Shared posts

13 May 23:08

Electric Bikes Make a Great Mother's Day Gift

by Blix PR

This Mothers' Day, treat mom (and all wonderful women in your life) to a day outside, riding bikes, and spending time in the sun. Here at Blix Electric Bikes, two of our employees took their moms out on a Blix adventure to celebrate. We asked their moms to tell us five fun facts about themselves as moms and avid bike riders. Check out our special feature of Blix Moms on Bikes below!

                                                                                                              

Sarah and her mom, Mary Ann, love to take bike rides together when on a trip. Mary Ann lives in Pennsylvania and recently visited the Blix headquarters. Sarah took her out for a bike ride on the Aveny. Here are some fun facts we learned about Mary Ann. 

What is your favorite food?

"Wow. I eat a lot of chicken. I love chicken. My favorite would be Lemon Pepper Chicken. "

What is your dream vacation spot?

"St. Thomas. I’d go back in a heartbeat."

Where do you like to ride your bike?

"Bike trails. I ride the D&L Trail in Pennsylvania often. I also love to take bikes out when I’m in new places. It’s a great way to explore. "

What is your favorite thing about riding an electric bike?

"The added assist of the motor. It's great going up the hills and I love the extra speed. After doing chemotherapy, I'm not as strong as I used to be. The ebike let's me get there a lot easier - I would miss not riding a bike."

Lastly, what is your favorite part about being a mom?

" Having two great daughters to have as my best friends. And of course, to take bike rides with."

    Happy Mothers' Day, Mary Ann !

                                                                                                             

    Sabrina and her mom, Anne, have always enjoyed spending time together being active. Since Sabrina was a little girl, her and her mom have ridden bikes all over Santa Cruz, especially on West Cliff Drive overlooking the ocean. For Mothers' Day her and Sabrina will be spending time by the beach and hopefully taking a sunset bike ride. Here are some fun facts we learned about Anne!

    What is your favorite food?

    "My favorite food is vanilla frosted lemon or vanilla cupcakes. I would eat them every meal if I could!"

    What is your dream vacation spot?

    "I would love to spend two weeks in France exploring Paris and Nice because I enjoy cities for their liveliness and coastal towns for their relaxation."

    Where do you like to ride your bike?

    "I usually ride my bike along trails in the University of California Santa Cruz, but my favorite ride is along West Cliff Drive at sunset!"

    What is your favorite thing about riding an electric bike?

    "I am a fan of electric bikes because of the pedal assist. It allows me to ride farther and choose when I want to pedal and when I want to cruise along using just the throttle.Sometimes it is nice to ride for leisure and unwind after work and having pedal assist reduces the effort I need to put into pedaling allowing me to relax."

    Lastly, what is your favorite part about being a mom?

    "Everything about being a mom is my favorite! If I had to choose one part, it would be helping my kids grow and watch as they expand their horizons while guiding them when needed."

      Happy Mothers' Day, Anne!

      13 May 23:08

      Really good tacos with made in restaurant corn tortillas Casa Oaxaca [Flickr]

      by vanderwal

      vanderwal posted a photo:

      Really good tacos with made in restaurant corn tortillas Casa Oaxaca

      I'm at Casa Oaxaca! 4sq.com/2GZcPGi

      13 May 23:08

      Me and Grayson

      by russell davies

      I've been banging on to Anne for years about how much I disapprove of buskers who use amplification. It's just wrong. That's not busking, that's doing a gig. She has shown how much she agrees with me by rolling her eyes repeatedly. Then, the other night, she went to see Grayson Perry do a talk. Turns out he hates amplified busking too! Now, it seems, it's an acceptable opinion. The only question is whether we can get enough single-issue voters together to get me and Grayson elected to the European parliament.

      UNRELATED

      I love the enthusiasm and expertise Mr Floating Points displays here. More people talking about things like this please.

      RELATED

      More from the Big Up to the Enthusiasts Department.

      I really enjoyed this lecture/interview with Peggy Gou. I especially like the format. Talking plus music/listening is a great combination. And there's something appealing about the decks being in front of her like that. It's like she's offering you a meal. It's more spontaneous, integrated into the conversation. Slightly different and better than a set of pre-prepared tracks being played in by an anonymous technician in the background. I guess it's close to my dream scenario for a show - Desert Island Discs LIVE.

      13 May 23:08

      Quick Hit: Updates to QuickLookR and {rdatainfo}

      by hrbrmstr

      I’m using GitUgh links here b/c the issue was submitted there. Those not wishing to be surveilled by Microsoft can find the macOS QuickLook plugin project and {rdatainfo} project in SourceHut and GitLab (~hrbrmstr and hrbrmstr accounts respectively).

      I hadn’t touched QuickLookR🔗 or {rdatainfo}🔗 at all since 2016 since it was really just an example proof of concept. Yet the suggestion to have it handle R markdown (Rmd) files felt useful so I updated {rdatainfo} to better handle data loading for rds, rdata, and rda file extensions and made a small update to the macOS {QuickLookR} QuickLook extension project to treat Rmd files as text files which can be previewed then edited with the default Finder extension exitor you’ve (or your apps) have set for Rmd files.

      The {rdatainfo} package is only needed if you need/want R data file preview support (i.e. it’s not necessary for R markdown files). Just unzip the plugin release and put it into ~/Library/QuickLook. Here are examples for the four file types (the example code under saveRDS() and save() was used to generate those data files and the R markdown file is the default one):

      file icons

      file icons

      Rmd preview

      Rmd Preview

      rds preview

      rds preview

      rdata preview

      rdata preview

      FIN

      This is my first Xcode app build under macOS 10.14 so definitely file issues if you’re having trouble installing or compiling (there are some new shared library “gotchas” that I don’t think apply to this Xcode project but may).

      13 May 23:08

      Change your launcher, change your life

      by Doug Belshaw

      There’s been an undeniable push recently to re-balance our relationship with our digital devices. Willpower alone doesn’t do it, which is why Apple and Google have introduced features into the latest versions of iOS and Android, respectively, for you to ‘take control’ of your smartphone addiction.

      I’m just like everyone else in this regard, except probably more so given that I work in tech and I work from home. My ‘work’ is located everywhere I have a connection.

      Light Android Launcher

      Recently, after reading about The Light Phone (“designed to be used as little as possible), I mused on the fact that there’s got to be a better solution to device addiction than literally buying another device.

      That’s why I had a look both at the F-Droid and Google Play marketplaces for minimalist launchers. I discovered LessPhone and Light Android Launcher. Of the two, I prefer the latter, as it’s both Open Source, and more aesthetically pleasing.

      So, for the last few weeks, I’ve been using my usual launcher (the excellent, Open Source, KISS) on weekdays, and Light Android Launcher at the weekends. It’s been great. My most important apps are right there on the home screen, and I can swipe up for the full list. The whole thing is black and white with no icons, so I have to be intentional about what I do on my device at the weekend.

      Try it! You might like it.


      Sincere apologies to iPhone users: you’re stuck with the launcher mandated by Cupertino. You can’t customise your home screen.

      13 May 23:07

      Introducing SIFT, a Four Moves Acronym

      by mikecaulfield

      The Four Moves have undergone some tweaking since I first introduced them in early 2017. The language has shifted, been refined. We’ve come to see that lateral reading is more of a principle underlying at least two of the moves (maybe three). We’ve removed a reference to “go upstream” which was a bit geeky. All in all, though, the moves have remained constant, partially because so many people have found them useful.

      Today, we’re introducing an acronym that can be used to remember the moves: SIFT.

      • (S)TOP
      • (I)nvestigate the Source
      • (F)ind better coverage
      • (T)race claims, quotes, and media back to the original context

      If you’ve followed the moves as they have developed over the past two years, these won’t surprise you, but there are a couple changes to the wording and the order.

      The most notable is we’ve combined our habit (originally “check your emotions”) with the move (“circle back”) because these turn out to be the same thing. Basically — stop reading, stop reacting, figure out what you need to know and reapproach. In the beginning, this means to not read before you orient yourself. When researching, this means if you are getting sucked into an increasingly confusing maze of pages, STOP AND BACK UP.

      The other moves are the same as the most recent iteration, with the change that “Find better coverage” replaces “other coverage” to emphasize the idea you are looking for other coverage, but ideally coverage that is slightly better on at least one dimension. What those dimensions are may be contextual, but often students have some half-decent intuitions here that can be refined over time.

