Merry Christmas

 

I’ll Be Home For Christmas

Christmas Eve will find me
Where the love light gleams
I'll be home for Christmas
If only in my dreams
If only in my dreams

Whether they are your dreams, or my dreams, Merry Christmas

In World War II, soldiers who were fighting overseas for America had to endure many Christmases without their families. In 1943, those soldiers were honored with the hit song I’ll Be Home For Christmas.

The holidays are remembered as a time to be with loved ones, families. Those soldiers in WWII were not the first, nor will they be the last, who had to experience the holidays without being with their families. Those who immigrated, traveled far from their home, may not be able to return to that home. Not only for the holidays, but forever. My ancestors immigrated from Ireland and Poland without any expectation that they would ever see the home where they grew up and experienced their childhood holidays. But I know that they remembered those days. They made those sacrifices to grow and improve life.

In honor of those sacrifices, I appreciate the cost my son and his POSSLQ paid in traveling from Los Angeles to our home for the holidays, and I know that he has not been able to make this trip as often as he would like due to COVID, etc. But if he keeps us in his dreams, he should know, no matter what, we will keep him in ours.

Free Transit

 

I’m Free

I'm free-I'm free
And freedom tastes of reality
I'm free-I'm free
And I'm waiting for you to follow me

There is a big difference between free and unpriced.

The issue of “free” public transit has been in the news. The problem is TANSTAFL, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. What is "free" to the individual rider, is not "free" to the transit operator, in this case the government that subsidies transit.

The issue is that economists define goods as exclusive and nonexclusive. (If someone uses a good, no one else can use the good, which makes it exclusive to the consumer of the good); AND rival and nonrival. (the good has a price, in which case it is rival.)

• Private property is exclusive and rival. (For example, your meals).
  
• Public goods are non-exclusive and non-rival (For example, sunshine)

But

• Intellectual Property is non-exclusive but rival (For example, movies)
  
• Common Goods are exclusive but non-rival. (For example, fishing stocks).

People get confused by the vastness of a Common Good, but if it is limited then someone probably should regulate it (such as fishing quotas), or otherwise allocate it.

People are also confused by Intellectual Property. Music might be non-exclusive in that my listening to a song doesn’t prevent you from listening to that same song, but unless it is priced or regulated (e.g. copyrights, patents, etc.) then there is no incentive for someone to produce that music, so there better be a price.

Just because transit is without fares does not make it free. The riders might not pay a fare, but someone (society) is paying for those transit subsidies. Prices or regulation are used to ALLOCATE the  good, not merely to pay for that good.

The absence of price means that something is priceless, not that it is free. Transit might appear free to the riders, but they should treat it as if it were priceless, not free. Do not squander trips on transit. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Transit might be without fares, but that does not mean that it is free.

Winning IV

 

Step to the Rear 

Will everyone here kindly step to the rear
and let a winner lead the way.
Here's where we separate
the notes from the noise,
the men from the boys,
the rose from the poison ivy.

Is  winning that important? 

“The central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed".

 “None of the events of Jan. 6 would have happened without him.” 

Final Report of the Special House Committee on January 6, 2021. 

Not to let Donald Trump off, but the problem was not one man.  The problem was the belief that "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing". And that "Second place is first loser."  If you believe those and similar thoughts, and can not accept defeat then anything you can do to prevent a loss might seem acceptable. 

If the President had been anyone but Donald Trump, but who also subscribed to a winning at all costs mentality, then the result might have been the same.  There is a difference between not liking to lose and never losing.  The first position is admirable.  The second position is impossible. 

The problem was not Donald Trump.  It was not believing that "It doesn’t matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game." Or not believing that "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Chance

 

Schrodinger's Cat

Last train to Norwich
Summer days that blind your face will soon be dead and gone
Better get it on
Tuned to a day the babe against the world
You took the best seat rather risk it when the chips were down
Better make it long.
Schrodinger's cat is dead to the world.

And that cat is 100% dead.

Poor Schrodinger’s cat in the famous Quantum Mechanics example.  It is not 50% alive and 50% dead.  It is either 100% dead or 100% alive,  but no one has checked. 

Say you are faced with an ordinary deck of playing cards, and one is selected.  It is either red or black.  But if it is face down, then you don’t know which it is.  The average card is said to be 50%  a black suit and 50% a red suit.  No one is surprised when the card is turned over it is either 100% red or 100% black.  Why then is it to hard to imagine that just like the card has not been turned over, no one has checked inside the box for Schrodinger’s cat.  Saying that on average the cat is 50% dead and 50% alive describes the average GROUP behavior.  But the cat itself is an INDIVIDUAL member of that group and is either dead or alive.  It is not the measurement that determines its fate.  The act of measurement merely confirms what luck has already determined. Just as turning the card face up did not change the color of the card.

Unless we are playing with marked cards, a fair game of chance is always random.  Quantum Mechanics is also a fair random game.  We may not like that it is random, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is random.  Play hand that you are dealt.

Tump's NFT

 

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.

Tolerance

 

(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)*(λe^λx+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.

Speaker of the House

 

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.