There’s A Sucker
Born Every Minute
Why you can bet
I'll find some rube to buy my corn
'Cause there's a sure-as-shooting sucker born a
minute
And I'm referrin' to the minute you was born
Want to buy some
NFT trading cards of Donald Trump?
Don the Con’s Non Fungible Token, NFT, cards, with him photoshopped
into various poses, have sold out. Nuff said suckers. Sometimes
this stuff just writes itself.
(What’s So
Funny ’Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding
And each time I feel like this inside
There's one thing I wanna know
What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding? Oh
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
The universe
is random, hyperbolic not flat, and understanding, err…tolerant.
If free will exists, then tolerance, the standard deviation from the mean of choice, also has to be almost 100%.
If, for example, before a choice you are unsaved, and after
that choice you are saved, then each person is either 100% saved or 100% unsaved,
and the most common choice is to be saved. Not everyone is saved at first, but eventually
many more will be saved. Mathematically this describes an exponential distribution,
λe-λx, with a rate parameter,
λ, choice, of 100%.
The problem is that the mean of an exponential distribution is not the mode,
the most common value. Also, the exponential distribution is not normal, it is
highly skewed; and is undefined for any value less than 0.
It is possible to shift, translate, the exponential distribution
along the x-axis to a new value, μ.
For reasons that I hope will become obvious later, let's shift that exponential
distribution to begin at 3. It remains skewed, and the most common value
is not the mean. Also there are no values to the right of this new value μ.
So let's pretend that the distribution is mirrored before this new value, and it effectively becomes a discontinuity at the new value.
To the right of that discontinuity there is e.g. the United Star Ship Enterprise
and a universe that favors System Optimality, Teamwork. To the left of that discontinuity there is a mirror, the Imperial Star Ship Enterprise, Mr. Spock has a goatee,
and that universe favors a User Optimality, Every Man For Himself. This can be described
mathematically as
(x<μ)*(λeλx+1) +(x≥μ) *(λe-λx), where again in the
example μ = 3. The
mode is equal to the mean which is equal to the median, and the skew is zero. However
there is a discontinuity at μ.
While a normal distribution also has a skew of zero, and the mean, median and
mode are all equal to a value, the function is NOT a normal distribution because it does not satisfy
the 68/95/99.7 rule. This would require that 99.7% of the values are within the
mean plus or minus 3 standard deviations from the mean. This also causes the value at x=0 to be almost zero since the mean is equal to the median and between zero and
the mean in a normal distribution will be 49.85% of the values, which is almost equal to 50%, the median. Since
the mirrored exponential distribution at zero is not zero, it is NOT a normal distribution.
It also fails when it is turned into a Cumulative Distribution Function, CDF. It has a CDF of -1 until approximately μ-3*μ where it begins to increase to a CDF of 1, which it approximately reaches when x >μ+3*μ. The ideal CDF should have a value of 0 when it is much less than the mean, and a value of 1 when it is much greater than the mean. The mirrored exponential distribution is NOT only not normal, it fails this CDF test, and it also is not consistent with observations. A distribution which is consistent with observations, and is considered to be normal, is a logistics distribution, e-(x-μ)/s / (s*(1+ e-(x-μ)/s)). This has a Cumulative Distribution Function of 1/ (1+ e-(x-μ)/s). For the CDF to have a value of 0.5, the median, at μ, then s must be 0.5. Then the CDF has a value of zero when x is zero. Its mean, median, and mode are all μ. Also if the CDF has a value of 0.5, the median, when x = μ, and s must be 0.5, then σ, the standard deviation from the mean, must be s*π/√3, or 0.91. This is also identical to a form of the hyperbolic trigonometric function, ½*sech2(x-μ).
To put this in narrative, not mathematical terms, if there
is free will, that is to say a choice can be made at any point, then tolerance must be much greater
than 0, and in fact it must exactly be 0.91.
A choice is between nothing and something, (0,1), not between something and
its opposite, ( -1, 1). Also it seems that the universe in which we live is hyperbolic,
i.e. is not flat.
Freedom
Freedom, freedom
Freedom, freedom
Freedom, freedom
Freedom, freedom
Sometimes I feel like a motherless child
Sometimes I feel like a motherless child
Sometimes I feel like a motherless child
A long way from my home
Republicans already have a “Freedom” Caucus.
How about a "Democracy" Caucus?
The election of the next Speaker
of the House may be along party lines. This makes it a two-player game. Game Theory explains why it is in interest of the nation that it at least be a three-player game. If it
is along party lines, the Speaker of the House may be Representative Kevin
McCarthy. His post will depend on the votes of the so called “Freedom” Caucus
and will lead to Committee Chairs for Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, “Gym” Jim Jordan, and Scott Perry, among
others. This is because the 40 or so members of the “Freedom” Caucus have discovered
that there is safety in numbers and will hold Speaker McCarthy hostage to advance
their interests.
Since these members of
the “Freedom” Caucus seem to be “rINOs,” “republicans In Name Only,” and are
opposed to the republic that is our democracy, it seems appropriate that those Republicans
that are opposed to this also band together into a “Democracy" Caucus. And that those members nominate someone for
the Speakership and that all Democrats vote for that nominee. There were 10 Republican
Representatives who voted against the party line to impeach Donald Trump. Only two
of those remain in the House, Rep. David Valadao and Rep. Dan Newhouse, but
the new Republican representatives from New York, as well as other real Republicans, should be potential members.