      We’ve also broadened out “Find the original” to its replacement which stresses that the point is not just finding the original for its own sake, but finding the original context. The original may be better — original reporting from the NYT or a fact-checked Atlantic article. But it could be worse — a claim that is sourced to a junk journal, or simply began as an unsubstantiated tweet. In the case of photos or videos, the original context is often mitigating, where media or quotes are presented with a false, inflammatory frame.

      But the main introduction here is the acronym, a direct answer to CRAAP. (“Don’t CRAAP, SIFT?”).

      Final note — some people might look at the acronym and think — “Isn’t this just more CRAAP? Another checklist?”

      I deal with this extensively on this blog and in the textbook, but the problem with CRAAP has never been the acronym. In fact, the history of CRAAP as a web infolit device begins eight years (at least) before the acronym. The difference has always been the difference between a narrow list of things to do (SIFT) and a broad list of things to consider and rate (CRAAP). I’ve detailed at length why that makes such a difference in terms of cognitive load and other factors, so I won’t repeat it here. But my point is that a bad methodology got a lot of lift with a clever acronym that served as a convenient shorthand and a student mnemonic — it’s probably time the better methodology gets an acronym as well.

      13 May 23:07

      Vielen Dank für die guten Wünsche

      by Volker Weber

      295e19fe3b2cabd4e5dd6486dd77500c

      Bin ein paar Tage offline gegangen und hatte eine großartige Zeit. Vielen Dank für die vielen guten Wünsche. Den Vogel hat heute Stephan Herz abgeschossen:

      5e077db64fc3f7059bde661199fc2e57

      Muttertag eben.

      13 May 23:07

      Nest, the company, died at Google I/O 2019

      by Volker Weber

      Ron Amadeo for Ars Technica:

      The Nest ecosystem is dead. Nest accounts are dead. Nest's privacy firewall is dead.

      Smart homes will continue to break. That is why we have a dumb home with a smart overlay.

      More >

      13 May 23:07

      Twitter Favorites: [amyyqin] I wrote about the fast-growing Chinese storytelling podcast STORY FM 故事FM. I’ve always thought China would be the p… https://t.co/NUV5dVcxQ7

      Amy Qin @amyyqin
      I wrote about the fast-growing Chinese storytelling podcast STORY FM 故事FM. I’ve always thought China would be the p… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
      13 May 20:38

      Sungarden

      End of April, beginning of May, it’s pretty well peak time for flowers. Back in the last millennium, I used to run lots of flower pictures here, but they started blurring together in my mind in a way that made me not want to. But sometimes when the sun’s in just the right place, the flowers insist.

      These trilliums are at our cabin on Keats Island. They’ve usually bloomed and gone by the first time in spring we get over. Almost painfully pure, to my eye.

      Trillium blossoms on Keats Island

      A few houses down the street from us, this tulip, not content behind the white pickets, strains sunward.

      Tulip in spring

      Don’t know exactly which tree to which these blossoms pertain.

      Pink tree blossoms

      The final three are from our own front yard.

      Spring flowers, Vancouver

      Under the magnolia.

      Azalea

      Azalea army.

      Tulip

      If you were tiny enough, you could plunge into that tulip and have a color experience so intense it might be fatal.

      13 May 20:38

      If You Want More Participation, Reduce The Social Costs Of Asking Questions

      by Richard Millington

      If you want more participation, an obvious area to target is to reduce the costs (that crippling anxiety) of asking a question.

      There are many reasons why members don’t ask a question, they include:

      • They’re afraid of looking inferior to others.
      • They’re too invested as being seen as the experts themselves.
      • They don’t think they will get an answer.
      • They don’t think they will get a good/the right answer.
      • They’re afraid of spamming the community with a question.
      • They don’t know the right words to describe their problem.
      • They don’t know if the question has been asked many times before.
      • They don’t want to be in debt to others.
      • They don’t want to exploit friendships.

      The more effective solutions remove the problem entirely. You need the technology to let members:

      1) Ask questions anonymously. Let members ask questions anonymously. If your platform doesn’t offer this, request it.

      2) Let members set a time period for questions. Allow members to ask a question which only shows for a limited amount of time (or until they’ve accepted the answer).

      3) Let members decide who sees the questions. Categories help, but it would be better to let members decide whether the question can be seen by the entire community, only those who have posted in a category before, or just a handful of top experts/close connections. Group @mentions can help here. Create groups of experts and let members tag in relevant groups.

      However, if technology solutions aren’t an option, you need to eliminate the fears members have through persuasion. That might mean:

      4) Tell members ‘top professionals aren’t scared to ask questions’. Help members to rethink asking a question from an act of weakness to an act of courage. Support boldness and the bravery it takes to ask questions – especially on really beginner topics. Reward members by the number of collective visits their questions receive.

      5) Develop on-page nudges of great questions. See in the social design webinar how platforms like StackOverflow, Apple’s community and others provide nudges to help members ask great questions. Guide people through asking a great question that’s going to get great responses.

      6) Tag newcomers to ask their first question. Most won’t respond, but we’ve seen you can raise the number of newcomers who ask a question by double-digit percentage points if you tag them in to ask questions they might be struggling with.

      Getting more members to ask questions is one of the most intriguing challenges you can tackle. You need to get into the minds of your members, isolate their social fears, and then design effective solutions to tackle them.

      13 May 20:37

      Tools Valuable On Their Own, More Valuable When Connected

      by Ton Zijlstra

      Jerome Velociter has an interesting riff on how Diaspora, Mastodon and similar decentralised and federated tools are failing their true potential (ht Frank Meeuwsen).

      He says that these decentralised federated applications are trying to mimic the existing platforms too much.

      They are attempts at rebuilding decentralized Facebook and Twitter

      This tendency has multiple faces
      I very much recognise this tendency, for this specific example, as well as in general for digital disruption / transformation.

      It is recognisable in discussions around ‘fake news’ and media literacy where the underlying assumption often is to build your own ‘perfect’ news or media platform for real this time.

      It is visible within Mastodon in the missing long tail, and the persisting dominance of a few large instances. The absence of a long tail means Mastodon isn’t very decentralised, let alone distributed. In short, most Mastodon users are as much in silos as they were on Facebook or Twitter, just with a less generic group of people around them. It’s just that these new silos aren’t run by corporations, but by some individual. Which is actually worse from a responsibility and liability view point.

      It is also visible in how there’s a discussion in the Mastodon community on whether the EU Copyright Directive means there’s a need for upload filters for Mastodon. This worry really only makes sense if you think of Mastodon as similar to Facebook or Twitter. But in terms of full distribution and federation, it makes no sense at all, and I feel Mastodon’s lay-out tricks people into thinking it is a platform.

      This type of effect I recognise from other types of technology as well. E.g. what regularly happens in local exchange trading systems (LETS), i.e. alternative currency schemes. There too I’ve witnessed them faltering because the users kept making their alternative currency the same as national fiat currencies. Precisely the thing they said they were trying to get away from, but ending up throwing away all the different possibilities of agency and control they had for the taking.

      Dump mimicry as design pattern
      So I fully agree with Jerome when he says distributed and federated apps will need to come into their own by using other design patterns. Not by using the design patterns of current big platforms (who will all go the way of ecademy, orkut, ryze, jaiku, myspace, hyves and a plethora of other YASNs. If you don’t know what those were: that’s precisely the point).

      In the case of Mastodon one such copied design pattern that can be done away with is the public facing pages and timelines. There are other patterns that can be used for discoverability for instance. Another likely pattern to throw out is the Tweetdeck style interface itself. Both will serve to make it look less like a platform and more like conversations.

      Tools need to provide agency and reach
      Tools are tools because they provide agency, they let us do things that would otherwise be harder or impossible. Tools are tools because they provide reach, as extensions of our physical presence, not just across space but also across time. For a very long time I have been convinced that tools need to be smaller than us, otherwise they’re not tools of real value. Smaller (see item 7 in my agency manifesto) than us means that the tool is under the full control of the group of users using it. In that sense e.g. Facebook groups are failed tools, because someone outside those groups controls the off-switch. The original promise of social software, when they were mostly blogs and wiki’s, and before they morphed into social media, was that it made publishing, interaction between writers and readers, and iterating on each other’s work ‘smaller’ than writers. Distributed conversations as well as emergent networks and communities were the empowering result of that novel agency.

      Jerome also points to something else I think is important

      In my opinion the first step is to build products that have value for the individual, and let the social aspects, the network effects, sublime this value. Value at the individual level can be many things. Let me organise my thoughts, let me curate “my” web, etc.

