tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268627614977571942024-03-13T01:11:06.799-05:00Infamous Heel-FilcherInfamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.comBlogger199125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-76249984255011352202016-09-14T20:44:00.001-05:002016-09-14T20:47:06.233-05:00Eye Of Minerva<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf8-2NT1CRVnQk7m7bFy6NDQRufXycaQGjUgs_V8pWCgQEuHlJbKtYz1uESUFFog4tfammtdNsu9mENmdhPeCmF3a72tyJpAnigCLan4FA59DD7Hg9u8pCKQWn9K1exVubu3OUxWVGpzs/s1600/20160914_192744.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf8-2NT1CRVnQk7m7bFy6NDQRufXycaQGjUgs_V8pWCgQEuHlJbKtYz1uESUFFog4tfammtdNsu9mENmdhPeCmF3a72tyJpAnigCLan4FA59DD7Hg9u8pCKQWn9K1exVubu3OUxWVGpzs/s640/20160914_192744.jpg"> </a> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Brutal death metal but they could have been playing wrong notes all night and I couldn't have told the difference.</div>Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-51867853372329795482016-04-24T23:41:00.001-05:002016-04-24T23:41:22.823-05:00Fear Factory and Friends<p dir="ltr">Fear <u>Factory</u></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsUJC5ziKc2cceLF72lODHijXethBoIOfwvuo0GpEFEme9vGro3j9tvNURr8iWz1lBfY76rn7teSh3n2Ult7Z5zjuYp5ObYpOVFCdCvQMtB7eT1yAza52dBsCbBqwL20qWZeT8Uy4vf7s/s1600/20160424_224026.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsUJC5ziKc2cceLF72lODHijXethBoIOfwvuo0GpEFEme9vGro3j9tvNURr8iWz1lBfY76rn7teSh3n2Ult7Z5zjuYp5ObYpOVFCdCvQMtB7eT1yAza52dBsCbBqwL20qWZeT8Uy4vf7s/s640/20160424_224026.jpg"> </a> </div>Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-77772894697135358982016-04-24T22:24:00.001-05:002016-04-24T22:24:25.360-05:00Fear Factory and Friends<p dir="ltr">Soilwork<br>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJqeiZDH-hTVlYu0zqDodDNiT5qw5OCfOh4FRm2BaFS_fyrPiwNwC3G4MCzJ9edJ2adjhUvzz1H_nY6CbFUtLTE78pVtHu1PQOmQRcDwKoXfoQTAvuhuyBkfrCFmG8po-rcssoVgdmlXk/s1600/20160424_212331.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJqeiZDH-hTVlYu0zqDodDNiT5qw5OCfOh4FRm2BaFS_fyrPiwNwC3G4MCzJ9edJ2adjhUvzz1H_nY6CbFUtLTE78pVtHu1PQOmQRcDwKoXfoQTAvuhuyBkfrCFmG8po-rcssoVgdmlXk/s640/20160424_212331.jpg"> </a> </div>Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-20311711593340087612016-04-24T20:58:00.001-05:002016-04-24T20:58:15.937-05:00Fear Factory and Friends<p dir="ltr"><u>Omnikage</u></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCVlRM2Ppfiz1cGIo0nG5JVZI4gdxk7z2UD2f7VgWkZwYlAjz2Rihoaqm3szhpPgYxco9aE-GrjDoKLTaYKpEPvfYk9JcjCMQPFvMMei1n_LHn4dnYNWg4YpDUAMaMxci7ZTmiZf5reMc/s1600/20160424_195701.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCVlRM2Ppfiz1cGIo0nG5JVZI4gdxk7z2UD2f7VgWkZwYlAjz2Rihoaqm3szhpPgYxco9aE-GrjDoKLTaYKpEPvfYk9JcjCMQPFvMMei1n_LHn4dnYNWg4YpDUAMaMxci7ZTmiZf5reMc/s640/20160424_195701.jpg"> </a> </div>Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-30471676857087101672016-04-20T18:42:00.001-05:002016-04-20T18:44:10.119-05:00Scala varargs and splats<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Coming from a Python background, I got a lot of mileage out of the easy sequence parameter expansion pattern:<br />
<br />
<pre class="brush: python">def foo(a,b,c): bar()
L = [1,4,"s"]
foo(*L)</pre>
<br />
This implicitly takes a sequence type (in this case, a list) and explodes its contents into the parameters <span style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">a,b,c</span>. (You have to watch out that the sequence contains the right number of parameters, of course.)<br />
<br />
In Scala, which I'm writing for my current job, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the same kind of functionality exists, as long as the function is declared varargs:<br />
<br />
<pre class="brush: java">def foo(ts: T*)
L = List(t0,t1,t2)
foo(L :_*)</pre>
<br />
This is especially useful if, for example, foo() is defined in some Java library that doesn't do any kind of polymorphism well.<br />
<br />
Apparently, the ":_*" type annotation on the end there is called the "splat operator" (much easier to pronounce), and it's a <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6051302/what-does-colon-underscore-star-do-in-scala">part of</a> the Scala Language Specification.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-46782281747122470372016-01-04T21:20:00.001-06:002016-01-04T21:20:25.503-06:00This is totally a bookmark<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Hundreds of open datasets on which to practice one's data science chops. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets.html">UCI Machine Learning Archive</a></div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-60400109257652855012015-10-29T11:55:00.001-05:002015-10-29T11:55:08.040-05:00We Sold Our Souls To Metal Tour<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr">
Earth Side: Proggy all-instrumental trio (with canned vocals from, of all people, Bjorn Strid). Got skills, though their technical musicianship isn't quite there yet. I like the songwriting too, such as I can hear in this deafening mix.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggzru4MNk8cBksdSNb4ZRBeaWW_xjVMzX11zJfxLPSq3JK_SRiI-PmPJzTOVkU7s4jg9dNRg_Z3ZqupdBjCp1ShQW4cgqU7Yrb-IhgcTEShlYcKVEvEvEyVFUItq4VgcwtM9HeQCDcPJQ/s1600/20151027_195242%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggzru4MNk8cBksdSNb4ZRBeaWW_xjVMzX11zJfxLPSq3JK_SRiI-PmPJzTOVkU7s4jg9dNRg_Z3ZqupdBjCp1ShQW4cgqU7Yrb-IhgcTEShlYcKVEvEvEyVFUItq4VgcwtM9HeQCDcPJQ/s320/20151027_195242%255B1%255D.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Shattered Sun: Texas metalcore, a little like Threat Signal but with a more grinding guitar style. I have no idea what the keyboard player was there for.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi72KjgRCUVXrm79O3vCnMpkjHXpSwGtWj_AGs1kJxSG9dd9oFrTxi1SDYhwyE6XrHBYBvPYJlFOxntmMLbtTUvu12cokkD3jfQkTat2VjzlTugYK2irkCARM41bHvKv-WLOY6Gy4BcUHw/s1600/20151027_203818%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi72KjgRCUVXrm79O3vCnMpkjHXpSwGtWj_AGs1kJxSG9dd9oFrTxi1SDYhwyE6XrHBYBvPYJlFOxntmMLbtTUvu12cokkD3jfQkTat2VjzlTugYK2irkCARM41bHvKv-WLOY6Gy4BcUHw/s320/20151027_203818%255B1%255D.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Soilwork: needs no introduction</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf1y1MclmIB1nhM0LYL7lCSBP9PNhfmx4Eur0y6gQxY31cnJ5MaPGeFPx7nlplcZQ2NK53bbbDeGt18kHVlNQyNOZPGcU5MxHzbpzG0nKryueVHFVXi4U58HZlIxJlIKC4f0NZfDXYwW4/s1600/IMG-20151028-WA0016%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf1y1MclmIB1nhM0LYL7lCSBP9PNhfmx4Eur0y6gQxY31cnJ5MaPGeFPx7nlplcZQ2NK53bbbDeGt18kHVlNQyNOZPGcU5MxHzbpzG0nKryueVHFVXi4U58HZlIxJlIKC4f0NZfDXYwW4/s320/IMG-20151028-WA0016%255B1%255D.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8cgp11naRafbK7QtZIe8QQ871u348KarkD39OJy9_Ym4JrInfSgWxQBw2jMabG7IG7uEY20VRpBpuzRxQWwjy4-E0AkGdi9dHYQX71wrzCCRLVoOJa0SPAs6Q9_5zIXGYJpDfpl1BPMA/s1600/IMG-20151028-WA0012%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8cgp11naRafbK7QtZIe8QQ871u348KarkD39OJy9_Ym4JrInfSgWxQBw2jMabG7IG7uEY20VRpBpuzRxQWwjy4-E0AkGdi9dHYQX71wrzCCRLVoOJa0SPAs6Q9_5zIXGYJpDfpl1BPMA/s320/IMG-20151028-WA0012%255B1%255D.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
There was also this band called Soulfly that played last, but fuck those assholes.</div>
</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-70017543115568094172015-10-01T20:22:00.001-05:002015-10-01T20:22:52.425-05:00Forum wrap-up<p dir="ltr">Winners: Chris Bell out the gate knew his details, knew his programs, and was very personable. Sylvester Turner also kept his base happy, and in particular kept bringing questions of equity and access for the <b>whole</b> city to the fore.</p>
<p dir="ltr">King burnished his fiscally-conservative-curmudgeon badge. If that's your thing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Losers: McVey was out of his depth. Also Ben Hall for not even showing up (though apparently it was due to some kind of medical event, so that gets a pass).</p>
<p dir="ltr">The rest: they all convinced me they want the job more than they want to <b>do</b> the job. That goes double for Adrian Garcia.</p>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-55124507740789063962015-10-01T18:44:00.001-05:002015-10-01T19:51:41.017-05:00Live blogging the Houston Parks, Bikes, and Waterways Mayoral Forum<p dir="ltr">19:38 Improve Houston's cooperation with other entities to improve quality of life? Bell: we are a progressive city, and are ready to start acting like the fourth/third largest city, if we keep vision for green space. Costello: we rely a lot on philanthropic community. We need to pursue grants and other sources. Garcia: mayor's office and city government focuses on brick-and-mortar issues, but needs vision. See Discovery Green: that was just parking lots. Mentions goal zero. King: 1.8 million people in the unincorporated part of Harris County. County government is not set up to serve these people in an urban setting. Similar problems with bantustans like Bellaire. McVey commits to a sustainable plan for development. We need federal and state funds to close jurisdictional gaps. Turner: equity. Congratulates Parks Dept, and the forward looking programs like 2020. </p>
<p dir="ltr">19:31 Maintenance: King harks back to finances. McVey: fix waste in government. Wants to hire efficiency constants to see how to squeeze savings and rebuild the structure. Turner cites his budget-balancing at the state level. Bell wants to take medians out of Parks and Rec. Costello agrees. Debunks the "three times as expensive" figure. Garcia wants to find efficiencies. Money is already allocated for complete streets. </p>
