https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/789134321491779584/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=789134321491779584It took me 15 years. But in its most reductive form, this is the philosophy of western civilization.#tlot #tcot #NRx #altright #conservative https://t.co/OFF9TKtqp5
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:44:00 UTC
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/789134805023727616/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=789134805023727616The Four Eras of Western Man
#tcot #tlot #nrx #altright #Conservatives #newright https://t.co/KRAflqLFNg
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:36:00 UTC
http://bigthink.com/experts/jag-bhallaPURE GOLD
(by Jag Bhalla)
(from: http://bigthink.com/experts/jag-bhalla)
—“Complexity economist Brian Arthur says science’s pattern-grasping toolbox is becoming “more algorithmic … and less equation-based.” But the nascent algorithmic era hasn’t had its Newton yet.”—
(curt: exactly. that’s exactly what we’re trying to achieve. The transition from mathematical to algorithmic)
Nature invented software billions of years before we did. “The origin of life is really the origin of software,” says Gregory Chaitin. Life requires what software does (it’s foundationally algorithmic).
1. “DNA is multibillion-year-old software,” says Chaitin (inventor of mathematical metabiology). We’re surrounded by software, but couldn’t see it until we had suitable thinking tools.
2. Alan Turing described modern software in 1936, inspiring John Von Neumann to connect software to biology. Before DNA was understood, Von Neumann saw that self-reproducing automata needed software. We now know DNA stores information; it’s a biochemical version of Turning’s software tape, but more generally: All that lives must process information. Biology’s basic building blocks are processes that make decisions.
3. Casting life as software provides many technomorphic insights (and mis-analogies), but let’s consider just its informational complexity. Do life’s patterns fit the tools of simpler sciences, like physics? How useful are experiments? Algebra? Statistics?
4. The logic of life is more complex than the inanimate sciences need. The deep structure of life’s interactions are algorithmic (loosely algorithms = logic with if-then-else controls). Can physics-friendly algebra capture life’s biochemical computations?
5. Describing its “pernicious influence” on science, Jack Schwartz says, mathematics succeeds in only “the simplest of situations” or when “rare good fortune makes [a] complex situation hinge upon a few dominant simple factors.”
6. Physics has low “causal density” — a great Jim Manzi coinage. Nothing in physics chooses. Or changes how it chooses. A few simple factors dominate, operating on properties that generally combine in simple ways. Its parameters are independent. Its algebra-friendly patterns generalize well (its equations suit stable categories and equilibrium states).
7. Higher-causal-density domains mean harder experiments (many hard-to-control factors that often can’t be varied independently). Fields like medicine can partly counter their complexity by randomized trials, but reliable generalization requires biological “uniformity of response.”
8. Social sciences have even higher causal densities, so “generalizing from even properly randomized experiments” is “hazardous,” Manzi says. “Omitted variable bias” in human systems is “massive.” Randomization ≠ representativeness of results is guaranteed.
9. Complexity economist Brian Arthur says science’s pattern-grasping toolbox is becoming “more algorithmic … and less equation-based.” But the nascent algorithmic era hasn’t had its Newton yet.
10. With studies in high-causal-density fields, always consider how representative data is, and ponder if uniform or stable responses are plausible. Human systems are often highly variable; our behaviors aren’t homogenous; they can change types; they’re often not in equilibrium.
11. Bad examples: Malcolm Gladwell puts entertainment first (again) by asserting that “the easiest way to raise people’s scores” is to make a test less readable (n = 40 study, later debunked). Also succumbing to unwarranted extrapolation, leading data-explainer Ezra Klein said, “Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements.” That study neither represents all kinds of information, nor is a uniform response likely (in fact, assuming that would be ridiculous). Such rash generalizations = far from spotless record.
Mismatched causal density and thinking tools creates errors. Entire fields are built on assuming such (mismatched) metaphors and methods.
Related: olicausal sciences; Newton pattern vs. Darwin pattern; the two kinds of data (history ≠ nomothetic); life = game theoretic = fundamentally algorithmic.
(Hat tip to Bryan Atkins @postgenetic for pointer to Brian Arthur).