      Although I don’t fully agree with the individual versus the network distinction. To me instead of just the individual you can put small coherent groups within a single context as well: the unit of agency in networked agency. So I’d rather talk about tools that are useful as a single instance (regardless of who is using it), and even more useful across instances.

      Like blogs mentioned above and mentioned by Jerome too. This blog has value for me on its own, without any readers but me. It becomes more valuable as others react, but even more so when others write in their own space as response and distributed conversations emerge, with technology making it discoverable when others write about something posted here. Like the thermometer in my garden that tells me the temperature, but has additional value in a network of thermometers mapping my city’s microclimates. Or like 3D printers which can be put to use on their own, but can be used even better when designs are shared among printer owners, and used even better when multiple printer owners work together to create more complex artefacts (such as the network of people that print bespoke hand prostheses).

      It is indeed needed to spend more energy designing tools that really take distribution and federation as a starting point. That are ‘smaller’ than us, so that user groups control their own tools and have freedom to tinker. This applies to not just online social tools, but to any software tool, and to connected products and the entire maker scene just as much.

      13 May 20:37

      A metaphor and a an addition related to my earl...

      by Ton Zijlstra

      A metaphor and a an addition related to my earlier wonderings about Mastodon and upload filtering:

      It’s as if because of a law requiring hammers to be registered, you’re wondering if you’re going to register your screwdriver. Just because some people use the handle of their screwdriver to hit a nail occasionally, and ignore its primary functionality.

      Yes there are very large Mastodon instances, the top 3 hold over 50% of all users. These instances might well fall within scope of the EU Copyright Directive. But ‘fixing’ the underlying ActivityPub protocol or federation isn’t the issue here. Fixing big instances is. In fact most Mastodon users, as they are on the biggest instances, don’t use federation at all because most of their interaction is within the same instance. Mastodon.social, pawoo.net and mstdn.jp, the 3 biggest instances, I’d argue are hardly part of the fediverse, despite e.g. mastodon.social being its poster child and point of entry for most.

      Don’t make someone’s bloated instance’s issue to be a huge issue for the fediverse as a whole

      13 May 20:36

      I finally converted this site to SSL. It’s not ...

      I finally converted this site to SSL. It’s not the first site I’ve converted, but it’s the last.

      It wasn’t hard. I’m using Let’s Encrypt, and my hosting provider handles all the details, including renewing and updating.

      The one thing I had to do manually was edit the .htaccess file so that http requests get redirected to https.

      I’m still dubious on the use of https for sites like this one — but mainly I worry about sites that are hard to convert or where there’s nobody to do the work. What happens to what remains of the web’s history if, at some point, browsers won’t let us visit those sites anymore?

      I’m thinking specifically of alexking.org, penmachine.com, and aaronsw.com. There are plenty of others.

      * * *

      The change from http to https means all the permalink and guids changed in my feed — so you may get reruns in your RSS reader. Sorry about that!

      13 May 20:36

      What a monoid is and why monoids kick monads’ butt

      by Eric Normand

      Everyone talks about monads but monoids are where it’s at. Monoids are simple and make distributed computation a breeze. In this episode, we learn the two properties that make an operation a monoid, and how to use it do distributed computation.

      Transcript

      Eric Normand: What is a monoid? By the end of this episode you will understand the two properties of monoids, and you’ll be able to apply them in your systems. That’s a big promise. My name is Eric Normand and I help people thrive with functional programming.

      Why are monoids important? Why even bring them up? That’s a really good question.

      I know a lot of people talk about monads. I think it’s mostly because they want to know what they are and they don’t understand them. They think there’s some magic in Haskell about how IO happens with monads. That’s another topic.

      This episode is about monoids. I actually think monoids are more interesting, more applicable to helping us write better code. Especially in a parallel or distributed code in the system that’s got a computation that has to spread out over different course or different machines.

      A monoid lets you break up a task into smaller tasks pretty much arbitrarily. You don’t have to spend a lot of computation figuring out how to break it up. You break it up into small tasks, spread that out to different workers. These are on different threads or in different machines. Here’s the key. The monoid lets you put them back together. Put the answer back together.

      What are the two properties of monoid? The two properties of a monoid…First of all, it’s an operation. A monoid is an operation. It’s not a type or a kind of type. It’s not a property of a certain class of values. It’s a property of an operation over those values. For example, addition of numbers is a monoid. Multiplication of numbers is also a monoid.

      What are the two properties that operation is associative? I have a whole episode on what is associative. I’ve explained it before. I’ll explain it briefly in a second. The other property is that operation needs to have an identity value. I also have an episode on that. You should look those up if this is confusing. I’ll go over a brief recap.

      An associative operation is one that has two arguments, otherwise known as a binary operation. Addition has two arguments. It has A plus B. A and B are the two arguments. That’s pretty clear. It’s got to have two arguments.

      Here’s the other thing. It’s got to take values of the same type and return a value of that same type. All three things, the two arguments and the return value have the same type.

      Look at numbers, takes two numbers, returns a number. That’s addition, right? Multiplication is the same way. Takes two numbers and returns a number. It’s not returning a string or something else. It’s returning a number.

      That’s part of what makes it associative. The other thing is that the grouping. Because you’ve got this…I look at it like a triangle. Like an upside down triangle. Got an A and a B and it gives me a C and they’re all the same type.

      Because I’ve got the A and the B at the top and the C at the point at the bottom, you can think of this associative operation as a combining operation. Addition is a way of combining two values.

      It’s not always combining. It’s not always clear that that’s a good way to think about it. In multiplication, are you really combining two numbers? With addition, you definitely are. You’re combining two piles of rocks into one big pile of rocks. That’s addition. It’s where the abstract operation of addition comes from. If you just take a piles of things and you put them together and now you have a big pile.

      If you imagine, I have three things to add. I have A, B and C and I want to add them up. I can add up A and B first and get a number and then I add C to that number, so I use the same operation again. I did a plus, A plus B, get a number, let’s call it D and then I take that D and I do D plus C and now I get E and that is my answer.

      You notice it’s…I’m trying to make it graphical here, I add A and B and those are in a triangle and lead down to the point D. Then that D and C form a new triangle and it leads down to the point E.

      That’s one way I can do it, or I could do this other way. I have A plus B plus C. I could take C as the top of the triangle, go down to D and go down to E. Graphically, it’s symmetrical. It’s the same. I’ll give the same answer but I’ll group them differently.

      The triangles group on one side to the left and on the other side they group to the right. That is what associative means. Really, when you put this into the context of doing work over distributed systems, what it means is I can make a hierarchy of workers where the workers at the bottom of the hierarchy, the bottom of the tree, are doing, adding up the tiny bits.

      There’s like their supervisor, right above them, adding up all the work that they’re doing, into a bigger number. Then there’s the supervisors of the supervisors, and they’re adding up all the supervisors work. There’s a supervisor of the supervisors of the supervisors and they’re adding up all their work and there’s like the super-super-supervisor, up at the top adding up everything.

      You can make a hierarchy and it doesn’t matter how they’re grouped. That’s what associative means. That the triangles, as they’re added up, I guess this way the triangles are going up but as they’re added up, it doesn’t matter how they’re grouped.

      I can do the work at the bottom and it will get grouped up into the top arbitrarily. It’s what you don’t want to do when you’re distributing the work is spend a lot of time thinking spending CPU power, figuring out what’s the best way to break this problem up. You just want something, like I’m just going to chop this pile of rocks and have put my hands in it and push it roughly to.

      You get one half and you get one half and start counting. What they’re going to do is say, “It’s too big for me to count, I’m going to split it roughly in two and I’m going to tell my sub-supervisors to work on it.” Then they’re going to split it up into two and give it to their two workers. The answers will bubble up through this associative operation.

      Probably digressed too much about associativity here. I do have a whole episode on it. The other thing is it needs an identity. This is in order to be considered a monoid. This is just the definition of a monoid.

      Identity really just means an empty value. Let me put that in quotes, “empty value.” In numbers for addition, the empty value is zero. It’s like, where do you start. Before you count, where do you stand, where do you start, you start at zero and then you start one, two. You don’t have to say it when you count because it’s assumed. I have zero before I start.

      With multiplication, the identity is one which is where you start, because if you started at zero you multiply it out and you’re always going to get a zero. One is like the null value, the value that doesn’t change anything, that’s what the identity means.