<p dir="ltr">19:18 Connectivity: Costello is looking to get power lines underground. Complete Streets is not really workable, but ought to be merged with bike plan, separate bikes from cars. Wants public education about bike rights and responsibilities. Garcia: we want a network effect. Create canopies so people can walk: transit-oriented development. All about ensuring a financial commitment: pay for it by reforming pensions. King: a complete street costs three times what a regular street costs, a light rail line costs 2.5 billion dollars. McVey estimates 6-8 billion to bury the lines. The new master plan is a good start. But it didn't include how to pay for any of it. Turner: you can't talk about complete streets without complete neighborhoods. Walkability. Car culture segregates the city into haves and have-nots. Bell jokes that we should air-condition the bike lanes. More seriously, wants to split streets management out into a separate department. Potholes are a serious problem. Bike lanes: we need to enforce the three foot law, and make an example of some scofflaw drivers.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:12 Public health and safety ordinance. Garcia wants an anti-idling ordinance but only voluntary plastic bag programs. King notes air quality is about older diesel vehicles. For water quality, the city is way out of compliance with Clean Water Act. McVey thinks idling trucks are just a mobility problem, wants to keep trucks out of the city and keeping them on the Grand Parkway, even if that means letting them use it for free. Turner likes a plastic bag ban and wants aggressive action on particulates, wants multimodal transportation. Also light rail from Missouri City. Bell wants to discuss water, wants a Bayou Conservation Corps. Costello wants recycling expanded to multifamily, small business etc. Stormwater is a problem, mentions technical fixes like better pavement materials.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:05 How to fund the Parks and Recreation Department? King: we're going deeper and deeper into debt over pensions. McVey wants to tear down the silos that city departments live in. Turner notes that the new parks are financed by the management district, and reiterates the need to modify the cap. Bell thinks the cap is irresponsible. When it comes to parks, wants to use technology to track maintenance levels to work smarter. Costello identifies core services/competencies in public departments. Garcia wants to look at management districts and... tergs? I think he's using an acronym, but I don't know which one.</p>
<p dir="ltr">18:58 How to address and pay for immediate parks/infrastructure plan. McVey seems oddly focused on "rooftops" as synechdoche for tax base. Also wants government to be more efficient. Turner mentions state funding for local parks. Wants to modify the revenue cap. Bell wants to repeal the revenue cap. Also wants public-private partnerships. Costello thinks congestion mitigation funding can go to bike infrastructure. Garcia thinks we need to look at the models that have been successful. King says we can't get rid of the revenue cap, we need to get control of expenses, and right-size the public payroll.</p>
<p dir="ltr">18:52 Walkability and access: Turner brings up low-income families and widespread access rather than focusing on destination parks. Bell wants to focus on repairing sidewalk. Also supports pocket parks, mentions Baldwin Park near my house. Costello thinks bike trails are "really" walking trails. Wants a grid of walk/bike trails dovetailing into Bayou 2020. Garcia wants private-public partnerships. His angle is economic development. King thinks the linear parks project has to be the backbone of any plan, but wants to use vacant and delinquent land for neighborhood parks. McVey is focused on a general plan and business development.</p>
<p dir="ltr">18:50 Regarding billboards: All candidates support keeping the ban, though McVey mentions evacuation infrastructure.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Steve Costello is a board member of Memorial Park Conservancy, a runner, and to be honest doesn't bike in the city. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Chris Bell wants to discuss a program to make our young people "Bayou Keepers".</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sylvester Turner knows parks and green space are not fluff issues: they mean money and quality of life. If we can build stadiums, we can build park infrastructure.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Marty McVey wants to talk about revenue, smart growth, economic development. Parks are related somehow.</p>
<p dir="ltr">18:40 Bill King wants to talk about finance and deficits.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Garcia gets first intro, reprises his background and doesn't mention parks.</p>
<p dir="ltr">18:38 The meeting opens with a disruption by a fringe candidate who wasn't invited to the panel.</p>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-17980583449684495812015-09-10T09:55:00.000-05:002015-09-10T09:55:07.504-05:00On Live Updates<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Dear Houston Metro:<br />
<br />
If you promise "<a href="https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/NextBusArrivalTexting.aspx">real-time estimated arrival information</a>"...<br />
... and line X runs every 30 minutes, with scheduled stops at intersection Y at 7:56, 8:26, 8:56, 9:26, and 9:56...<br />
... and line X originates at a station ten minutes away from intersection Y...<br />
... and I arrive at intersection Y at 7:47...<br />
... and I wait at intersection Y until 8:10, at which time I send a text to the arrival information service...<br />
... and the bus is actually four minutes away...<br />
... and the next departure from the originating station is at 8:16...<br />
... then it represents an EPIC fail on your part to respond with the following estimated arrival information:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">X/W: 8:26/RT; 8:56/RT; 9:26/SC; 9:56/SC</span></blockquote>
<br /></div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-66948349351547077902015-08-19T11:56:00.001-05:002015-08-19T11:56:31.451-05:00Rein In Blood<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Dear Bernie Sanders campaign staff:<br />
<br />
You generally do a good job of letting anything embarrassing or pants-on-head go out on your email blasts. But please, for the love of Kang and Kodos, watch out for well-known usage errors:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS-U0kGrlj531Ksw1ra3pIKHE9JZ2pVfAafMs3R-nd2nAmV1WDVn_fYofRJYcIriZn24PfYsW8lcsppY30hgFLwobPJZ5khbC4W7eEzR237oPtiCFSy4KtSRYBTNMz475ONt1h-HqtbVY/s1600/Sanders_Reign.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS-U0kGrlj531Ksw1ra3pIKHE9JZ2pVfAafMs3R-nd2nAmV1WDVn_fYofRJYcIriZn24PfYsW8lcsppY30hgFLwobPJZ5khbC4W7eEzR237oPtiCFSy4KtSRYBTNMz475ONt1h-HqtbVY/s400/Sanders_Reign.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
"Rein in" is a horse metaphor, not a king metaphor.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-77146248860242518072015-07-19T19:21:00.001-05:002015-07-19T20:31:55.862-05:00Live-blogging the Houston Bernie Sanders rally<p dir="ltr">20:27 Sanders brings up racism, and one person starts shouting "Black Lives Matter". Some congratulatory throat-clearing about electing Obama and color of their character. Then name-checks Sandra <u>Bland</u>, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice. Calls for police to be held accountable, to be "part of their community, not oppressors in the community". </p>
<p dir="ltr">20:17 "All of us have a moral responsibility to ensure that the planet we leave our children and grandchildren is habitable."</p>
<p dir="ltr">20:06 Overturn Citizens United.</p>
<p dir="ltr">20:04 Wall Street, To Big To Fail, Glass-Steagall, break up the big banks.</p>
<p dir="ltr">20:01 Calls for 13 million infrastructure jobs.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:53 Pivot to "family values": legally guaranteed paid medical and family leave, paid sick leave, length of work weeks, paid vacation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">"Forcing women to return to work five days after childbirth is the opposite of a family value."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:50 Sanders calls current minimum wage a "starvation wage" and calls for $15/hour. "It is not a radical idea in America that if a person works 40 hours a week then they should not be in poverty." Calls on men to fix the gender wage gap.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:46 Unemployment, underemployment, and youth unemployment (17-25). Breaks down stats by race. "We are turning our backs on an entire generation. And if you think this is unrelated to the millions in prison, you would be mistaken."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:43 "This campaign us singlehandedly sending a message to the billionaire class, and that message is, you can't have it all. You cannot combine to ship jobs to China when millions here need work."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:38 Apparently the issue portion of the speech starts now. Go figure. First up: income inequality.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:37 "I want you to tell your working class Republican friends and coworkers about the Republican budget. Ask them about cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Ask them about cuts to Pell grants. Ask them about WIC. Ask them about outsourcing jobs. And then ask them about tax cuts for the top two-tenths of a percent."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:34 "I have taken in virtually every powerful special interest in this country, and many if them hate my guts."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:31 "Fifty state strategy". "You cannot be a national political party, claiming to represent working families, and leave untouched half the states in the nation."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:28 "People ask me, why on earth are you coming to Texas? My answer: I do know that this is a conservative, Republican state, and that's exactly why I'm here."</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:27 Sanders takes the stage.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:25 Cummings hit labor, TPP, environment hard.</p>
