Free men are not equal, equal men are not free.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Trust Me...

Let it never be said that engineers do not have a sense of humor - or can't recognize their foibles.


If you don't laugh at this you aren't an engineer, or someone who's dealt in related fields, or thinks like one. Hell, just living with en engineer should get a chuckle out of you from this video.

It's certainly the nightmare child of redneck "hey y'all, check this out" with heavy equipment.

For another guy who is possibly too smart for his own good, National Geographic makes it difficult to see the full episodes, but you can see clips of Travis Taylor, redneck rocket scientist, Baen author, and inspiration for the Looking Glass series by John Ringo, from Huntsville, his Apollo machinist dad (the one with common sense), and his friends, build crazy stuff like moonshine powered rockets, and home-made rocket-powered hovercraft.



Apple and SJW Convergence

Recently at VoxDay's, a commenter had asked why Apple, despite obviously focusing on SJW-centric issues, had not imploded severely.

My take on it.

Steve Jobs was a hard-core liberal. Maybe, several years after his death, he would have become an SJW as well, but one can only take him at what he chose to do before his death. Like his choices or not, Apple kit wasn't simply flashy looks for a lot of money - despite several missteps pushing technology beyond practical limits, he methodically laid the groundwork to build hardware at a quality level and price point that no - one could achieve. Yes - there were cheaper laptops - Apple didn't sell cheap ones. There were faster ones, there were more expandable ones, but you wouldn't get much that was as solidly built, with similar performance specs, at a significantly cheaper price point elsewhere.

He was obsessively fixated on creating his vision of a fantastic product, with the attendant tradeoffs.

Corporate welfare or virtue signaling? He wanted to change the world by making a great desktop, a great laptop, a great pocket computer. He considered charity and causes to be something individuals at the company could do - or not - and not something for the company to advertise.

Cue Tim Cook. Apple now makes a big deal out of how inclusive their presentations are, and other social issues they support. From here and there I've heard how hard this focus on inclusiveness, etc. has been pushed internally. If you focus on something other than the best code, the best product, the most effective and consistent manufacturing, well, you get more of that, and not the outstanding product.

Here's the thing - Apple has a lot of technical inertia. They have room to fall to mediocre as the mediocre companies fall to even worse, and can still relatively shine. It takes time for sloppy programming and focus to screw up existing, refined products and code. Unlike their competitors they have not become mere value-added, but intimately build and design and design the manufacturing of their products from the ground up. They still have a lot of low-level "tribal knowledge".

But they are screwing up. Nothing major - yet. A few more design issues that make you scratch your head and wonder "why did they make it charge like that" - but the pencil, or mouse, otherwise works great. A few more bugs creep into DNS handling. The product line starts to lose focus as more product types are added.

Given our choices are Google and Apple for mobile, even moving to Linux only helps a little bit - and the open source world is not entirely immune either. Leaving aside the various projects pushing codes of conduct, and pushing out founders, the lead developer of linux Mint doesn't want you using Mint if you support the Israeli government over Palestine (he has since removed the post).

Sunday, September 11, 2016

9/11

We already are forgetting.


Some of it, I know for a fact, are the rabbits, the R-selected liberals, who want to turn away and forget that there are wolves, that death waits. Who find remembering what happened "too morbid" or "too sad" or "you're just stirring up anger against muslims" as if that's a trump card.

I don't remember because I want to feel pain. I remember because I must - so the people who died that day are not forgotten. So that we don't forget the systemic malfeasance that led up to that day, the shoddy advice to just give hijackers what they wanted (and maybe they'll go away). 

To remember the fucking embarrassment of panicked legislation that - despite over a decade of the left screaming at conservatives was passed with bipartisan unity, over the objections of the left, and much of the right. The rights stripped from us.

These people want us to turn away from the memory of the jumpers, the falling man (1), the collapse, the debris, the bodies, flight 93, and even the one bright moment of "let's roll". They've systemically stopped showing the damage, the destruction. Pulling back to ever more distant and sterile views where you could not see the bodies, the debris, the apocalyptic dust cloud rushing toward the pedestrians on the streets. They edited out the sounds of the bodies hitting overhead from the video of the firefighters.

They want to forget, and they want us to forget, to be tranquil. To live a life dulled without the responsibility of memory. I refuse. I choose anger. I choose pain. I choose sadness - so I can know who 

The only other memory as stark, flashed and burned deep into my head in a moment of accelerate time, was the "oh shit" moment of learning about the Challenger explosion. 