      Basically, you need a way for someone to get started. You need a value that they can start at. Your workers are saying, “Well, I haven’t counted anything yet. I’m at zero.” Don’t want to digress too much into identity again. There’s an episode on that if you want to learn more about it.

      Let me give some examples of monoids in case this wasn’t clear that it’s not just about addition. String concatenation is a monoid. If I have string A and string B, I concatenate them I get a string C. Notice the types are all the same. String, string, and string. Then it’s got an identity. What is the identity of strings of concatenation?

      It’s the empty string. It’s where you start. If I take an empty string and I concatenate it on to any string I get that string back. Front or back. Likewise, with list concatenation. Lists and strings are pretty similar structurally. Map.merge() is associative. If I take two maps and I make a new map that has all the keys from A and all the keys from B, that is associative.

      The identity — you can probably think of it — is the empty map, so no keys. That’s perfectly fine. I have already talked about addition and multiplication. AND and OR are associative. They take two booleans and return a boolean. The identity is different for OR, the identity is true, and for AND, the identity is false.

      Is that right? No. I said that wrong. For OR the identity is false, and for AND, the identity is true. You can work that one out for yourselves on some paper. It’s a useful exercise. Some other things that you might not think of as monoids…if you squint, they’re combining operations. Min and max.

      Min takes two numbers and will return the smaller of them. Again, remember, we’ve got the two arguments, same type. Return value is the same type. It doesn’t matter how you group it. If I have three numbers A, B, and C, and I want to figure out what is the smallest of all three of these, I can take the first two and min them.

      The results of that and the third one, I can min it. It doesn’t matter how I start, how I group it. Same for max. Min is associative. What is its identity? The identity of min has to have the property that if I do min with that identity and any other number — let’s call it A. The identity mined with A will always give me A, so what number is that?

      When you think about it, it must be positive infinity. It must be the biggest possible number of some logical representation of that, of infinity. A number that is bigger than any other number. Likewise, the identity of max is the smallest possible number which is negative infinity, some logical representation of that.

      That’s great because that means in a hierarchy — in a tree — you can figure out the biggest number or the smallest number. I’ve seen this in a video somewhere. I don’t know where but someone was trying to show that you can do distributed work in people. If each person does just a very small task, the whole room could come up with the correct result of the computation.

      What they did was they asked everyone to write down their birthday and then when everyone had finished that…they were in rows. It was like a theater style classroom and they said, “If you’re on the left,” so there’s no one to your left, you’re the furthest on the left, “pass your birthday to the right and then if you have two birthdays in your hand, pass the biggest one to the right.”

      The highest birthday in the row starts to bubble up to the right because everyone’s doing this one little comparison operation, they passed it to the right. The person on the right, the person with no one to pass it to, they have two, what they’re supposed to do is pass the highest one forward.

      Now you have the rows are bubbling up, the highest birthday to the front. The person in the front right position in the classroom when everyone had passed…everyone except for the people on the left, they now have one card, except for the person in the front who has two. You’re right, he or she has two cards.

      Some card plus the highest one which is the highest birthday. Then the professor took the card and said, “This is the birthday of the oldest person in the room.” Right of the bat there and then, that person stood up and it was some old person. [laughs] It’s like, “Oh, it worked. There is the oldest person in the room.”

      Then they asked, “Is anyone older than that?” It was, “No.” They found the answer. When you think about this, they were doing the max operation on the dates, or maybe the min operation because it’s the oldest birthday, so it’s the minimum birthday.

      They were doing min and they were able to combine them. First on a one-on-one basis but then you notice the min…each individual person was doing one comparison but then when the min for the row was discovered, that one was mined with the whole class. All of the rows were mined together.

      This is an example of arbitrary grouping, so whatever rows happened to exist, it was arbitrarily grouped and then arbitrary grouping of the rows. They were in some random arbitrary order as well. When the answer bubbled up, it was a single return value that had been the mean of multiple means.

      That is the power of associativity, right there. You can start with two things, two dates, compare them. You get an answer. Then someone else is doing the same thing. They’re comparing two dates. They get an answer.

      Now, you’re comparing those two. You get an answer. It’s like a hierarchy and the answer is bubbling up. I think that that’s a pretty good story for explaining how these things can do distributed work, and why they’re so good at it. You could imagine having this classroom do lots of work like that, lots of different computation tasks.

      They could add up numbers, where each person has two numbers, and then they pass the answer to the end of the row, and they add up all these numbers, etc. Then the rows add up all their numbers, and the work is done faster, because it’s done in parallel. All the rows are working at the same time, instead of one person going through one number at a time, adding, and adding, and adding.

      I just wanted to give one more example of a kind of task you’d do. Let’s say that you’re at a school, it’s just one building, it’s got all these classrooms, and you need to figure out a lunch order for everyone in the whole school, because you’re going to have lunch delivered today.

      You know that if you went individually, as one person, to each person in the school, you could figure out the lunch order, but it would take longer than you have. It’s already 9:00 AM, you have to get everybody’s order, then it has to have time to cook it, and deliver it for lunch, so there’s just no time to walk to every person and ask them.

      What can you do? To break this problem up, you can say, “Well, if I have two lunch orders, I know how to combine them into a bigger lunch order.” If everyone writes down what they want, let’s say their student ID and then what they want for lunch. Everyone has that first initial piece of data.

      You can have, let’s say, someone at the end of the row in their classrooms combine all of those into a single, bigger order. That’s a combining operation. Then someone at the front of the class would combine all of the rows together into a single one.

      They would run to the floor manager. That floor manager would aggregate all of the classrooms on that floor together into a bigger lunch order. Then all of the people, all of the floors move even down or up. It doesn’t matter, but let’s say they all send their order down.

      There’s a school manager that adds up all of those orders into one big order. Then they send it off to the catering service.

      What you’re doing is a HashMap merge. Everybody’s got a key and value. It’s their student ID and then their lunch order. You’re doing a merge between, first, everyone in the row. Maybe, as it move to the right, it gets aggregated up. Then, as it moves forward in the classroom, the rows get aggregated up into a classroom HashMap.

      The classroom HashMaps get merged together into a floor level HashMap. Then the floors get merged, down onto the bottom floor, into one big school-wide HashMap.

      That can happen very quickly, because each of the floors is up, and each of the classrooms, and each of the people, and in classrooms each row, each person is working in parallel. It’s basically the amount of time it takes each…

      The school-wide lunch order is the answer. It just takes as long as, let’s say, it’s four floors. The merging of four hash maps, plus, however long one floor takes to generate the answer because the other three floors are happening in parallel. It’s a way of gaining some time by doing things in parallel.

      It’s the same thing. You’re taking this problem. You’re breaking it up. You’re making sure that the types are the same on the two arguments and the return value. The type is hash map of ID to order. Now you can merge them. You’ve turned it into a monoid.

      You could say if you were going to do this in an imperative, just loop through all the students’ way. You might never make the hash map for each individual student because you might just say, “What’s your student ID and what’s your order? What’s your student ID? What’s your order? What’s your student ID? What’s your order?”

      You never made that smaller type or the smaller hash map to make it of the same type, but by giving everyone the instruction to make the small hash map, you’ve now turned that into a monoid, which allows for this distributed collection of an aggregation of the data into a single answer.

      You’re breaking up the problem, the big problem into a lot of smaller problems. You’re having the other computers do the small problems, and then you’re combining the answers. I’ll recap super quick. A monoid is an operation, like hash map merge, that is associative and has an identity.

      Some examples, string concatenation, min, max, map merge, addition and multiplication. There’s a bunch of others. I went over a story about how a room of people could calculate the oldest person in the room in a distributed way.

      I also talked about how you could calculate the lunch order of a really big school in less time than it would take to go to each person individually. That was it. I have a little takeaway that you could do. The way I like to think of it is this classroom.

      It’s like this classroom that did this distributed calculation is actually a pretty good way of thinking of how you can distribute some work. If you could come up with this operation that each individual person can do, and then the rows can do, and then the whole room can do, if it’s the person on the right-hand side of the row can combine, then you’ve got a monoid.

      You can distribute the work to the whole classroom.

      Think of how you would get classrooms to do the work. Some examples that you might think of is adding, adding numbers together. Let’s say, you wanted to calculate the…Everyone has like some money in their pocket or some are in their purse or something. You could figure out how much money is in the room right now.