<p dir="ltr">19:15 Claude <u>Cummings</u> vice president of the Communication Workers of America, gives introduction.</p>
<p dir="ltr">====<br>
* All quotes are paraphrases.</p>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-73862714007037991502015-05-01T12:09:00.000-05:002015-05-01T12:09:29.000-05:00Weekend Photography<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Had a chance to do some shooting last weekend. Some friends-of-friends had a crawfish boil out on the old family farm, and my friend and I took a walk around the back side of the property. I haven't seen her shots, but may update this post and add them later if she wants me to.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
I've always been less comfortable shooting people than objects -- when you shoot a person, there's this complicated interplay of getting their thoughts onto their face, putting them into a situation that will never quite be repeated. Still subjects are different -- but I've never quite had a still-subject shot that I liked as much as my best portraits. That hasn't changed with this set, but the interplay of "nature" and abandoned human artifacts does make me happy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0h5mt91-mwfBQb5_cOJ2X_P0WjN8daeg3Xb600nU4cl2YS5EBizoVDL4MLOjr3Gv4jKzyJiIFZdxPnPFrhoKou0g6LpptR1A2NMX4m-C203eWE0t-RMJWXRexflWcrRjhxzHSWcctz9Q/s1600/IMG_5573_adj.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0h5mt91-mwfBQb5_cOJ2X_P0WjN8daeg3Xb600nU4cl2YS5EBizoVDL4MLOjr3Gv4jKzyJiIFZdxPnPFrhoKou0g6LpptR1A2NMX4m-C203eWE0t-RMJWXRexflWcrRjhxzHSWcctz9Q/s1600/IMG_5573_adj.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Flying Blind</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Z5IWmz8KfzUWLq9FRyXGG2avErN2IH-HX2IgbhkXTjg6C8IGjeSb3U79pwO9ISzTG-XHtaJ8KE7GucD1qLHfllcqxsJgQbXW0yObyoHn1LPkLrNijjzH6cnbqD0QJkXLOUGJLEAcv2c/s1600/IMG_5581_crop.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Z5IWmz8KfzUWLq9FRyXGG2avErN2IH-HX2IgbhkXTjg6C8IGjeSb3U79pwO9ISzTG-XHtaJ8KE7GucD1qLHfllcqxsJgQbXW0yObyoHn1LPkLrNijjzH6cnbqD0QJkXLOUGJLEAcv2c/s1600/IMG_5581_crop.JPG" height="340" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Stoneware</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7rOJ8lR_z-rTgSLU3L1eSTIOc0W0IoGs4iOrvZpECo3jh9x5m6osTUimhc_EUtu6R_aVHpV6C7Mn69LM4E71BusqLjvL1RA7rUz2G1dSYxYHf0jW-8OZi1aNAags8Dn2DuLQ9DJ_Eaog/s1600/IMG_5582_crop.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7rOJ8lR_z-rTgSLU3L1eSTIOc0W0IoGs4iOrvZpECo3jh9x5m6osTUimhc_EUtu6R_aVHpV6C7Mn69LM4E71BusqLjvL1RA7rUz2G1dSYxYHf0jW-8OZi1aNAags8Dn2DuLQ9DJ_Eaog/s1600/IMG_5582_crop.JPG" height="640" width="472" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Boilover</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmDuEVWN3p_RvT0D8vP6X4uoTfcOu18JhwfG1BCGSAUHqH10M5ZzCuPBHRKTuAfuKdQXq3_E12QuZWMF1HuSo04Gg_ki4BO92_FIEbFVyK_Celn9gsSEVhZVOhhcKr0XPqNmRXweVF6MU/s1600/IMG_5584_adj.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmDuEVWN3p_RvT0D8vP6X4uoTfcOu18JhwfG1BCGSAUHqH10M5ZzCuPBHRKTuAfuKdQXq3_E12QuZWMF1HuSo04Gg_ki4BO92_FIEbFVyK_Celn9gsSEVhZVOhhcKr0XPqNmRXweVF6MU/s1600/IMG_5584_adj.JPG" height="640" width="426" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Cattlerun</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht_ObaZr5YQVwUYvLyEM5Y42chjcnpq8sOEQcQQ44OAiSu89EPmwznolOMB4ZRCjd_2ks4viR8EQAFAWN-4Zt6VzsZ01lyrmaMkb69gECIoMUAulyBLvdzMRpdAjOO1RDimRiFAri7lNg/s1600/IMG_5595_adj.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht_ObaZr5YQVwUYvLyEM5Y42chjcnpq8sOEQcQQ44OAiSu89EPmwznolOMB4ZRCjd_2ks4viR8EQAFAWN-4Zt6VzsZ01lyrmaMkb69gECIoMUAulyBLvdzMRpdAjOO1RDimRiFAri7lNg/s1600/IMG_5595_adj.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Single-track</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfWfdMie9VeflJu_jaJfymErlYJjzl-VAsDpqX7ZLJU2IVeumoBzE0nXfOt657lnygoZ_eCScCkpWG3Siw1jgqRldBwTE4GksQubtABiNxv_Q7DuKEGSKqeszpm5ZsVlb73lIl6q6kAiU/s1600/IMG_5604_adj.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfWfdMie9VeflJu_jaJfymErlYJjzl-VAsDpqX7ZLJU2IVeumoBzE0nXfOt657lnygoZ_eCScCkpWG3Siw1jgqRldBwTE4GksQubtABiNxv_Q7DuKEGSKqeszpm5ZsVlb73lIl6q6kAiU/s1600/IMG_5604_adj.JPG" height="640" width="426" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Upstream Magic</div>
<br /></div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-61941968168134949572014-12-31T07:50:00.000-06:002015-02-13T23:15:30.537-06:00[E]valuation is nontrivial<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
You know how when you're in a debate with a smart person, and the debate wants to fragment -- you need some kind of tree structure to keep track of all the threads that the two of you have brought up, because some of them are irrelevant to the main point but still intriguing, and some of them neither of you are sure whether they'll be crucial or just trivial, and sometime what was irrelevant turns into its own fun conversation/debate?<br />
<br />
Except usually you can't do all of this, because the debate is taking place in a linear format like blog (or, worse, Facebook) comment threads?<br />
<br />
I had a moment feeling a little like that today when reading Massimo Pigliucci's report from the American Philosophical Association meeting in Philadelphia where he <a href="http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/apa-2014-1-the-moral-basis-of-capitalism-or-something/">relates sitting through a panel</a> stocked with followers of Ayn Rand. In general, this is an exercise not worth the investment of time, since no one except Objectivists takes Objectivist philosophy seriously. (Not least because Objectivist philosophers don't take any non-Objectivist philosophy seriously, and it's pretty bootless to try to have an academic discourse that way.)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Massimo posted a running commentary on the panel, which of course included a lot of little points without a fully ramified response to any of them. There was one in particular, however, that I think perfectly exemplifies the shallow thinking of Randian philosophers on both morals and economics (which really aren't separate domains for them, or really for anyone, I suppose).<br />
<br />
Yaron Brook, as reported by Massimo:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Rand stated the obvious when she claimed that you cannot put a gun to an
engineer and tell him that from now on 2+2=5. A little less obvious is
the similarity she draws between that case and the idea that one cannot
put a (governmental) committee in charge of telling a company the value
or appropriateness of a new drug. The metaphorical gun in the latter
case, of course, is the regulatory force of government, and for Rand it
is far more devastating than the one pointed to the head of our
unfortunate engineer.</span></blockquote>
So let's think about this claim, and this comparison. I think everyone is in agreement that (a) 2 + 2 is not equal to 5, and (b) it would be unjust for the state to exercise its coercive power to coerce anyone to assert that it was. More generally, we can say that <b>to the extent that an assertion is one of objective and verifiable/falsifiable fact</b>, it would be unjust for the state to coerce a contradictory assertion from someone.<br />
<br />
(Leave aside for today the problematic question of what, fundamentally, objectivity means. Posit for the sake of argument that some facts are objective; we won't be dealing with any real problem cases today. OK, one problem case, but I'll be arguing that it's not really a problem case at all.)<br />
<br />
Of course, the bolded caveat is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Mathematics is a domain with a lot of "objectivity" to it -- given premises and a putative conclusion and fixed rules of inference, the conclusion either follows from the premises or it doesn't (though <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_arithmetic">there is no algorithm to determine which</a>). When we step into statements which are not analytically true or false, there is quite a bit more gray.<br />
<br />
Before I get to the specific example in Brook's talk, let's think about a slightly less complex example taken from the medical field. Suppose the state (or an agent of the state, such as the Standards and Practices for Care of the medical licensing board) were to order physicians to assert that antibiotics do not kill bacteria: would this be tyranny or a just exercise of power?<br />
<br />
You've probably already guessed that the answer is "it depends". The ambiguity stems first from the implicit quantifiers in the statement "antibiotics do not kill bacteria". There are two such implicit quantifiers, and it is not at all obvious what they should be interpreted to mean. If "no antibiotics kill any bacteria" is meant, then the assertion is simply ludicrously false (and has no business being mandated by the state); however, if "all antibiotics may fail to kill some bacteria" is meant, then not only is the assertion true, but serves a valuable public health service.<br />
<br />
But more than the simple ambiguity of the assertion itself is the intention of the state in my hypothetical: such a directive would have a very different character as a matter of justice if it came out of the blue, than if it came accompanied with information about what a physician should be attempting to get the patient to positively understand (e.g. the danger of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and how to avoid creating them).<br />
<br />
Now, killing bacteria is an observable, objective fact, and we can clarify the statement "antibiotics do not kill bacteria" into a precise and objectively true assertion (though I personally think the statement as it stands should <b>not </b>be mandated), something along the lines of "antibiotics do not cure many diseases, such as the common cold and flu; and there exist versions of some bacteria which resist being killed by basically all known antibiotics". This is neither here nor there, of course: this example is merely to point out that even when there is an objective fact of the matter, the matter is not so clear-cut as in the case of math.<br />