I was detached from my usual command to learn enough about rigging operations to help out with pierside evolutions. We were in class, shooting the shit just before 9am, when someone came into the room, had just hear that a plane had hit one of the towers. We looked at each other, wondered what kind of horrible accident it could be. Was it deliberate?

Then we heard of the second plane, and looked at each other, and knew, just knew it was not an accident. We didn't need a third time to know it was enemy action. Gone for me was the illusion that the Cole, or even the first WTC bombings, were just flukes. Add to that the certain knowledge similar to the Cole - that the lack of negotiations, hostages, political demands, made that an act of war and not old-fashioned terrorism. 

We were dismissed, told to try to come back after lunch. I couldn't get on base - waiting an hour to move half a mile and the base still a mile away. Called my chief, and with permission took the rest of the day, and part of the next, off, to come back and help supplement the swing shift.

I joined my friends, and watched in shock the smoke, the debris, the few shots of the jets approaching and striking. Tom Clancy taking the human intelligence community to task - and not returning to the air after the break. 

Well, I thought they were my friends. We were talking, and I pointed out that we now had a very limited set of choices. That the attackers, and their compatriots, were only allowing us the choice to die like sheep, or be willing to kill them before we died, as they were perfectly willing to die either way just to get the chance to kill us. 

I lost a lot of friends that day, and one girl I was probably better off not dating but it hurt at the time. A fairly liberal crowd, but events will show who can face simple, stark, reality, and even then, people couldn't, were afraid to.

They want to forget, and they want us to forget, to be tranquil. To live a life dulled without the responsibility of memory. To not be reminded of the wolves and demons and monsters in human guise. I refuse. As I recently said elsewhere, I choose anger.  

(1) - Go read the esquire article on the falling man

I Choose Anger. I Choose Intolerance

Meanwhile, back a few days at Vox Day's - a comment:
Everyone knows about the paradox of tolerance. The solution is simply to choose intolerance. The thing about SJWs is that they continue to call intolerance "tolerance." Herbert Marcuse, doyen of the New Left, coined the term "repressive tolerance" for it, which is of course an oxymoron.

They love such wordplay. Makes them feel clever. It gives me the shivers.
Me too.

We keep getting told "don't be angry" by people who are perpetually outraged. We get told to be "tolerant" by people who simply cannot tolerate disagreement.

Fuck that noise.

I believe that violence, anger, and intolerance, are all necessary things, at the right time, and the right place. Living by anger, being controlled by it, is Wrath. But some things - like the repeated rape of 1400+ girls while officials looked the other way out of fear of being called racist? - deserve anger. The people who think we should never be angry can never accept it, and cannot control it. We choose what to tolerate, and what is intolerable.  We discriminate, and judge, because some things are better than others, for anyone with values. I choose to accept that violence is part of the spectrum of possible actions, in part because those who would do evil will turn to violence in turn, and sometimes nothing else can stop it.

To say that no-one is better than anyone else, that nothing is better than anything else, that no choice is better than another, is to say you value nothing.

I do not choose the path of wrath or unthinking bigotry, but I absolutely choose to accept that there are things worthy of anger, and things which cannot be tolerated, or left to sand.

I embrace the full breadth of what it means to be human.

The Cruxshadows said it well in the Eye of the Storm (yes, Ringo was referring to the song in his book title)
There is no love untouched by hate
No unity without discord
There is no courage without fear
There is no peace without a war
There is no wisdom without regret
No admiration without scorn

Friday, September 9, 2016

Gameplay and Antifragility

Eric Raymond a while back published some observations on strategies to win games, titled A secret of game-fu.
I have a rule: when in doubt, play to maximize the breadth of your option tree. Actually, you should often choose option-maximizing moves over moves with a slightly higher immediate payoff, especially early in the game and most especially if the effect of investing in options is cumulative.

This rule has many consequences. In pick-up-and-carry games, it means that given any choice in the matter you want to start by deploying or moving your train or spaceship or whatever to the center of the board. You minimize your expected distance over the set of all possible randomly-chosen destinations that way. You give yourself the best possible chance to “get lucky” by finding a fattest possible contract or trade opportunity that you can deliver in minimum time.

More generally, in games with multiple paths to victory, open as many of those paths as you can. And heavily favor moves that help you explore the possibilities faster than your opponents. In Empire Builder, buy the faster train as soon as possible. In Merchants of Venus, the first ship upgrade I bought was better engines.
This is Taleb's "Antifragility" as strategy. Keep options open, fail fast, and allow for and accept that some paths, if not most, will fail.