      That’s pretty cool. You can add it all up. You figure out the youngest person, the oldest person, you can figure out this lunch order or some other operation like that that is able to combine or figure out maybe.

      Think of it like a tennis tournament. You’re trying to figure out who the best person is. You take two people and you figure out the winner between those two. That winner becomes the return value.

      As a hierarchy, you can figure out who is the best tennis player in this tournament. You don’t have to play everybody against everybody. You’re doing like a monadic operation to get up to the top. I do want to tell you, if you want to see all the past episodes and if in the future you want to see future episodes, they don’t exist yet. That’s why they’re future. You can go to lispcast.com/podcast. There you’ll find links to subscribe.

      You’ll also find a page for each episode that includes the audio version, a video version, and a text transcript of what I’m saying here. You’ll also find my email address and links to social media if you want to get in touch with me.

      I’d love to hear about the kinds of problems that you’ve found that you can solve in this classroom. Let me know about them. We’ll talk about it. We’ll get into a nice, deep discussion.

      I can’t say I’ll see you next time, so until next time. I’m Eric Normand. See you later.

      The post What a monoid is and why monoids kick monads’ butt appeared first on LispCast.

      13 May 19:34

      Rode a long, 108 yard, 11.1 mph wave on this 4-5ft southwest swell in Waikiki for my mom this morning and she was stoked! Her love has made everything in my life possible. Happy Mother’s Day to all the amazing moms out there

      by Emily Chang

      Photo Caption: Rode a long, 108 yard, 11.1 mph wave on this 4-5ft southwest swell in Waikiki for my mom this morning and she was stoked! Her love has made everything in my life possible. Happy Mother’s Day to all the amazing moms out there

      Photo taken at: Waikiki, Hawaii

      Instagram filter used: Normal

      View in Instagram ⇒

      13 May 18:34

      Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Ethics

      by Brian Justie

      Throughout the 1960s, ’70s, and ‘80s, artificial intelligence researchers seemed to be fatally vexed by the problem of the future’s looming uncertainty. This was because the “top-down” AI approaches dominant at the time were deterministic, modeling intelligence as a finite collection of well-defined rules: if b then c; if x then y. Program the correct rules and order of operations, and you would ensure the dexterity of the system. This approach — deemed “good old-fashioned AI” by philosopher John Haugeland — proved useful in domains with stable and easily controlled-for variables. It was good at playing simple games like tic-tac-toe early on, and has more recently been employed to deliver search results for straightforward questions with a single answer, like “What is the capital of California?

      But these systems became unworkably brittle when confronted with unexpected data points or contextual inconsistencies that had not already been explicitly anticipated and programmed. The AI project Cyc, launched in the latter part of this period, illustrates the limitations of top-down intelligence. Despite amassing more than a million unique heuristic rules over the years, Cyc still proved incapable of more demanding tasks, like digital image recognition, or more complex gameplay, like chess or Go. For this reason, chronicler of algorithms Pedro Domingos has derided Cyc as “the most notorious failure in the history of AI.”

      From the perspective of fuzzy logic, the uncertain future was no longer something to be defanged but to be welcomed

      While not as prominent at the time, alternatives to top-down intelligence also popped up in early AI research, approaches that would eventually lead to the recent breakthroughs in the field. Among them was “fuzzy logic,” a technique first developed in the mid-‘60s by Lotfi Zadeh, a computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Zadeh’s system was an important departure from the top-down approach and the bivalent logic which typically undergirded it, in which all propositional statements must be either true or false. Fuzzy logic, on the contrary, suggests instead that there are computable gradations between the two. Everything for Zadeh — including truth itself — was a matter of degree. With fuzzy logic, it becomes possible to logically process statements like, for instance, “It is somewhat true that this apple is somewhat red.” From the perspective of fuzzy logic, the uncertain future rife with contingencies was no longer something to be defanged but to be welcomed with open arms and an ever fuzzier mind.

      Some other logicians and computer scientists were skeptical, insisting that this sort of approach was misguided, even pernicious — that it would grind scientific progress to a halt, given its apparent troubling of objective, clear-cut scientific facts about the world. Mathematician William Kahan went so far as to describe fuzzy logic as “the cocaine of science.” But for Zadeh, fuzzy logic was a superior approximation of reality precisely because of its compatibility with the world’s constitutive ambiguousness. He liked to quote investor Warren Buffett on this point: “It’s better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.”

      This new approach held considerable promise for AI, as it purported to seamlessly integrate and learn from unexpected inputs, as humans can apparently do so effortlessly, rather than simply malfunction on contact like the more unyielding top-down systems. Unlike good old-fashioned AI, fuzzy logic is a decidedly “bottom-up” affair that begins by processing manifold particulars in situ rather than blindly applying universal rules, orienting AI research away from rigid deductive systems and toward more agile inductive ones.

      Zadeh’s fuzzy logic joined a growing chorus of computational techniques introduced during this period that were collected under the mantle of “connectionism,” a term with origins in neuroscience. This signaled a new paradigm, in which AI applications are effective insofar as they are unstable models of an unstable world, with each new input modifying and progressively updating the overall model itself. Bayesian networks — the breakthrough technique developed by UCLA computer scientist Judea Pearl in 1985 — as well as the many machine-learning techniques that have followed suit derive from this line of thinking.

      Contemporary “deep” applications of these bottom-up techniques, however impressive on a technical level, have also directly led to the kinds of algorithmic systems and “smart” technologies that are currently eliciting so much handwringing among concerned tech pundits. AI historian Matthew Jones, in a newly published paper, has argued that this shift toward connectionist computational models pivots on a “predictive ethos,” which privileges instrumentality over interpretability. The constitutive fuzziness of these bottom-up, predictive systems, following Jones’s insight, appears to be the primary reason users and experts alike seem equally baffled by their inner workings. Those at the helm of AI systems often cannot articulate how they come to work in the first place and why, for example, they consistently drive users toward conspiracy or reproduce sexualized and racialized search results.

      The response to this ongoing crisis from prominent tech executives has been to repeatedly promise to do better in the future. But this is essentially a plea for self-regulation, allowing companies to continue to operate without clear political boundaries or structures of accountability. Take, for example, Mark Zuckerberg’s triangulating pledge in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal: “We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further.” If we listen closely, we might detect an echo of Zadeh’s confrontation with uncertainty, in which mutability was treated as a feature, not a bug.


      But recently the discourse revolving around tech’s existential moment has taken an unexpected turn: “Ethics” has become an inescapable watchword. “Ethical tech, “ethics in AI,” and “data ethics,” alongside corporate mission documents and corporate ethics boards, have spun out into a veritable cottage industry.

      Since leaving Google in 2016, Tristan Harris has seemingly become Silicon Valley’s resident ethicist — a title he proudly dons. According to a frequently cited Atlantic article, Harris is the “closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience.” He now leads the Center for Humane Technology (formerly known as Time Well Spent), an initiative that officially launched in April with a proselytizing presentation demanding a “new agenda for tech.” Above all, this new agenda aims at a course reversal for the industry, centered on the development of a “common understanding” of our problems and a “common language” with which we can discuss solutions. An impressive coterie of founders, funders, academics, and mindfulness advisors have coalesced around Harris, suggesting the broad appeal and felt urgency of his crusade.

      There is no growth hack for ethics

      During the Center for Humane Technology launch event in April, Harris alerted his audience of Silicon Valley insiders to the unfolding horror story of unchecked tech: “The call was coming from inside the house; the problem was inside of us.” This was anything but an insinuation that his audience themselves may have played a starring role in this unseemly production. Rather, the problem is everyone’s fault. Humans, Harris argues, are biologically hardwired such that we can’t help but distract ourselves with shiny screens and glittering gizmos.

      Harris, curiously, is also a devout Aristotelian, if his public proclamations are anything to go by. That is to say, he, like the ancient Greek philosopher, understands ethics to be the individual pursuit of virtuous moderation. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that to live the good life, one must constantly strive for the right balance between polar extremes. Too much ambition is just as bad as too much lethargy; to be obsequious to others is no better than to be churlish. Ethics, for Aristotle, is the lifelong endeavor to locate and occupy the ambiguous yet optimal middle ground between excess and defect. To be ethical, we, as individuals, “must cling to an intermediate state” and model ourselves in accordance with what he calls “the unnameable mean.” For Aristotle, too much of a good thing, it turns out, is ethically lethal. Put a bit differently, “we will have to resist the perfect.”