<br />
(A minor aside: I have, on more than one occasion, been asked a great question in a math class, in a context where answering the question as it deserved to be answered would have dragged the class away from what needed to be learned that day or that semester. In these instances, I have been known to literally say "Now, I'm going to lie a bit, because your question is way more complicated than this -- but here's what's going on" and proceed to grossly oversimplify, and promise a real answer in whatever course deals with that topic. I don't feel at all guilty about these "lies", especially because they're acknowledged.)<br />
<br />
OK, so let's turn now to Brook's actual hypothetical: that of a pharmaceutical company which has a drug it wants to sell, and which the state wants to interfere in the selling of (either by restricting the diagnoses which the drug may be applied to, or the price at which it can be sold). Brook's thesis is, as near as we can tell, that the "value and appropriateness" of the drug are just as much a matter of objective fact as the value of 2+2, and the pharmaceutical company knows that objective fact while the state should not be assumed to; it is hence unjust for the state to constrain the company's recommendations about use of their drug.<br />
<br />
As to appropriateness: in the absence of a publicly audited testing regimen, under which the state can coerce the company to keep the drug off the market if its effects are insufficient or its side-effects out-of-bounds, why would we suspect that the company has any idea what maladies their drug is appropriate for? Under a purely laissez-faire conception of rights and duties, the company's only duty is to make money for its owners -- it has no obligation to the health of its customers at all (leaving the invisible hand of the market to aggregate data about the value of the drug from satisfied and dissatisfied consumers). Even under a more enlightened libertarianism, one in which product claims must be true (because fraud is a form of aggression), why should we expect the company to have set itself an adequate testing bar to jump over, to filter out placebos and false positives and find unfortunate side effects? I mean, maybe they're morally obligated to report side effects if they find them, but do they have an affirmative duty, in this conception of morals/ethics, to seek those side effects out? And if so, how long do they have to search before they conclude they've found them all?<br />
<br />
The main point is the naiveté of trying to claim that either (a) from a consequentialist perspective, the way to maximize human good is for actors to pursue their own self-defined ends without any effort to balance any ends which may be in competition, or (b) from a deontological perspective, if an actor ought to behave a certain way (and acting otherwise harms others), then it is immoral for the state to coerce them to act that way.<br />
<br />
But we're not done! For what really made Brook's statement jump off the page to me is the assumption that the "value" of the drug was just as much a matter of objective fact as the efficacy of the drug.<br />
<br />
I mean, what is the value of the drug supposed to mean? Well, for starters, there are two different, incompatible units which it makes sense to quantify such a value in: dollars (or whatever currency medium of exchange we want to use), or person-years of added life expectancy! (For the moment, we'll assume that the drug keeps one from dying, rather than raising one's quality of life from a low but nonlethal level to a higher level.)<br />
<br />
Not only that, but let's think about these measures <b>definitionally</b> <b>cannot </b>be computed independently of each other. Let's see why not:<br />
<br />
First, let's think about how to compute the monetary value of the drug to the company. Let's take a very simple one-timepoint model, with a demand-curve for the drug. What the company would love to do, to maximize its profits, is to sell to each consumer at the maximum price that consumer is willing to pay, provided that price exceeds the cost to the company involved in producing that dose. Of course, this strategy does not work in the real world; instead, the company finds a point on the demand-curve which maximizes profit, and charges all consumers the same price. Naturally, at this price, some potential consumers of the drug will be priced out of its benefits and will instead die, so the aggregate person-years of added life-expectancy will be lower than they would have been had the drug been given away freely (or on a pay-what-you-will model).<br />
<br />
Of course, it is completely banal to point out that a pharmaceutical company's profits are in competition with maximizing the health effects of its own products. However, the situation is even worse: remember how we assumed the existence of a demand curve? Where do those come from? A demand curve is an abstraction meant to represent the resources available to all the agents in an economy, as well as the competing goods among which they can allot those resources. In other words: the (monetary) value of the drug is a function of the demand curve, and the demand curve is a function of the rest of the economic environment. So it makes no sense to speak of "the value" in monetary terms of any good, as if the resources (i.e. money) which people would be willing to exchange for it remained constant under wildly different assumptions (e.g. what if there were no state-issued money at all? what if each person had to travel many miles to fetch the drug rather than having it delivered to the hospital where they were in treatment?...).<br />
<br />
And yet, Brook and the rest of the panel seem oblivious to this notion, that "the value" of a good may not be in any way an "objective fact", or at least not when denominated in monetary units. "Value", even as narrowly construed as "amount of money people are willing to pay me in exchange", is highly context-dependent. The actions of the state can change the demand-curve, which changes the value; either by mandating that the price level be set above (or more likely, below) where the company would "otherwise" choose, or providing other forms of incentives which people's preferences and allocations will respond to.<br />
<br />
I guess what I'm saying is that there is no "state of nature" in which we find demand curves -- and if there were, I don't think I'd want to live there anyway.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-37795650730311297362014-12-27T13:50:00.001-06:002014-12-27T13:50:58.543-06:00Whiny little gits: on legislation by version control<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There's an idea that's been rattling around my head for some time now, probably originally seeded by some internet forum discussion, and it's now been rattling long enough without me seeing any deadly objections that I figured I'd put it down on e-paper.<br />
<br />
Problem-setting: legislative process. It's weird, and convoluted, and in many cases the rules of a legislative chamber allow changes to be made to a bill which the members need not be aware of. This was borne out recently in Congress when a single member <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/politics/kevin-yoder-citigroup-elizabeth-warren-wall-street/">inserted a provision</a> at the behest of Citigroup, and there was no way to excise the provision from the final version which was submitted to both houses for an up-or-down vote, without jeopardizing the passage of the whole bill.<br />
<br />
To zoom out a bit: voters don't care about, pay attention to, or understand process. That's OK, in one sense -- voters really are supposed to care about results, in theory, and are supposed to trust their representatives to get good at process. The problem comes in when advocacy organizations start scoring process moves as position-taking. For example, there's a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/18/harry-reid-had-a-good-reason-to-vote-against-the-gun-bill/">funny little quirk</a> in the Senate rules that if the majority fails to break a filibuster, the only way to try <b>later</b> to break the same filibuster is if someone changes their mind. What this means in practice is that the Majority Leader will vote to <b>sustain</b> the filibuster if he's sure the logjam won't break -- this way he can "change his mind" later if they can whip up the votes to get the bill through. But this exposes him to an advocacy organization scoring his vote as being on the wrong side of their favorite issue.<br />
<br />
There's even the very basic existential question of "what does the law actually say?". How are we to know, under the current way of setting up legislation, if the text on the paper distributed to Congress is the same as the text which is digitally available on the website of the Library of Congress; or if either is identical to the text on the page signed by the President? And in case of a discrepancy, which is "the law"? Typos happen, and humans aren't optimized to catch them on paper.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>So here's the proposal: All changes to and voting on the text of legislation shall be carried out using a version-control system. Let's call it CVVS. I'll describe the functionality first.<br />
<br />
Each bill before Congress, or before a part thereof, shall be maintained in a CVVS repository. The entire history of the bill shall remain public record in perpetuity.<br />
<br />