The “Freedom” Caucus is
already bad branding since they are not supporters of freedom. “Democracy”
Caucus may also be bad branding, since it may erroneously appear that these Republicans
are “Democrats.” It is the banding together as a group to preserve our republican
democracy that is important. How about a “Lincoln” Caucus? Since there is NOT a
requirement that the Speaker even be a Representative, how about nominating a prominent
Republican such as George Conway, Rick Wilson, Adam Kinzinger, Michael Luttig,
etc. Then maybe the nation won’t feel like a motherless child.
Fortunate
Son
Some
folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, Lord?
But when the taxman come to the door
Lord, the house lookin' like a rummage sale, yeah
It ain't
me, it ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son, no, no
It ain't me, it ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one, no
Those who
are millionaire’s sons apparently are NOT Prodigal sons either!
Lest we forget.
Luke 15:11-32
Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.
“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
“When he came to his senses, he
said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am
starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father,
I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be
called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and
went to his father.
“But while he was still a long way
off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his
son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
“Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
Brittney is home. The anger from those about that fact seems to
be shared by the older brother in this parable. I suggest that as penance those who are angry actually
read that Bible that they seem so fond of quoting.
The Bug
Sometimes
you're the windshield
Sometimes you're the bug
Sometimes it all comes together, babe
Sometimes you're a fool in love
Sometimes you're the Louisville slugger, babe
Sometimes you're the ball
Sometimes it all comes together, babe
Sometimes you're gonna lose it all, yeah
There is a
problem when one party thinks they’re the windshield and the other is the bug,
but the other party thinks the reverse is
true.
Twitter serves as a public town square. Its Tweets are
free to post and read. However the Twitter infrastructure is not free. Twitter
sells the information about its users to advertisers and that pays for the infrastructure.
The users of Twitter have one perspective, while Twitter itself has another perspective.
A town square is a public place. But there are laws, rules, and customs governing public spaces. Speakers are expected to not speak over
each other. Speakers are supposed to state opinions, not false facts. People are
not supposed to defame or harm others. Twitter's moderators and terms of service function
much the same way. If there is no moderation or rules, then there will probably be
no users. If there are no users, then there is no information to sell to advertisers.
If there is nothing to sell, then the infrastructure is not provided, Then there
is no private version of that public town square.
In economics, goods are classified by two dimensions: 1)
priced and unpriced, and 2) exclusive and non-exclusive (if I sell it to you, I
can not sell it to another.). From the perspective of the Twitter users, the
good is unpriced and nonexclusive. From the perspective of Twitter and its advertisers,
it is priced and nonexclusive. And that is the confusion. Twitter is not unpriced.
Just like a broadcast “free” TV show is not free, it is paid for by its advertisers.
It is “free”, but it is not unpriced.
This may also be the problem with the tickets fiasco for Taylor Swift tickets. From Taylor Swift’s, and her fans', perspective, the
concert is non-exclusive. One fan’s attendance does not mean another fan can
not hear the same concert. From the perspective of Ticketmaster, and the venue
operators, the seats are exclusive. However those same seats without Taylor’s music are just seats. When the buyer thinks the good is non-exclusive and the
seller thinks it is exclusive, there are also problems.
When both parties are the windshield, or both parties are
the bug, then there is no problem. When one party is the windshield and the other is
the bug, then there are problems.
Free At Last
On my knees when the light pass'd by
I thank God I'm free at last
Tho't my soul would rise and fly
I thank God I'm free at last
Brittney Griner
is free at last
Thank you President Biden! The price was high, but the end is so worth it.
Whiter Shade
of Pale
And so it was that later
As the miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly
Turned a whiter shade of pale.
That it is because it is on a spectrum, not a binary.
Autism is said to exist on a spectrum. And a form of high functioning Autism,
Asperger’s Syndrome, is still said to be on the spectrum. A co-worker joked that
Asperger’s must be in the job description at our firm. Those with Asperger’s
have to be reminded that the old CBS show “The Big Bang Theory” is a comedy, not a documentary.
The most recent podcast of Stuff You Should Know was on Face Blindness, prosop
I think that I
may have an undiagnosed form of Face Blindness. Admittedly this may be that I
have developed coping mechanisms for most cases, but not this one. I do not
have the ability to recognize faces in unfamiliar settings. The most prominent example
was when I was on vacation in Virginia and heard a voice say, “Hello, Dan.” I asked the person who they were. I
should mention that she was distinctive in the manner that only a freckle-faced,
bi-racial woman could be. Her response was that I was her supervisor at work in Massachusetts and sat next to her for the previous five years At work, no problem, 1,000
miles from work, who are you? Oh yeah, that’s why I should know you.
One of the
coping mechanisms that I may have developed is trying to treat everyone with kindness.
If the old adage is true that "You should treat people nice on the way up the ladder, because you might meet them again on the way down,” then treating everyone nice
because they might be a long-time friend that you don’t recognize at the moment
is even more true. Those with Face Blindness, even on a spectrum, may have to treat
everyone the same because they can’t recognize any differences. People who you
have treated well in the past, expect the same treatment, whether you recognize
them or not.