      That last quote, however, comes not from Aristotle but from Harris, commenting in a 2017 Wired interview about YouTube’s content-recommendation algorithm. Harris’s concern stems from his belief that engineers are now capable of developing algorithmic recommendation systems that are simply too good for our own good, too addictive for the viewer to resist. While these algorithms may maximize engagement metrics and juice the bottom line for company shareholders, this comes at the expense of mercilessly subjecting the malleable masses to “a whole system that’s much more powerful than us, [which is] only going to get stronger.”

      For Harris, this represents a flipped script in which humans are no longer served by technology, as the industry, in its constitutional optimism, might have once intended, but have instead become subjected to its throes. This can all be chalked up, the story goes, to the inexorable failings of human nature that lead us to abuse such power. But as computing power steadily increases, so too does our individual vulnerability. In rendering such a broad, sweeping diagnosis, it is worth asking whether these self-appointed tech ethicists — so intent on saving “us” — have inadvertently reified an essentialist view of “humanity.”

      According to critics like Harris, the insalubrity that follows every time machine-learning algorithms are airdropped into a new domain reflects not the garbage data going in or the garbled programming that attends to said data, but rather the innate glitches in our biological hardware. According to the Center for Humane Technology, our children have become addicted, our attention spans have waned, our communities have become polarized, and likes, shares, favs, and retweets have come to rule everything around us. In his remarks at the launch event, Harris explained that these were all byproducts of an out-of-sync relationship between our “inner technology” and “outer technology,” which necessitates a “full stack socio-ergonomic” reboot. Such use of software metaphors to explain the human condition is par for the course in Silicon Valley, but the Center for Humane Technology seems to have set a new standard. Its agenda for ethical tech, ultimately, is a response to what Harris and his cohort have identified as a universal “downgrading” of humanity, the inevitable outcome of tech run amok. By implication, becoming more ethical is akin to “upgrading” ourselves, just as we might install the latest operating system on our devices.

      Although the Center’s launch introduced a bevy of new terminology, much of this has already been aired over the past several years as Harris has traversed the public lecture, magazine profile, and podcast circuit, preaching about how powerless individuals have become when confronted with the technologies of persuasion. As Nick Seaver has pointed out recently, Harris’s grand plan, now institutionalized, seems premised on fighting back against behavioral design with — what else? — behavioral psychology. (I’m reminded here of a classic but since deleted quip from Twitter user @CrushingBort: “hmm well I’d say I’m fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. The problems are bad but their causes … their causes are very good.”) This points to yet another level of latent irony within Harris’s portent that “the call was coming from inside the house.”

      Harris’s assessment of the problems associated with unbridled social mediation by algorithms seems to fit neatly within Aristotle’s tripartite conception of rhetoric: User-experience designers and software engineers deploy scarily effective — in his words, “godlike” — techniques (logos) to exploitatively hack into our “Paleolithic emotions” (pathos), and therefore the only appropriate response is to rethink tech’s underlying ethos. But Aristotle made clear that ethos is not a solution or counterbalance to the potential pitfalls of pathos and logos, as Harris seems to be proffering, but is itself a constituent part of successful persuasion. So if the cultivation of an ethos is this group’s preferred option for tech intervention, we might then ask what Harris and his ilk — rhetoricians par excellence — are trying to persuade us of with such histrionics about the perils of persuasion.

      On first glance, tech’s ethical mandate seems little more than a containment strategy, likely developed by well-intentioned public relations consultants. But it would be unduly cynical to dismiss Harris and his fellow ethical reformers as merely acting in bad faith. The problem isn’t that they don’t earnestly mean what they say, but that they do: “Ethics” functions intentionally here as little more than a vague rhetorical stand-in for some ostensibly shared ideal of “goodness” or “fairness.” It is largely bereft of specific and actionable demands, offering instead hand-wavy consternation about the future. Rather than stake out explicit and structural theories of justice, the movement’s proponents offer instead moralizing sermons on the need to reclaim, as Center for Humane Technology cofounder Aza Raskin put it, our individual rights to the “you-colored prism, the rainbow only you can see,” which data brokers have ruthlessly taken from us.

      Almost without exception, the ethical course charted by these Silicon Valley cartographers is an unmistakably solitary pursuit, as Raskin’s poeticizing illustrates. This corresponds with Aristotle’s program: “For each person, ‘good’ is what is good to him.” In both cases, to invoke ethics is to invoke a series of personal lifestyle choices geared toward self-improvement. From that vantage, it’s no surprise that new-age mindfulness specialists are along for the ride, gently reminding us to “look inward.” (There’s an app for that!) Altogether, the growing conversation around ethics in tech seems to further entrench an ideological commitment to individualism, hand in hand with a renewed humanism, which has evidently been technologically corrupted and now requires rescue.

      But the idea that new technology is undermining our ability to be fully human is nothing new. Machine-learning algorithms are merely the latest villain to stoke a media panic, following a pattern of similar anxieties about television, radio, and even writing itself. So what is the actual danger that “ethical tech” is supposed to protect us from? And why have both startups and old-guard tech firms embraced this readymade ethical mandate? With a spotlight trained so brightly on ethics, what have we relegated to the shadows? All the hubbub about ethics in tech obscures an industry-wide allergy to politics as such.

      It appears that individuals and corporations alike have taken a shine to the ethical mode of iterative self-optimization, a key tenet of Aristotle’s program. This development, at its core, mobilizes the presumption that we all share a common understanding of the virtuous future that we are collectively striving for, even if its specifics remain hazy. It’s an ethical outlook that, tellingly, mirrors the epistemological foundation of Bayesian machine-learning, wherein one’s current beliefs about the future are progressively updated to account for newly collected information about the past. The future, under this rubric, is reduced to nothing more than an incrementally optimized version of the present.

      Google espoused a logic in which incompatible worldviews were conflated: There is no true and false here, only gradations along a commensurable spectrum

      We might call this phenomenon fuzzy ethics. But the point is not one of revisionist history, implying “Zadeh computerized ethics and we’ve suffered ever since!” Instead, it is to suggest that our contemporary computational paradigm — as with virtue ethics — is rooted in a future-oriented ideal that is designed specifically to be never fully realized. The subject modeled by algorithmic recommendation systems is cut from the same cloth as the one posited by Aristotelian ethics: Both are abstracted universals always undergoing a process of individual refinement. We learn to “do better” just as our machines learn to “do better.” But better at what? We can never be certain.

      Fuzzy ethics is also not simply a bad or ineffective mode of ethics. Rather ethics as such is characteristically fuzzy in that it begins with the postulation of principles for individual conduct. This fuzziness no doubt resonates with our individual diversity (recall Raskin’s appeal to the “you-colored prism”) and can meaningfully guide us in our day-to-day interactions with others. But it also explains why ethics is woefully limited when employed in the face of widespread, structural injustice. Translated into start-up jargon, we might say that there is no growth hack for ethics.


      Structural questions demand structural answers. Enter politics.

      Philosopher Jacques Rancière has described the ways in which the recent “ethical turn” taken in social theory inevitably produces “a state of indistinction between cause and effect.” Judea Pearl, ironically enough, has similarly decried the AI archetype he helped pioneer on nearly identical grounds. While classical probabilistic reasoning might, say, correlate the falling readout on a barometer with an impending thunderstorm, it is of no help in distinguishing which event causes the other to occur. As Pearl plainly puts it, we cannot “explain to a computer why turning the dial of a barometer won’t cause rain.”

      The tech industry’s eager adoption of ethics can be seen as an attempt to exploit this blind spot and thereby evade scrutiny and defer any accountability for the societal effects of their products and services. This, in turn, suggests that a theory of causality might be an effective antidote to fuzzy ethics. Accordingly, we might better understand and respond to tech’s impact on social life through a distinctly political lens that clarifies the constitutive fuzziness of an ethical mandate. In stark contrast with Aristotle’s virtuously moderate “unnamed mean,” a political mandate would require the identifying of actors, incentives, and outcomes, and an articulation of causality that structurally connects them. Rather than merely posit a sociotechnological world shaped by inscrutable and omniscient forces, a political mandate would begin by sussing out concrete actors with concrete interests. That is, politics names names.

      One influential advocate of the ethical turn, Jane Bennett, has suggested that an analytical framework invested foremost in ethics might nobly “interfere with the project of blaming,” which in practice tends to disproportionately punish the already powerless. However, ethics also stultifies the project of claiming, and politics is nothing if not the prescriptive staking of claims on the future. Bennett and Zadeh both present a rich, high-resolution image of a world in flux — which is, we can now say, ethical in its very nature — but while this might be appropriate on a descriptive level, it remains in desperate, if counterintuitive, need of some prescriptive pixelation.