Note that there may be several distinct stages in the legislative progression of the bill. For this discussion, we will assume that the bill must be approved by House committees A and B, Senate Committees C and D, as well as the full bodies of the House and the Senate, before being sent to the President for signature or veto.<br />
<br />
Any legislator may introduce a bill by creating its initial text in a repository. The initial version is the only version not at any legislative stage. Child versions, with identical text to the original, are created with edit- and vote-access restricted to each of the four relevant committees. The metadata for each revision shall include criteria for "passage", described below.<br />
<br />
Read-access to each bill's repository shall be public -- anyone may anonymously connect without authentication to pull any set of revisions on the repository.<br />
<br />
Edit-access to any particular revision is limited to some set of legislators. In our example, members of Committee A have edit-access to the version created for their committee's consideration, but not to the other three. Of course, a committee member does not edit an existing revision; instead, s/he pushes a revision as a child to an existing revision, whose access profile is the same as the parent revision's. When a push occurs, CVVS will compute a hash of the version which can be publicly checked (i.e. the hash method will not use a secret key).<br />
<br />
The new feature, not part of standard (i.e. software-development-oriented) version control systems, is vote-access. Each legislator with vote-access to a revision may affix an authenticated "yea" or "nay" vote to that revision. A legislator may affix votes to more than one revision.<br />
<br />
How will a revision "pass out of committee"? Recall that the revisions under consideration by Committee A are all tagged with metadata indicating what is required for the committee to approve (typically a majority of the committee's members). As soon as <i>any</i> revision under the consideration of Committee A accumulates a quorum of "yea" votes, an identical child revision is created for the consideration of the whole House, and all versions under A's consideration become "frozen" -- vote- and edit-access are revoked for all members. Up until a revision has been frozen, any legislator may revoke or change their vote on that revision.<br />
<br />
As is easy to see, "nay" votes are actually not worth much at the legislative level -- voting "nay" is the same as not voting at all, except as a way of signaling to politics-watchers that one has considered this revision and dislikes it for some reason. However, once a version has been approved by both chambers, the President's "yea" vote acts to sign the bill into law, while her "nay" vote acts to veto it. In that case, a new version is created with vote-access for each legislator in the House and Senate, tagged with criteria saying that "yea" votes from two-thirds of both houses suffices to pass the bill into law, while greater than one-third of "nay" votes from either house suffices to kill the bill.<br />
<br />
OK, so what advantages does this confer over the current system?<br />
<br />
1. <b>Irrelevant amendments can be ignored.</b> As it currently is, if a legislator somehow gets a poison-pill amendment added to the text of a bill, the chamber has to consider that amendment as part of the bill. Under CVVS, the chamber is free to ignore the amendment and vote on upstream revisions.<br />
<br />
2. <b>There is no such thing as a filibuster</b>. In fact, this system completely divorces the process of debate in session from the process of approving bills. I personally don't see this as a problem, since "debate" on the floor of the House or Senate has no actual bearing on the process of legislators considering the pros and cons of what's in the bills. All that action takes place behind closed doors, and would continue to do so. One potential downside, or something which could be considered a downside, is that a legislator could do their job entirely remotely. However, I don't see that possibility as particularly problematic from any perspective except that of someone who wants to ensure that all power is physically accessible to Washington arm-twisters (or, more charitably, wants to ensure that legislators and all the associated policy wonk apparatus have in-person access to each other to lubricate the process of thinking about policy).<br />
<br />
3. <b>The text of the law is known with near-perfect certainty.</b> This one is self-explanatory. In fact, while the Library of Congress would certainly maintain paper copies of passed laws, these records would be regarded as of secondary quality to the CVVS repository text.<br />
<br />
4. <b>Chamber leadership cannot exercise favoritism over who can propose amendments.</b> Any legislator with edit-access can file a revision containing amendments as minor as typo-fixes or as major as complete rewrites. The remainder of the chamber has perfect freedom to ignore them or adopt them. By the same token,<br />
<br />
5. <b>There is no way to introduce amendments secretly or block bills anonymously</b>. All changes to the repository are publicly signed.<br />
<br />
It would surely take some getting used to, not thinking about "the text" of a bill under consideration; however, this is no harder than getting used to current procedural arcana. In any case, I expect that one of the jobs of chamber leadership will be to merge compatible revisions to prevent too much proliferation.<br />
<br />
Downsides:<br />
<br />
I literally don't see any unmixed downsides to this proposal. However, for the sake of completeness, I list some aspects I expect some people to find less than ideal.<br />
<br />
1. <b>A legislator need never set foot in Washington to vote on every bill.</b> To which I respond, so what? Isn't everyone constantly bitching about how Washington is this corrupting influence, that "Washington insiders" can't adequately represent the people back in "real America"?<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if were to prove itself a real problem, there's a simple fix: all vote-accesses to the repository must be performed from the floor of Congress.<br />
<br />
2. <b>There will be no such thing as a 100-0 passage</b>. Again I say, so what? As long as a bill passes, I fail to see what is gained by a process that allows more people to get on the record if they don't want to be there before passage is guaranteed.<br />
<br />
3. <b>Bills are never outright defeated, only not passed yet. </b>I don't see this as a fatal problem either; however, there is a certain benefit from a political activist's perspective of having a bill be definitively voted down (and therefore being able to send out the "we won" email to one's supporters and letting them stand down). If this is seen as important, we may put in another feature: a quorum of "nay" votes on the root revision suffices to kill the entire bill; or even, a quorum of "nay" votes on any revision kills all descendants of that revision.<br />
<br />
Other criticisms? Leave them in the comments.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-23732615019380521632014-11-24T17:06:00.000-06:002014-11-24T17:06:47.103-06:00Fen: Carrion Skies<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is <strike>not</strike> totally a bookmark.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MqDGA1DqF0U" width="420"></iframe></div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-50934250264388060702014-11-19T12:23:00.003-06:002014-11-19T12:23:33.588-06:00Metal for winter<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So, there's these Russians, and they have a band...<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1g7SyDYgmaE" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
... and it makes me think of snow and ice and other things nice...</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-79543320662901717062014-10-08T10:28:00.002-05:002014-10-08T10:28:21.866-05:00Blut Aus Nord<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The two tracks currently available for streaming in promo for Blut Aus Nord's new album are... fucking amazing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="no" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/170441491&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%"></iframe>
<br />
<iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/169193379&color=040100" width="100%"></iframe>
<br />
That is all.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-15924411925909902292014-10-06T18:02:00.002-05:002015-01-02T14:01:32.414-06:00If you don't have student loans, there's a high probability you're missing something<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="tr_bq">
An opinion piece floated across my radar this morning; penned by one Jessica Slizewski, originally at XOJane and picked up at Time.com, it announces to the reader that <a href="http://time.com/3461543/student-loans-dont-feel-bad/">I Don’t Have Student Loans and I Don’t Feel Bad for People Who Do</a>. OK, so I'm being trolled. I don't care, I feel the need to retort.</div>
<br />
Before I begin, I do feel compelled to state that, like Ms Slizewski, I strongly feel that the <strike>rent</strike> tuition is too damn high, and that student-loan debt overhang is having a nasty macroeconomic effect on the U.S. I also think that the structure of student-loan finance puts some perverse incentives on institutions of higher education; but that's neither here nor there.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
We let Ms Slizewski make her case:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My father is not a Wall Street banker. I’m not a member of the so-called “1 percent.” My mother isn’t an heiress and I’m not some genius who earned a full scholarship to the institution of my choice.<br />
<br />
Yet somehow, by what most of my friends think was the wave of some fairy godmother’s wand, I graduated college without student loans.