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:34:00 UTC
DEFINITIONS: DETERMINISM VS PROBABILITY
Probabilism is an issue of measurement precision, determinism means only ‘regular pattern’ not precision.
When we say that something is deterministic all we are saying is that it produces a pattern of regularity – like velocity.
So something demonstrates velocity, but we must say how much. Something demonstrates determinism but we must say how much.
All physical phenomenon can be described deterministically. The problem is whether or not they can be probabilistically.
A lot of phenomenon are deterministic – but not probabilistic (the neutrality of money for example)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:29:00 UTC
NORTHWEST / CANADIAN / AUSTRALIAN “PRIVILEGE”
We (Washingtonians) have the luxury of:
(a) we remain on the frontier. Frontiers demonstrate borderland ethics.
(b) never having had underclass relocation (we never had the ‘black’ problem, or the ‘catholic’ problem, or the ‘jewish’ problem and never had the ‘puerto rican’ problem, or the more recent ‘carribean problem’. And we don’t yet have the hindu/muslim problem. And we are not sure that the mexican problem is all that much of a problem.
(c) we had an initial scandinavian-dominant (protestant) population
(d) we had only two industries; Aviation and Technology and now Bio/Medical (although boston is still the center), and the dominance of the classes that arrived for those industries.
(e) the ‘hippie’ flight during the 60’s that sent the yuppies to seattle and the hippies to portland.
We are, like the nordics of europe, simply privileged by a lack of competitors on our territory.
I leave the self congratulation to Canadians and Austrialians, both of whom, like north-westerners, are beneficiaries of circumstance, who claim intentional high mindedness rather than simply inheriting the privilege of (a) whiteness and (b) remoteness)
As the princess said: “never confuse convenience with conviction, nor inheritance with achievement.”
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:11:00 UTC
–“High IQ was given to us so that we can rationalize bad behavior”–Youssef Khanjari
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 09:25:00 UTC
THE STATES OF JS VS PHP VS PYTHON AND BUILDING COMPLEX STUFF.
(When I first started learning lots of programming languages, books were written by people with significant skills, and the books were all organized the same way, with types, statements, operators, commands, functions and procedures, etc.
And they weren’t very wordy. They just gave examples, including the ‘gotcha’s’ and the recommended syntax. And so, sitting on the T in Boston, for example, i would just read, and re-read the manuals until I’d basically memorized it. And after your first programming language, as far as I can tell, that’s still the best way. to learn.
What I find today, is that aside from w3schools, this whole ‘dummies’ method of tutorial is dominant. And I find it so time consuming. And then the manuals don’t have enough depth by an expert saying ‘do it this way, and don’t do it this way, and here are the gotcha’s’.
The major differences between languages are:
1) whether it’s lingusitic and string based, softly typed, and largely interpreted, or mathematical and type based, and largely compiled. ( I work almost exclusively with problems of user interfaces (human-performance) so I care about linguistic myself. While if I had to write for machine-performance I’d use compiled languages like in the distant past when I wrote graphics routines in assembler.)
2) The scope and organization of variables and procedures.
3) The readability(verbosity) or symbolism(brevity) of the syntax.
4) The amount of existing libraries and resources that you can rely upon rather than re-writing plumbing all the time. (yay for open source).
The rest of it’s architecture. Like the current movement into Node.js, which launches and maintains residency of multiple instances. Or the php equivalent that’s emerging that creates an instance per processor. (ReactPHP and the equivalents).
Now, here is how I look at the current js/php/python stack: (human-interface languages. (I am not particularly insightful here, I’m just stating the obvious for those who are entering the field).
1) Python is a very clear language to write in. And it is easer to write code without bugs. PHP retains the verbosity, but it is harder two write ‘brackety’ code. Javascript loses all verbosity, is the least readable, and is hardest to write in without bugs. Javascript and PHP have enormous code bases to copy/paste, edit, and learn from. So you don’t have to create plumbing every time you want to do something. This is a little less true for Python.