      This work is happening, but the action is far afield from the likes of Harris’s think tank. Consider, for instance, the brave actions last year of Google workers protesting against Project Maven, a Pentagon contract their employer temporarily held to build AI for unmanned military drones. Likewise, we can observe the activism spearheaded by the Tech Workers Coalition, which aims to organize engineers alongside the vendors, temps, and contract workers who, in actuality, keep tech campuses afloat. And more recently, much might be gleaned from the successful campaign by Googlers Against Transphobia, which arose in response to their employer’s proposed ethics board.

      In this latter case, Google espoused a logic — call it fuzzy — in which incompatible worldviews were qualitatively conflated: A strident transphobe, a military drone CEO, a behavioral economist, and a philosopher of ethics were all treated as equally valid input variables, as if the ethics board was itself little more than a bottom-up computational problem to be mathematically optimized. As with Zadeh’s logic, there is no true and false here, no right and wrong, only gradations along a commensurable spectrum. But workers’ resistance movements exemplify a different logic entirely: a model of collective action, informed by firmly held ideological positions and invested in ground-up solidarity building. Unsurprisingly, the same companies touting their ethical bona fides have started to lash out against this type of organizing.

      Harris’s proposed ethical program is, in his own words, meant to inspire a “race to the top,” with tech firms competitively vying to replace the incentive structure of an “extractive” attention economy with a “regenerative” one. We are left to wonder what this aspirational project of regeneration actually entails. But in any case, therein lies the problem: Politics is not merely regenerative, which implies a simple rearranging of the existing pieces. At its best it is also generative, capable of creative reimagination in the fullest sense. Fuzzy ethics, much like fuzzy logic and its innumerable derivatives, ultimately cannot supply us with a structural theory of cause and effect that would implicate sites of power, articulate and demand concessions, or formulate a generative vision of the future worth agitating for. Ethics, therefore, should not be understood as an adequate “blueprint” for building an equitable future, as has recently been argued, but rather as something more like a big binder of colorful paint swatches, most useful once the new foundation has been laid.

      Until we hold the tech industry to a higher standard than ethics, causality will remain black-boxed and culpability will be eternally deferred. We cannot allow its power to hide behind the logic of correlation and probabilism — neither in its computational nor its ethical guises. Instead, we should aim to harness the generative friction which occurs between competing agents with antithetical interests. The universalized subjectivity of virtue ethics must be contested with a coalition-based movement which understands the virtues of antagonism. In other words, fuzzy ethics might be best countered with a gallant return to ones and zeros.

      13 May 18:32

      EMC launches Microcredential Framework

      Kerrie Kennedy, The PIE News, May 13, 2019
      Icon

      According to this article, the European MOOC Consortium (EMC) has launched a Common Microcredential Framework (CMF). " The CMF launched at the recent EADTU-EU Summit 2019 in Brussels with the EMC’s founding platform partners, including FutureLearnFrance Université NumériqueOpenupEdMiríadax, and  EduOpen." According to FutureLearn's Mark lester, “Leaving work for long periods of time to earn a traditional qualification will be less applicable in this new world and a new solution is needed from the education sector to meet this growing need.”

      Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]
      13 May 17:57

      Happiness, Longer Commutes, and Mental Health

      by Sandy James Planner
      women standing under open umbrellas outdoors during nighttime
      women standing under open umbrellas outdoors during nighttime Photo by Caio Queiroz on Pexels.com

      Dr. Bridget Burdett in New Zealand sent along this link to a new article in Science Direct published in  the Journal of Transportation and Health.  Researchers included Corrine Mulley, one of the editors of “Walking~Connecting Sustainable Transport with Health”.

      The study looked at the qualitative experience of over three hundred individuals who relocated to suburban areas without good transit or active transportation links to work centres. Since residential development in outlying areas often arrives before public transportation infrastructure, researchers wanted to assess the health impacts of longer and changing commutes on commuters.

      Using multiple regression techniques, researchers had some surprising conclusions. Longer commutes and changing the time needed to leave for commutes was found to be directly related to lower mental health levels and the perception of a decrease in wellbeing. But researchers also found that independent car use and not using public transport was associated with “increased happiness”.

      What this suggests is that the quality of the commute is important and that the link between commuting time, mental well being and perception of independence is more layered than anticipated. Dr. Burdett suggests that “reliable mass transit  and walking and cycling are needed for the win”.

      The pathways between commute time, mental health and subjective wellbeing are complex and embedded in subjective experiences of the commute both past and present. This study hints at the need for good quality mass transit facilities and scheduling to ensure that there is a convenient and reliable experience for longer distance commuters. Future research will address the connection between mental health and commuting, as well as examining what elements of the public transit commute need to improve to keep commuters happier.

       

      police motorcycle in middle of road
      police motorcycle in middle of road Photo by Jimmy Chan on Pexels.com
      13 May 17:53

      Fakery is coming. We’re not ready.

      by Josh Bernoff

      I’m going to share some tweets with you. I’ll tell you who wrote them in a moment. “Today I’m announcing an important partnership that has the potential to transform America’s foreign policy – it comes from the heart!” “I am pleased to announce our new alliance with North Korea. Kim Jong Un and I are … Continued

      The post Fakery is coming. We’re not ready. appeared first on without bullshit.

      13 May 17:51

      Erasing history

      Joanne Jacobs, Linking and Thinking on Education, May 13, 2019
      Icon

      Photographs, murals and statues inescapably point to the past, but the past is infinite - we could display anything, from primordial soup to yesterday's breakfast. So we have to choose. That's why the art we display in our public places reflects what we think today about the past. It tells us what we want to celebrate, cherish and remember. That is why our choices about murals and statues are important. That's why we put up monuments to heroes, not criminals. So when people say we should take down art depicting oppression, slavery or genocide, we are not saying we want to erase history, we are saying that perhaps today we should stop celebrating oppression, slavery or genocide as though they were good things. And it's hard not to think of people who defend these displays as people who still think they were good things.

      Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]
      13 May 17:48

      Doris Day, celebrated actor and singer, dies aged 97 | Film

      mkalus shared this story from The Guardian.

      Doris Day, the actor, singer and animal welfare activist, has died at the age of 97. The Doris Day Animal Foundation confirmed the news.

      Born Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff in Cincinnati, Ohio, Day was known for a string of successful musicals and romantic comedies, including Pillow Talk, as well as a singing career that encompassed 29 studio albums.

      Descended from German immigrants to the US, Day first gained fame with a recording of Sentimental Journey on 1945 as a vocalist for Les Brown and His Band of Renown; the song became a popular second world war anthem, and by 1946 she was the highest paid female singer in the world.

      Her film career started with a role in the 1948 musical comedy Romance on the High Seas, which she secured after Betty Hutton dropped out due to pregnancy. Day proved a hit with audiences, specialising in musical comedy roles, including My Dream is Yours, Tea for Two and I’ll See You in My Dreams. In 1953, she took on the title role of the hit film Calamity Jane, a major hit which later turned into both a stage musical and a TV show.

      Day engineered a career change shortly afterwards, declining to renew her contract with Warner Bros with the intention of branching out. Her breakthrough role came opposite James Cagney in the musical Love Me or Leave Me, in which she played real-life singer Ruth Etting. Day herself believed it to be her best performance.

      Day followed it up with roles in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much and the poorly received thriller Julie. The disappointing results of the latter film prompted her to return to comedy, and she secured an Oscar nomination for her role alongside Rock Hudson in 1959 romantic comedy Pillow Talk. This inaugurated a successful period at the box office for Day, which included That Touch of Mink with Cary Grant, The Thrill of It All opposite James Garner, and Move Over, Darling, which had originally been conceived as Something’s Got to Give, a comeback vehicle for Marilyn Monroe.

      However, Day’s perky style did not survive America’s mid-60s social upheaval, and her popularity swiftly declined in the counterculture era. Day’s film career tailed off with her last film, With Six You Get Eggroll, in 1968; she then moved to the small screen with The Doris Day Show, albeit with reluctance after she discovered she owed large debts after her husband Marty Melcher died in 1968. The show ran for five years; after the final season in 1973, she largely retired and put her efforts into animal welfare activism. She started Doris Day Animal Foundation, a non-profit which aimed at helping animals across the US.

