archaic language we call javascript that the browsers depend upon, the means of circumventing those archaic technologies we call diff-ing the virtual DOM, (and its now many kin), and the postmodern (OMG) reinvention of the wheel (text adventure games) we call react and its imitators (Angular2 and others.)

    So why am I investing in a technology that I see as intermediary and not ready for prime time? Because the underlying solution will mature, and our product needs the performance that comes from the diff-ing of the react-dom, and the browser dom.

    3) I don’t see any reason to use any state solution other than Mobx for state management. Everything else is a waste of time, and adds fragility to your code. React’s state management is relatively incompetent at complex changes in state. So ignore it and simply rely on Mobx. I prefer using decorators for Mobx to keep the syntax very simple and clear, as well as keep the declarations of what is under state management in Mobx or not very clear. it isn’t inferred. it’s declarative.

    4) Binding is a catastrophe for maintenance in javascript, vastly increases boilerplate, and dramatically compounds the opportunity for error. So far it has been the source of almost every error I have found in my code. Javascript offers a range of syntactic solutions to binding, and others have written translators (compilers) that attempt to solve this problem. Having surveyed all of them, the most flexible declarative and maintainable is to use autobind in the constructor. So that all methods of an object are automatically bound unless you state otherwise using an exception parameter.

    5) There are many ways of constructing components and all are eventually reduced by the ‘compilers’ to javascript. However, some of these methods are implied, and some of them are declarative. I recommend using only two classes of components: (a) constants for anything that renders only using static parameters passed to it. and classes for anything that uses references (binding) or state (variables).

    6) There are many ways of constructing ‘stores’ (models that manage data), but only one of them is reliable, and that is using the Provider functionality, so that all stores (models) are instantiated as single instances, and are accessible by injection into any component that requires them.

    CLOSING

    So we have an archaic operating system (the browser and the DOM)

    We have an archaic intermediary language (javascript)

    We have a childishly postmodern positioning statement around an ancient textual game engine design pattern (React).

    And we are currently in the process of developing compilers to this intermediary archaic language (javascript)

    And we have yet to see a language or framework that eliminates the fragility of these layers of archaic technologies so that they are anywhere near the equivalent of their archaic counterparts (text adventure games), or their current equivalents (3d adventure games).

    So that’s what I’ve learned (painfully).

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 14:18:00 UTC

  • You see. I made a tool. A weapon. Intellectual weaponry. How you use that weapon

    You see. I made a tool. A weapon. Intellectual weaponry. How you use that weapon is up to you. And you will see, that after people follow me for a while, and begin to understand how to use that tool, they are don’t act like sycophants at all. They may sound very similar, but they argue using this tool for different purposes in different frames, to pursue different tactics. And this is what I want. It’s like doing accounting. You can do propertarian accounting just as you can do monetary accounting. You can measure the sums of many different kinds of things and reduce it to some statement of gain or loss, or some change in the balance sheet. That’s what properatrianism lets you do.

    Now, in ADDITION to propertarianism and testimonialism, I ALSO advocate for the use of violence to restore sovereignty, markets in everything, and the production of AGENCY, so that we conduct TRANSCENDENCE of mankind over the centuries – and exit this ball of wet rock.

    And I know its easy to confuse the science with the preference.

    But they are independent things. You can construct a governmetn of any kind that you want to using propertarianism and testimonialism and natural law – as long as you do it truthfully.

    I just advocate the restoration of my people to our position as the drivers of innovation for humanity in the ancient and modern worlds.

    But I don’t conflate the science with the preference.

    Everyone who follows me does. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 12:54:00 UTC

  • THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE Once you experience the epiphany th

    THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE

    Once you experience the epiphany that we live in an age of largely pseudoscientific discourse, changing only the terms from supernatural, to moral, to rational, and now to pseudoscientific, your understanding of the world will change so dramatically that you may (as I have) experience profound anger at those who invented and perpetuated the new pseudoscientific religion we are all the victims of – we are the wage and credit slaves of pseudoscience rather than religion.

    We replaced the rule of law reducible to experience that we can all judge, and the payment of taxes we can all observe with rule of finance and credit which is not – and is nothing but a vehicle for fraud.

    In other words -and get ready for this to shock you – we replaced the mysticism of religion with the promise of afterlife in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now, for the promise of retirement and the abandonment of want in our later lives in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now.