</blockquote>
So far so good -- Slizewski has demonstrated by example that it is possible to graduate from college without student-loan debt. (Now, as she alludes to, it's important to specify <b>for whom</b> it is possible -- no one disputes that it's possible for the child of a couple of hedge-fundies to attend college without borrowing; and as we'll see, her folks aren't entirely without means, but let's proffer that she's addressing the essay to people situated similarly to herself. White Chicagoland girls are, after all, the measure of mankind.)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, what we get next is much less hard to spin into sense:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Stats from the Department of Education show outstanding student loans total more than $1 trillion. A report from The Institute for College Access in late 2013 revealed the average new graduate starts his or her life with $29,400 in student loan debt. College as we know it is clearly unaffordable.
So my question is: Why do people keep embarking on the “traditional college experience” when they know it’s going to put them tens — sometimes hundreds — of thousands of dollars in debt?
</blockquote>
This paragraph displays two glaring errors of logic; for the moment, I'll just note them and move along, and we'll come back to them later. The first is this claim that an undergraduate degree which includes $30K in debt at graduation is "clearly" unaffordable. Clear to whom? Even assuming interest rates in excess of current home mortgage rates, you're talking three, maybe four hundred dollars a month for ten years, with fairly rigid procedures in place for payment plans in the event of income disruption. Why would that be "unaffordable"?<br />
<br />
Oh, yes. Because recent graduates aren't getting jobs out of college. Because the economy is still all fucked up and bullshit, and to get your foot in the door you need five years experience working on a platform that has only existed for two. Which is a totally separate problem, and one which persists even among those without any student loan debt, but which leads me to the second glaring error: stating the cost of college without the other side of the balance sheet.<br />
<br />
Continuing:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
And while some people say these 18-year-old kids don’t know what they’re getting themselves into, let’s not pretend we don’t know better. I distinctly remember asking my friend how he would pay off the roughly $70,000 debt he would incur to obtain a major in Ancient Greek and Latin at a liberal arts college in the Midwest. His answer? A simple shrug and flippant “It’s not something I have to worry about right now — hopefully they’ll be forgiven by the government.” Now that he’s still waiting tables four years after graduation, I’d say it’s well past time to start worrying.<br />
<br />
I can’t pretend I completely understand how these people feel after the fun is over and the repayments begin, but I can say that I really don’t feel bad for them.<br />
<br />
Why not? Because I worked hard to avoid taking out loans. My wonderful parents and grandmother helped me pay for my education, but in the end, it was a few decisions I made that saved me the burden of borrowing money I would never have been able to pay back. Unlike the majority of my friends who went to schools less than an hour from their parents’ homes and chose to live on campus rather than commute, my college roommates were named Mom and Dad. I chose state schools that were half, sometimes one-quarter, of the cost of the schools my friends were attending and worked a part-time on-campus scholarship job in addition to full-time hours at my retail job. I spent the four years of my life designed for partying essentially reliving my high school years. And yes, it was awful.</blockquote>
Do you see what she did there? Classics Major Friend's answer is, in fact, completely reasonable: no one knows what kind of job they'll be doing upon graduation, except for people who use college <b>as</b> job training -- finance, accounting, engineering, architecture. And even the ones who major in job training frequently find after a few years that the job doesn't agree with them any more, and that the money they fronted saving their employer the cost of training them either becomes (a) a sunk cost around their neck as they embark on retooling themself again, at their own expense, or (b) an instance of the sunken cost fallacy as they continue to work a job they hate until they've paid off their indenture.<br />
<br />
There are any number of ways to make a living off a classics degree, some of which even use the classics directly! And also, of course, many ways to not make a living, especially since have I mentioned the fucked up and bullshit economy yet? But instead, Slizewski points to all the "fun" and "partying" her co-matriculants were having as the only reward for which that loan money is paying.<br />
<br />
The balance sheet still looks lopsided.<br />
<br />
But wait, it gets worse:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Imagine the stereotypical American college experience. You pick some private university in the middle of a cornfield with a tuition price of about $36,000 a year, plus room and board, party it up every night since you’ve finally escaped the teenage hellhole known as your family’s home, and stumble into your Symbolism in Harry Potter seminar at 11 a.m. still half-drunk and probably reeking of Icehouse. You join a sorority, get vomit in your hair more times than you’re willing to admit publicly, and spend half the day on whatever flavor-of-the-week social media site the guy you currently like is active on.<br />
<br />
Sounds fun — until you realize all this will probably leave you at least $30,000 in the hole upon receiving that diploma. And guess what? Unless you absolutely needed some highly specialized major that was only offered at a few schools, chances are you probably could have gotten your education/accounting/psychology degree at a much more affordable university closer to home. You might have even been able to — gasp — live with your parents.</blockquote>
Did you know that it is impossible to both get your party on a couple times a week <b>and</b> have a genuine academic experience? I surely didn't until Ms Slizewski opened my eyes.<br />
<br />
So let's break down where this analysis... breaks down. The tell is in the "specialized major" sentence. What this is betraying is the mistaken notion that one's education happens by professors droning esoteric nonsense in your general direction. That's not how it works. Education happens when students take a very bare-bones framework, embodied in the syllabus and readings and writing/discussion prompts, decide that there are difficult and thorny questions at issue, and become a discourse community.<br />
<br />
Much more education happens in the 3 AM bull session in the dorm than happens in the 3 PM lecture.<br />
<br />
Now, it is true that, except for a very few elite technical universities, much of the learning experience is largely interchangeable. If you are deciding between Directional In-State University and Directional Out-Of-State University, choose the one which is cheaper (i.e. the in-state school) unless you have a really good reason not to. (Also, the kids at Directional In-State U party plenty hard.) On the other hand, if you have the chops to go to MIT or Cal Tech, go -- the scholarly communities at those institutions have never been replicated, and I am not referring only to the faculty or the graduate students which they attract.<br />
<br />
But this leaves out one other, critical piece of the college game: the role of economic signaling. If you're weighing the added-value of Top-Ten-Public U or Top-25-Private U over Directional State U, the question you must ask yourself is, am I able and willing to capitalize on the brand recognition and network this prestigious institution comes with? If so, then the tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt you (might) need to spend are a a capital investment. Pun intended. If not, then you've learned something about yourself and left that spot for someone who's better suited to it.<br />
<br />
I don't mean this merely in a mercenary way; "capitalizing" on that privilege need not take the form of actual capital (though <b>someone</b> is eventually going to have to pay off those loans). But whatever you end up deciding to do, it's far, far easier to do it with a degree from the University of Chicago than with the isomorphic degree from UIC -- and I know the folks who teach at UIC, and they're damn good. But they don't have the brand recognition.<br />
<br />
And if you know of a tiny specialization where Directional State has a great brand, then my remarks above apply to them too -- but knowing that capitalizing on that brand requires working within the confines of that specialization.<br />
<br />