2) The best application frameworks in existence are created in php, and the’re absolutely amazing. If we can begin to see something close in js then that would be wonderful. What I love about js and php is that there is so much available code to use and learn from. (I remember how impossible it was to reverse engineer assembly code that you wanted to copy.)
3) The trend with javascript is to write in one language and compile to browser-friendly-javascript. this is to compensate for the fact that it is difficult to write good, clean, debuggable, maintainable code with it. in other words, we are restoring verbosity to the code base. PHP and PYTHON remain verbose. i wold rather ask, why don’t we write in PHP and PYTHON and compile to javascript, or why don’t we create a verbose and clean javascript interpreter for browsers? I mean, what’s the cost difference in updating the browser for a verbose language, versus having millions of people write verbose code, and compile it to an unreadable format for distribution? i dunno. Maybe I’m too much of an economist, but this just sounds ridiculous to me.
The counter-argument is that we are creating increasingly obscure js code, and shipping compact code to the browser. But given that one image changes all that, and that everyone uses images, I just don’t buy that as an excuse.
Anyway, until there are viable sql and amazon frameworks for node-js, and assuming that no one rewrites php/python for duplicating the running-residency of node-js, then for anything of consequence (and I only build complex things) I am still in the php/python camp, and I’m happy to dispose of Angular, and Angular 2 in favor of React against a php/python backend.
Why? Becuase the biggest risk in any application development of any scale is controlling the quality of the programmer’s code, and the use of frameworks (tested code bases) is the best way I know of for doing that.)
Anyway. That’s my thoughts for today.
And no. I think java was one of the worst things to happen to programming since (a) fortran over lisp, and (b) numerical processing over logical processing, and (c) object oriented architecture versus Pascal architecture. (Even if I prefer to write in OO myself still. Sorry. But I want my code as easy to read as a children’s book.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 09:19:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/07/man-is-merely-rational/MAN IS NOT MORAL OR IMMORAL BUT RATIONAL
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 08:13:00 UTC
THE ARYAN SPECIALIZATION IN DOMINANCE: ARISTOCRACY
The church wrote the history. The middle class wrote opposition: philosophy. The aristocracy did not write much of anything – other than aurelius. But they left us a record in the law.
We evolved contractual (and therefore empirical) warfare. We evolved testimonial (empirical) truth. We evolved testimonial (empirical) law. We evolved empirical science. And we evolved them in that order.
But we did not understand, and write down, our specialization in dominance, as we had written down our specialization in submission (christianity) or our specialization in middle class rebellion of exchange (philosophy).
Because we did not engage in CONFLATION, but in SPECIALIZATION, we evolved excellences in each tradition: christian submission and care-taking, middle class philosophy and trade, and aristocratic dominance and violence and rule
Our ancestors – lacking the imperial resources of the middle east and china – had to make use of every man possible in a militia: a voluntary, contractual method of warfare, funded with their own weapons and armor and training.
To accomplish this they specialized in dominance in the aristocratic families just as the lower classes specialized in submission, and the small middle class specialized in voluntary exchange.
So what the socialist and feminist attack on Aristocracy has consisted of, is to direct our mothers to education, and to deprive the boys of specialization in, improvement of, and mastery of dominance: to weaken us.
The last bastion is the military, which they have finally attempted to undermine.
They take advantage or our unwillingness to punish women and the weak.
Yet what crime by women and the weak against our people is so worthy of punishment?
We must re-master our dominance. We must remaster our violence. We must re-master our civilization. Or it will not only be gone. But we will deprive mankind of the one civilization, that through mastery of dominance and empiricism has raised mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, and disease and made possible our transcendence into the gods we seek?
WE MUST:
Create a ‘Book’ of Law for our people.
Restore the profitability of domestication of man, beast, and nature.
Restore rule of Law, Replace Legislation and Regulation with Contract.
Restore the stoic schools.
Restore the military schools
Restore the regiment
Restore the militia.
Restore the separation of genders in education.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 07:27:00 UTC
https://t.co/pYojn9neOXRetweeted Steven Pinker (@sapinker):
The sociological religion of no biological differences between the sexes « Why Evolution Is True
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 06:54:00 UTC