    We transitioned from the treatment of money and credit as beneath those who rule, and limited by rule of law, and moral hazard, and outsourcing it to ‘lower people of lesser character’, to abandoning rule of law that we can sense, perceive, and taxes we can sense and percieve, to the expropriation of everything we produce by those who use our inability to sense and percieve to defraud us.

    There is no secret to fiat money – it is merely shares in the corporation of the commons we call ‘the state’. There is no reason to require third parties to distribute shares – and there never was. And with the advent of fiat money (paper shares), credit money (promises of future paper shares), and digital money (the elimination of the need for paper to represent the shares) there is no reason whatsoever to preserve the ‘trick’ of making consumers pay for access to their own shares (as common shareholders) rather than forcing business, industry, banking, and finance, as well as the state, to fight with each other in order to obtain some portion of them.

    Moreover, there is no reason any of this process is not fully governable by rule of law, independent of human discretion, and forbidden by teh constitution, defended by the courts, and enforced by militia, and the army if necessary. And therefore fully transparent and free of deceit and parasitism upon the people.

    We will need to draw a lot of blood.

    Do a lot of killing.

    Do a lot of burning.

    And enact a few legislative changes.

    But in the end, the people who lie cheat and steal, will be deprived of that opportunity. And those who still live after our cleansing of their kind, will have to search for other useful means of surviving under the rule of natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:54:00 UTC

  • THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT It is the nature of an auti

    THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT

    It is the nature of an autistic (deflationary, context-independent, norm independent) mind to break everything into the smallest possible constituent parts: where causality is determined (axiomatic or closed causality), and to find comprehensibility at that level of detail. Yet still recognize that normals cannot comprehend at that level of detail. And to be frustrated that no abstraction of that level of detail will convey the information present at that level of detail without the introduction of error.

    I have come to think of that level of detail as ‘context-free’ description; and to think of normie-levels of detail as ‘context-dependent’ levels of detail.

    So this is why, when I have an individual or group to talk to, I can listen to them a bit and determine their frames of reference – their ‘contexts’ – then I can reframe the argument for their context.

    What I am NOT good at (and you and others are much better at) is determining a NORMATIVE CONTEXT to use in lieu of the interpersonal context we obtain during discourse.

    So this is why I require such precise definitions: to create a categorically consistent, an internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially consistent, and scope(scale) limited, thereby creating a fully correspondent context.

    And this is why I take so much time and work so hard to produce so many series and lists, and so many aphorisms, that state both via positiva and via negativa such that balance and completeness are contained in a pithy statement of observation.

    The great Chinese philosophers (Confucius and Lao Tzu) probably failed for no other reason than Chinese is a high context low precision language. But they managed to create so many aphorisms and riddles to accomplish by suggestion that which cannot be stated in their language with precision free of context.

    Efficient communication requires context and suggestion and truthful communication requires their absence. Loading communicates one’s value attributions. Framing narrows normative context and can be used to justify one’s decisions or to deceive.

    Or very simply, it takes three points to test a line, a series to test a definition, the combination of via-positiva, and via-negativa assertions to test a statement, and a full accounting using all of the above to test an argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 09:44:00 UTC

  • EXPLAINING PROPERTARIANISM TO MOM My mom. 80th birthday yesterday. Says to me ov

    EXPLAINING PROPERTARIANISM TO MOM

    My mom. 80th birthday yesterday. Says to me over coffee, that her friends can’t understand my work. And that she can’t understand my work. So I go into this little speech to try to make it accessible to those with life experience and last-century educations.

    She says that philosophy classes ruined religion for her. I said, that’s because philosophy, like religion, like science, claims that they’re methodologically ‘right’ – and that they have a monopoly on understanding. Rather than that they are methods of answering questions with different amounts of information, and different degrees of skill, and different degrees of ability.

    She asks me about precision.

    So I explain first how most of us want utility, and we need to find others to test our ideas, and to get cooperation, and to organize by rallying.

    Then how we might use science when we have a lot of information, history when we have a little less, philosophy when we have less information and can only rely on non-contradiction and internal consistency, and religion when we have exhausted our information and can only rely upon the wisdom of the past – ideas that have survived the test of centuries. That’s because with religion we need not require possibility, existence, consistency, or evidence, just wisdom. With philosophy we need not require possibility or existence or evidence, just consistency. With history we need not require causality, just evidence of existential possibility. And with science we require causality.