The last word: when you get out of college, your prospective employers will not care about the amount of vomit you've had in your hair. (If they do, they aren't worth working for anyway.) They will, however, care that you have the ability to scrub your social media presence and promote your own brand, because you're going to be responsible for maintaining theirs. Both brands, by the way, are carefully crafted lies. Utter bullshit. We all know this, it's how the world works. I promise you, it won't be too long before you're holding a co-worker's hair back as she vomits at an office party, and you'll be wondering how this is different from college. I'll tell you: there are way fewer 3 AM bull sessions in the adult world, and we're all intellectually poorer for it.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-28110829333082341402014-09-25T20:32:00.001-05:002014-09-26T09:23:51.709-05:00Eluveitie and...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU2jY5ItNBt1pnMPgjobd7WO9XOUon_YAY74olLGdQra6TU0S4tcdUm8zFFN31aD4iw3KRrrC1XsmM9HlqpA5NPUoH_RjI6Qsd4khAxN-gwf0qq54MS6iyrWrze3wg7VJ6uXzg-jzH7IE/s640/20140925_200038.jpg" />
Metsatöll
<br />
<hr />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Y_ap8mn4XfRWkDAuKcAg3F4SneIhZ_HJkI-tvvD9AG-gZtCA6r7KwLGRcNytDTUDYuxuHEeJgfBJSLem-FrndKu0-dow0BnrY2XOvHfO7HmuOGnCQco6kSSCFYuuYkgsv27EVruT4A0/s640/20140925_205036.jpg" />
Týr
<br />
<hr />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4YhH9Q9U2Sj9mtTJMDyuFD3xpvzSLy425A52N4AsbXq4xXnAJV7HfFRuG370-AAUgPPuTMAF52gG50BskAedxo-hcCB3sMpgu6OL2cfMsfmAd5RgQ4QPtc4WVPyHbzmXaGtp_HZzXwLU/s640/20140925_221658.jpg" />
Eluveitie
</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-57027009790161958632014-09-14T16:08:00.000-05:002015-11-12T14:19:37.154-06:00A universal algebraist proves Fodor's Lemma<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In the <a href="http://infamousheelfilcher.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-on-countable-chain-condition.html">last post</a>, we mentioned Fodor's Lemma (in the context of an attempted proof that didn't end up working out). Well, my brain was idling the other evening, and decided that it needed to prove this lemma. Don't ask me why my brain does what it does.<br />
<br />
Attention conservation notice: this post is written for someone with maybe a lower-level grad-school level of knowledge, or maybe upper-level undergrad, and who knows what a subalgebra is but doesn't necessarily know any logic.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Here are the relevant definitions: let \( \kappa \) be a regular uncountable cardinal. A cardinal is an ordered set (of ordinals), so we know what it means for a subset of \( \kappa \) to be <i>unbounded</i>. The order relation on \( \kappa \) also gives rise to a topology in the following way: the basic open sets are intervals of the form \( (\alpha, \beta) \) and \( (\alpha, \infty) \). A subset \( C \subseteq \kappa \) is <i>closed</i> if it is closed in this topology.<br />
<br />
<b>Test your understanding:</b><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Show that every successor ordinal is an isolated point in this topology.</li>
<li>Show that \( \omega \) (and similarly every limit ordinal) is not isolated.</li>
<li>Show that a subset \( S \subseteq \kappa \) is closed if and only if, for every increasing sequence \( \langle s_i \colon i < \gamma \rangle \subset S \), where \( \gamma < \kappa \) is a limit ordinal, \( \sup_{i < \gamma} s_i \) also belongs to \(S\).</li>
</ul>
If \(S \subseteq \kappa \) is both closed and unbounded, we abbreviate this to <i>club</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Lemma 1</b>: The intersection of fewer-than-\(\kappa\)-many clubs is a club.<br />
<br />
<b>Proof</b>: Let \( \langle C_i \colon i < \gamma \rangle \) be clubs, and let \(B = \bigcap_i C_i \). We learn on the first day of topology that arbitrary intersections of closed sets are closed, so that half is done.<br />
<br />
To show that \(B\) is unbounded, let \( \delta < \kappa \). We define an increasing function \( f: \gamma \times \gamma \rightarrow \kappa\). We will build it so that its sup belongs to \( B\). (Oddly enough, \( f(\alpha, i) \) need <i>not</i> belong to \( B \) for any \( \alpha, i < \gamma\).)<br />
<br />
Define<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>\( f(0,0) \) to be some element of \( C_0 \) which is greater than \( \delta \); </li>
<li>if \( \alpha < \kappa \) and \(f(\alpha, i) \) have been defined for all \(i < j\), define \( f(\alpha, j) \) to be some element of \(C_j\) which is greater than all \(f(\alpha, i)\) defined so far; </li>
<li>lastly, if \( f(\alpha, i) \) is defined for all \( \alpha < \beta \) and all \(i < \kappa \), define \( f(\beta, 0) \) to be some element of \( C_0 \) greater than all \( f(\alpha, i) \) defined so far.</li>
</ul>
<b>Check your understanding:</b> justify why each step is possible. Hint: \( \kappa \) is regular.<br />
<br />
We can think of putting the \( C_i \) in a circle, all pointing upwards like sticks in a bundle; then \(f(\alpha, i)\) will look like a ribbon winding upwards around and around the bundle.<br />
<br />
Now: for each \( i < \gamma \), the elements \( f(\alpha, i) \) form an increasing \( \gamma\)-sequence of elements of \( C_i \). We proved above that this means that the sup \( a_i \) of these elements also belongs to \( C_i \).<br />
<br />
<b>Check your understanding</b>: Show that the suprema \(a_i \) are all equal to each other.<br />
<br />
This last statement shows that this supremum belongs to \(B\), which completes the proof.<br />
<br />
<b>Corollary 2:</b> the set of all club subsets of \( \kappa \) generate a filter \( \mathcal{F} \).<br />
<br />
<b>Proof:</b> Lemma 1 showed that the set of clubs has the finite intersection property. Q.E.D.<br />
<br />
Now, the usual terminology set theorists use for things related to this filter drive me batty. I'll mention these standard names in footnotes, and maybe sometime in the future I'll go on a rant about why these names are so terrible, but for now I'll just protest by using what I think are better names.<br />
<br />
The basis of my preferred nomenclature is the idea of a <i>measure. </i>Now, normally a measure takes sets and assigns them a number between 0 and 1. Here, though, I'll think of a measure as taking values in a certain boolean algebra. Don't worry if you aren't familiar or comfortable with boolean algebras -- we won't actually be doing anything with them today. All you need to know is that a boolean algebra allows you to talk about a single biggest possible measurement (called True, or 1, or something like that), a single smallest possible measurement (called False, or 0, or something), and then maybe other intermediate measurements which may or may not be comparable to each other.<br />
<br />
In particular, a filter is a notion of "largeness", so it makes sense to say that if a set \(S \subseteq \kappa \) is a club, or has a club subset, it belongs to the filter \( \mathcal{F} \) we constructed above, and we'll say it has "club-measure 1". Conversely, if the complement of \(S\) has a club subset, i.e. \(S\) is disjoint from some club, then \(S\) has club-measure 0. A set may have positive club-measure without having measure 0 or 1; in this case, it follows that this set must have nonempty intersection with every club.<sup>[1]</sup><br />
<br />
So now we can state Fodor's Lemma (sometimes known as the Regressive Function Lemma, or the Pressing Down Lemma):<br />
<br />
<b>Fodor's Lemma:</b> Let \(S \subseteq \kappa \) have nonzero club-measure, and let \(f: S \rightarrow \kappa \) be a function such that \(f(\alpha) < \alpha \) for all \( \alpha \in S\). Then \(f\) is constant on some set of nonzero club-measure.<br />
<br />
(You can think of this lemma as providing a kind of generalization of the pigeonhole principle. Sort of.)<br />
<br />
OK, so that's what we want to prove. What does this have to do with universal algebra?<br />
<br />
<b>Lemma 3:</b> Let \( \langle \kappa; \mathcal{R} \rangle \) be any algebra structure on \( \kappa \), where \( \mathcal{R} \) is a set of (finitary) operations and \( |\mathcal{R}| < \kappa \). Then the set \(S\) of those \( \beta < \kappa \) which are substructures of this algebra structure form a club.<br />
<br />
<b>Proof:</b> Since the union of any chain of subalgebras is again a subalgebra, \(S\) is closed (in the order topology). <br />
<br />
To show that \(S\) is unbounded, let \( \delta < \kappa \). We define an increasing chain of subalgebras whose union will be an ordinal.<br />
<br />
Let \[\delta_0 = \delta\]\[A_0 = \mathrm{Sg}(\delta_0)\]\[\delta_{k+1} = \sup A_k\]\[A_{k+1} = \mathrm{Sg}(\delta_{k+1})\]\[A = \bigcup_{k < \omega} A_k\]Then if \( \beta \in A \) and \( \alpha < \beta\) then \( \alpha < \delta_{k+1} \) so \( \alpha \in A_{k+1} \subseteq A \). This proves that \(A\) is an ordinal, so belongs to \(S\), so \(S\) is unbounded. Q.E.D.<br />
<br />
<b>Corollary 4</b>: If \(f: \kappa \rightarrow \kappa \) is increasing and continuous, then the set of fixed points of \(f\) form a club.<br />
<br />