      Day was married four times, to musicians Al Jorden (1941-43) and George Weidler (1946-49), agent and producer Melcher (1951-68) and restaurateur Barry Comden (1976-81). With her first husband she had her only child, record producer Terry Melcher, who died in 2004. Day received the the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004.

      13 May 17:48

      Neat old Technics Turntable meets rubbish new speakers

      by Techmoan
      mkalus shared this story from Techmoan's YouTube Videos.

      From: Techmoan
      Duration: 25:42

      Testing new speakers with a built in phono preamp & taking a good look at a classic Technics SL6 turntable.

      Linear Technics Turntables on ebay
      US https://ebay.to/2HdGnBt
      UK https://ebay.to/2HdGNYz
      DE https://ebay.to/304jJmm

      ***I returned the Auna speakers and got a refund***
      Better Phono Speakers Review - Red Roth VA4 (other colours are available) https://youtu.be/r6d9Sj9-4gs

      The Roth VA4 speakers are Available from
      eBay UK - refurbished for around £92 (just under £100 off) https://ebay.to/2Je6ESj

      AMAZON in the UK
      RED http://amzn.to/2kQjAS7
      BLACK http://amzn.to/2jUgCYI
      WHITE http://amzn.to/2jCaOC5

      In the USA - KANTO sell speakers with the same features
      BLACK: http://amzn.to/2jVA3CO
      RED: http://amzn.to/2jBR2qC
      WHITE: http://amzn.to/2kqGj6k
      GREY: http://amzn.to/2kqP805

      The vinyl demo record was - Show Me by YrLad: https://www.yrlad.com

      My suggested budget compact separates system
      Yamaha A-S201 Amp: https://amzn.to/30duId9
      Mordaunt Short M10 Speakers: https://amzn.to/30ef1m3
      Add a Technics Turntable https://ebay.to/2HdGnBt

      ---------------SUBSCRIBE------------------
      http://www.youtube.com/user/Techmoan?sub_confirmation=1

      -------------Merchandise-----------------
      https://teespring.com/stores/techmoan-merch

      -------------SUPPORT---------------
      This channel can be supported through Patreon
      https://www.patreon.com/techmoan
      *******Patrons usually have early access to videos*******

      -------THANKS TO -------
      Jerobeam Fenderson for the intro logo oscilloscope animation: http://oscilloscopemusic.com/

      ----------Outro Music-----------
      Over Time - Vibe Tracks https://youtu.be/VSSswVZSgJw

      ------Outro Sound Effect------
      ThatSFXGuy - https://youtu.be/5M3-ZV5-QDM

      ------AFFILIATED LINKS/ADVERTISING NOTICE-------
      All links are Affiliated where possible.
      When you click on links to various merchants posted here and make a purchase, this can result in me earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network & Amazon.
      I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to AMAZON Sites (including, but not limited to Amazon US/UK/DE/ES/FR/NL/IT/CAN)

      13 May 17:48

      Software Alliances

      Fujifilm users in the US can now get a free copy of Skylum Luminar by entering the serial number of a Fujifilm lens (update: for new lenses that you buy, not for all lenses you've bought).

      This is starting to be a trend. …

      13 May 17:47

      HTC releases Android Pie update schedule for the U12+, U11 and U11+

      by Jonathan Lamont

      If you haven’t thought much about HTC recently, I don’t blame you. The company has almost entirely disappeared from the smartphone market after Google acquired its Taiwan team — the team behind the new Pixel 3a.

      Further, HTC hasn’t made much noise since the launch of the U12+ last summer, excluding the odd launch of its blockchain phone, Exodus.

      Despite appearances, the Taiwanese company briefly showed signs of life over the weekend when it tweeted the release schedule of Android 9.0 Pie for some of its phones.

      According to the tweet, the U11 Pie rollout will begin later this month. The U11+ and U12+ will start getting Pie in late June 2019.

      Further, the company notes that certain region and carrier deployments may affect the dates.

      If you don’t own one of those HTC devices, you’re likely out of luck when it comes to getting Pie. Worse, the listed phones will probably never see Android Q either, as HTC continues to focus on the Vive VR hardware.

      Considering the company also recently unpublished several of its apps from the Play Store, there’s a good chance this represents the end for the company, despite rumours of a 2019 phone release.

      Source: Twitter Via: The Verge

      The post HTC releases Android Pie update schedule for the U12+, U11 and U11+ appeared first on MobileSyrup.

      13 May 17:47

      Apple Card packaging leaks

      by Igor Bonifacic
      Apple Card

      New images of Apple’s upcoming credit card have surfaced online courtesy of leaker Ben Geskin.

      According to Geskin, Apple has started to provide its employees with the new credit card.

      Geskin edited the name on the card to add his own so as to protect the identity of the employee who sent him the photos of the card. Like the packaging of Apple’s AirPods, the Apple Card instructs users to wake their iPhone and “hold here.”

      Apple announced Apple Card in March during the company’s Apple TV+ keynote. At the moment Apple Card isn’t coming to Canada, though Goldman Sachs has expressed interest in bringing the credit card to other markets.

      Source: Ben Geskin (Twitter) Via: MacRumors

      The post Apple Card packaging leaks appeared first on MobileSyrup.

      13 May 17:47

      No Frills targets tweens, teens and your mother with mobile game that offers PC Optimum rewards

      by Bradly Shankar
      Hauler: Aisles of Glory game

      New mobile games are released every day, but how often can you say that a major Canadian supermarket chain releases one?

      Well, No Frills can now do exactly that with the launch of its free-to-play browser game Hauler: Aisles of Glory.

      The game, which can be played in both mobile and desktop browsers, puts players into the critical role of a hauler as they run through a No Frills to collect products. Hauler is presented through a nostalgic 8-bit visual style and lets you play as one of five characters, including young men and women and a cute granny.

      In terms of actual gameplay, Hauler is rather simple, with players using the up and down arrow keys to avoid obstacles and the space button. On mobile, these appear as virtual buttons to tap on the screen.

      You’re encouraged to collect as many food or household cleaning items as you can, but you’ll have to avoid hazards like diamonds, champagne towers and even speed boats. You can also pick up a few different power-ups, including an extra life, triple jump or haul magnet.

      Hauler Aisles of Glory

      The most notable thing about the game, though, outside of its significant No Frills store promotion, is the fact that it rewards you with up to 500 PC Optimum points for playing daily. No Frills says it will continue to reward players until they have been awarded 50 million cumulative points.

      Play the game to find out if the hauler’s life is for you here.

      If you want to add to the experience, No Frills has hauler-themed clothing, too.

      The post No Frills targets tweens, teens and your mother with mobile game that offers PC Optimum rewards appeared first on MobileSyrup.

      13 May 17:45

      Subscription as investment - nathanb

      This made me smile. I've tried to make myself like markdown a few times thinking that if so many others that I respect think it's so great, then there must be something I'm missing. Though it's very likely that I am the weak link in being unable to grok markdown, I'm glad I'm not the only one in this boat.


      >Daly de Gagne wrote:
      >Alexander, thank you. I took a look at Joplin, and one drawback for me
      >is markdown. I fail to see its appeal or a reason forbit in a general
      >purpose notes program. I tolerate it in Dynalist but much prefer the
      >approach taken by EN and Nimbus. In Standard Notes you have to buy the
      >extensions package to get away from compulsory markdown.
      12 May 05:13

      Twitter Favorites: [SnarkySteff] Whenever I whine abroad dreading the heat to come in Ottawa, people need to remind me that there are terrific thund… https://t.co/YmjgOEXrD0

      Steffani Cameron, the Full Nomad @SnarkySteff
      Whenever I whine abroad dreading the heat to come in Ottawa, people need to remind me that there are terrific thund… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
      12 May 05:13

      Here’s how Google can save podcasting from getting siloed

      by Doc Searls

      Give podcasting full respect by making it a search heading.

      Bing should do it too. Also DuckDuckGo. In fact all search engines should make podcasts a search heading. Simple as that.

      If they make podcasts a search heading, they’ll make podcasting too big a category to fracture into a forest of silos.

      This doesn’t mean Apple, Spotify and others can’t continue to offer subscriptions and other forms of aggregation. Or that ListenNotes will go out of business. (Though that’s a risk. Remember Technorati?)

      Anyway, this idea just came to me. It’s a bit of a riff off a concern Dave Winer has had for some time. (Sample here.) What do the rest of ya’ll think?