    So we have developed languages that suit the amount of information that we have. And what we must watch for, and be cautious of, is the misuse of method given the information available – because that is how people lie.

    Now, because people lie, we also have the opposite of those things that help us find ideas, get cooperation, and organize by rallying. Those things are mathematics, science, the limits of human beings, and the law of cooperation.

    Now, everyone wants to think about possibilities, and rally people to their cause, and to obtain information in support of, and confirmation of their cause as ‘not immoral’.

    But very few people want to think about how to test those things against ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

    So to tie this back to what I do, I work in the negative: the law. How to measure (math), tell the truth( science), and to test cooperation (natural law).

    In other words, I write about the laws of measurement, truth, and cooperation, as a defense against ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

    And this is a specialized field. A technical field. And as people with experience in teaching, they know what STEM disciplines are mathematics, science(physics, chemistry, biology, sentience), technology/engineering, economics/finance/accounting/law. These are means of transformation, measurement, and decidability independent of our perceptions. They measure what we cannot feel and experience.

    And there are non-stem disciplines: arts, religion, philosophy, politics, history, literature, education, psychology, sociology, social work, business, and its applications. These are not methods of measurement but of meaning – what we can feel and experience.

    Now I wouldn’t expect ‘friends’ to understand advanced math, science, tech, engineering, econ, finance, or law terminology. I don’t know why people would expect to understand what I write about.

    They won’t.

    But what is fascinating about humans is our continued faith that we have some ability to grasp the moral, right and true, and immoral, wrong and false, at SOME SCALE BEYOND THEIR PERCEPTION any more than we can make any other judgements without tools at any scale beyond that of our senses.

    And that is what STEM (and law) disciplines do: understand, measure, and decide that which is beyond our perceptions and ability to judge by personal experience.

    (Or, to tease my mother – it’s a man thing. Don’t worry about it. lol.)

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 14:03:00 UTC

  • YOU NEED TO WRITE SOMETHING ACCESSIBLE (ACTUALLY, NO I DON’T) Colloquial verse (

    YOU NEED TO WRITE SOMETHING ACCESSIBLE (ACTUALLY, NO I DON’T)

    Colloquial verse (narrative) comes last, not first. I have just finished what looks like 25 years of work, and six to eight of it full time, to ensure I knew what I was talking about. History is full of ‘accessible literature’ that did no good whatsoever, other than to satisfy the cravings of those not needing conversion. I wanted to wait until I knew what I was talking about.

    Our (my group’s) strategy all along has been to complete the work then produce a second version wrapped in literary references (examples pro and con).

    I do not think it is my job or function to talk to the common folk. And I do not think it is possible for me to do it. I think it is much more possible for the followers who enjoy that to do it. And that has been our plan all along.

    And furthermore, your intuition is false. It might be true for populism under democracy, but it won’t shift the world.

    Instead, look what nearly incomprehensible scribblers (like me) have achieved when we produce rigorous systems of thought – we live – largely unconsciously – in a society formed almost entirely by the writings of incomprehensible, often counter-intuitive, in their era-revolutionary, ‘scribblers’.

    And those want to organize people use those scribbles to do so.

    And arguments roll downhill.

    Just how it is.

    I originally did my work in public, becuase it was the only way to get decent criticism in a timely fashion. I kept doing it for that reason. And I continue doing it because I learn a great deal from those who follow me (and increasingly less so from critics).

    So your intuition is incorrect. That’s the evidence. Few people know who Spinoza was, no one has read darwin actually, or keynes, or acquinas, or hume, or kant. Or Marx for that matter. But we all live in societies constructed by the scribblings of these people.

    Power seeks argument.

    It is up to some of us to produce the weapons that those who can exert power seek.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 10:45:00 UTC

  • I want a high trust, moral, ethical, and truthful, and redistributive society. A

    I want a high trust, moral, ethical, and truthful, and redistributive society. And I want room for all the wacky people in this world. They’re a luxury good. I want the ability for the left coasts to do as they will, the heartland as they will. And every variation in between. And I see no reason for continent-wide cultural monopoly that creates conflcit now boiling into hatred, and soon in to civil war. And most importantly, what I don’t want is the continued erosion of Rule of Law, Juridical Law making, and pervasive lying in government, and so I want to wreck it and start over – so we can have both. There are good ways and bad ways of doing things and oppression of one another is not a good way. The constitution was designed to require us to preserve at the state level our differences, and only the common at the federal level. Unfortunately the civil war ended our constitution. But, that said, now that the land grasp of the western continent is over, there is no reason NOT to Devolve the fed. So, let us diversify the culture. And may the best men win.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 19:52:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENS

    HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE

    —“Regarding: “I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional,” You are babbling gibberish as always. What does this sentence mean?”— Joseph Nerevar

    It’s not gibberish, its very dense, but thank you for asking.

    In the future, the ‘gentlemanly’ way to ask a question is:

    “Curt can you *unpack* that sentence or paragraph for me?”

    Necessary, vs academic, vs traditional, vs normative, vs colloquial language. By necessary I refer to ‘what it can mean’ versus what we mean academically, traditionally, normatively, or colloqually.

    The principle function of Testimonialism (the funny way I talk) is to speak in very precise language so that you can’t fool yourself (or others) into thinking you know what you’re talking about (or lying).

    We use a particular technique when defining terms, that is a bit complicated for me to repeat here. But just as I listed Necessary, academic, traditional, normative and colloquial above as a *series* of terms, when we use any term we create a series (list) that includes it, and then we define each term as a series of human actions (and decisions) using a particularly rigid grammar (sentence structure, and vocabulary), where we list what states of property people are trying to change, and whether they are doing so honestly and truthfully or not, and what degree of precision they are using (scientific to literary to supernatural for example). The end product is a very clear set of definitions that cannot be used to ‘hide’ attempted thefts (or frauds or whatever).

    In the case of ‘politics’, we use this word in an ancient sense, but conflate it (mix it up in colloquial language) as if it’s a catch-all for ‘stuff related to government. What politics means of necessity (scientifically), is a means by which groups organize to construct commons (territory, capital, organizations, goods, services, information and institutions).

    But what groups? Groups that have the choice to organize a MARKET for the production of commons, or a deciding body that does so, or a dictator that does so?

    The west made use of markets for the production of commons at different scales – almost always locally, and as often as possible in government. We made markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of the resolution of disputes (law), production of polities, and war.

    How many other civilizations used politics (markets?) in everything? And why is it that we developed reason, a science of politics, common law, republicanism and democracy, and why are those methods almost unique to the west?

    Politics: the operations of a market for construction of commons.

    Rule is something else altogether.

    Ergo, where we use the word Politics, other civilizations use Rule. And we do not ourselves even understand the necessary meaning of the word that we use.

    Hence why democracy has been conducted as a war on rule of law, in order to end the market for the construction of commons, and replace it, like all other civilizations have, with discretionary rule.

    CLOSING

    So you see, what you ‘hear’ as gibberish is a scientific language, but because you are used to speaking morally (intuitively) about these subjects, you hear this very technical method of argument and react to it, where if we were talking about chemistry or physics, or mathematics, or epistemology, you would simply accept that they are terms that you don’t know.

    I speak, and those who follow me learn to speak, in truthful (scientific) language, where meanings are precise, just like any other professional discipline.

    Now …. do you expect me to write this kind of detail in every argument that I make, or do I have your permission to speak in dense language for those who grasp it, and leave open the opportunity for explanation for those who are curious but lack the knowledge to comprehend it on their own?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:35:00 UTC

  • Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dum

    Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dumb). It’s easy to be correct when you choose your own causal density. It’s far harder to be correct when you can’t.

    Math is pretty simple for that reason, and we can delve into great complexity because of simplicity.

    But we are having problems in physics at higher causal density.

    And mathematics is all but useless in social science (say, in economics) because of causal density.

    And we can’t even figure out a unit of measure for sentience yet, which is an even higher causal density.

    So when people make statements like you just did, it sounds a little bit like someone saying chess is complicated. Actually it’s not. It’s a closed (ludic) game. It’s just hard for humans. There is math that is hard for humans for the same reason: mere scale of permutations. But it’s still trivial.

    Tell me how to measure the market value of a brand.

    Tell me how to measure the future rate of decline of iphone appeal.

    Tell me how to measure how much information it takes to change state from one idea to another?

    Doing puzzles is simple.

    Problems have high causal density.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 12:57:00 UTC