<b>Proof:</b> For any \( \beta < \kappa \), \( \beta \leq f(\beta) \) since \(f\) is increasing. Now let \(\beta < \kappa \) be a substructure of \( \langle \kappa; f \rangle \). Then \( f(\beta) = \sup_{\alpha < \beta} f(\alpha) \) since \(f\) is continuous. But since \( f(\alpha) < \beta \) for all \( \alpha < \beta \), \(\sup_{\alpha < \beta} f(\alpha) \leq \beta \). These inequalities combine to assert that \( f(\beta) = \beta \). Q.E.D.<br />
<br />
Now we get to the definition which makes all the magic happen.<br />
<br />
<b>Check your understanding:</b><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>We showed in Lemma 1 that the club filter was closed under intersections of size less than \( \kappa \). Show that this is equivalent to the fact that the union of fewer than \( \kappa \) sets of club-measure 0 still has club-measure 0.</li>
<li>Show that \( \kappa \) is the union of \( \kappa \)-many sets of club-measure 0.</li>
</ul>
So ordinary intersection is too strong for large sets of clubs. However, it turns out that there is a weakened notion of intersection which is just right:<br />
<br />
<b>Definition: </b>If \( S_i \subseteq \kappa \) for \( i < \kappa \), the <i>diagonal intersection</i> of these sets consists of all \( \beta < \kappa \) such that \( \beta \in S_\alpha \) for all \( \alpha < \beta \).<br />
<br />
This definition looks strange and artificial at first. That's OK; it ends up being really, really useful. Remember how I said I wasn't going to talk about boolean algebras? Well, this is me not talking, but just mentioning that this diagonal intersection idea ends up enabling us to compute sups and infs in the boolean algebra where we're taking measurements of sets. I've said too much already.<br />
<br />
One thing to observe is that, while order is irrelevant for ordinary intersections, that is no longer true for diagonal intersections. (However: it is possible to prove that any reordering of the \(S_i\) ends up changing the diagonal intersection by only a club-measure 0 set.)<br />
<br />
<b>Lemma 5: </b>The diagonal intersection \(D\) of any family \( \langle C_i \colon i < \kappa \) of clubs is once again a club.<br />
<br />
<b>Proof: </b>Define a \(\kappa\)-sequence by recursion: \( x_0 = \omega \), and \(x_{j+1} \) is some element of \( \bigcap_{i \leq j} C_i \) which is greater than \(x_j\). For limit ordinals \(j\), define \( x_j \) to be the limit of the \( x_i \) for \(i < j\).<br />
<br />
By Corollary 4, this sequence has a club of fixed points. Let \(\beta = x_\beta \) be one of them. Then since \( x_\beta \) belongs to all \(C_i\) for \(i < \beta\), \(\beta = x_\beta \) belongs to \(D\). Hence \(D\) has club-measure 1. I'll leave the proof that \(D\) is closed to you. Q.E.D.<br />
<br />
<b>Proof of Fodor's Lemma</b>: Let \(S \subseteq \kappa \) have positive club-measure, and let \(f: S \rightarrow \kappa \) satisfy \( f(\alpha) < \alpha \) for all \( \alpha \).<br />
<br />
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that \(f^{-1}(\alpha) \) has club-measure 0 for all \( \alpha \). Choose clubs \( C_\alpha \) disjoint from the \(f^{-1}(\alpha) \), and let \(D\) be their diagonal intersection. Lemma 5 shows that \(D\) is a club. Since \(S\) has positive measure and \(D\) has measure 1, \(S \cap D\) has positive measure.<br />
<br />
Since \(D\) is unbounded, we can choose \( \beta > 0 \) in \(D\). By the definition of "diagonal intersection", \(\beta\) belongs to each \( C_\alpha \) for \( \alpha < \beta \). Hence \( \beta \) does <i>not</i> belong to any \( f^{-1}(\alpha)\) for \( \alpha < \beta \). But this is absurd, since \( \beta \) definitely belongs to \( f^{-1}(f(\beta)) \)! Q.E.D.<br />
<br />
Final thoughts: In one sense, "almost all" ordinals are successors. However, observe that the set of limit ordinals less than \( \kappa \) is club, so using the club filter as a notion of "almost everything", "almost all" ordinals are limit! This actually corresponds much better to the usual heuristics that a set theorist's brain runs on -- very little of substance happens at successor ordinals, or successor cardinals, when it comes to independence proofs. (I'm exaggerating somewhat, of course.)<br />
<br />
[1] The usual nomenclature used by set-theorists is that a set of club-measure 0 is <i>nonstationary</i>, while a set of positive club-measure is called <i>stationary</i>. All I can say to that is "ugh".</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-53866896934209311762014-09-08T15:11:00.001-05:002014-09-14T13:39:36.410-05:00More on the countable chain condition<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
We last met the ccc in the context of preserving cofinalities in forcing extensions; but the exercise that I gave the proof for was specifically about forcing. This week, I <a href="http://boolesrings.org/mpawliuk/2012/09/14/stevos-forcing-class-fall-2012-class-1/">ran across</a> a nice little exercise which doesn't explicitly mention forcing at all -- it's pure combinatorics -- but, at least for me, thinking about it using the forcing idea was the key to solving the problem.<br />
<br />
<b>Exercise 1:</b> Let \( \mathbb{P} \) be a ccc poset, and let \( X = \{ x_i \colon i < \omega_1 \} \subseteq \mathbb{P} \) be a subset. Show that there exists an uncountable subset of \( X \) whose every pair are compatible.<br />
<br />
At first glance, this looks completely obvious -- things are either compatible or incompatible, and you can't have more than countably many pairwise incompatible things. The problem, though, is that the compatibility relation need not be transitive -- just because you have an uncountable subset of \(X\) which is not an antichain does <i>not</i> mean that it satisfies the conclusion of the exercise.<br />
<br />
What made this problem interesting to me was that I had to <i>discard</i> some of the heuristics that usually serve me well. In particular, a dependable heuristic when dealing with posets is duality: if something is true for all posets, then you should be able to turn your poset upside-down and it should still be true. However, the compatibility relation is not stable under duality! Most forcing posets have a single weakest condition; if you dualize, you get that every two conditions are compatible, which is clearly useless.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<b>First failed attempt:</b> We define an \( \omega_1 \)-coloring of \(X\) by recursion. Let \(f(x_0) = 0\). Now, if \( f(x_\alpha) \) is defined for all \( \alpha < \beta \), we let \( f(x_\beta)\) equal the least \(\delta \) such that \(x_\beta\) is compatible with all elements of \( f^{-1}(\delta)\), if any such \(\delta \) exists. If not, \[f(x_\beta) = \sup_{\alpha < \beta} f(x_\alpha) + 1 \]i.e. \(f(x_\beta) \) is the first available new color.<br />
<br />
<b>Check your understanding:</b> Show that \(f(x_\alpha) \leq \alpha\) for all \( \alpha \).<br />
<br />
If we could strengthen this to show that \( f(x_\alpha) \) is strictly less than \(\alpha\) for all \( \alpha > 0\), or show that the set of those \( \alpha \) such that \( f(x_\alpha) = \alpha \) is bounded, then we would be done: we could use Fodor's Lemma, because the coloring \(f\) would be a <i>regressive function</i> on a "large" set.<br />
<br />
But I don't see an obvious way to do this, and this conclusion appears to be stronger than the problem we're trying to prove. (It still might be true, but I don't have a good intuition one way or another.)<br />
<br />
What's the roadblock? Well, even though \( \mathbb{P}\) has the countable chain condition, there's no obvious reason that we couldn't have a situation like the following: as we're considering colors \( \alpha < \beta \), \(x_\beta \) is compatible with most of the conditions in the \(\alpha^{\text{th}}\) bin, but is incompatible with a few. Now, we're not adding to any large antichains here -- \( x_\beta \) is compatible with <i>some</i> of the conditions in the \( \alpha \) bin -- so using the ccc directly here to say this can't go on forever is going to be hard.<br />
<br />
<b>Solution:</b> For the purposes of this solution, \( a \uparrow \) (resp. \( a \downarrow \)) will denote the set of elements of \(X\) above (below) \(a\).<br />
<br />
First: every set \( a \uparrow \) consists of pairwise-compatible elements; if any such set is uncountable, we're done. So we assume that all such sets are countable (that is, either finite or countably infinite).<br />
<br />
Next: let \(A_0 \subset X\) be a set of pairwise-incompatible conditions which is maximal under inclusion. (See: I'm even calling the elements of \( \mathbb{P} \) <i>conditions</i>, even though the problem ostensibly has nothing to do with forcing!) Then because of the ccc, \(A_0\) is countable.<br />
<br />
Now, every element of \(X\) is either weaker than some element of \(A_0\), in \(A_0\), or stronger than some element of \(A_0\). By our assumption, the set of all conditions <i>weaker</i> than \(A_0\) is also countable. Conditions weaker than \(A_0\) may be weaker than many elements of \(A_0\); however, conditions <i>stronger </i>than \(A_0\) are stronger than <i>exactly one</i> member of \(A_0\), and there are uncountably many such conditions.<br />
<br />
Hence we can choose an \(a_0 \in A_0\) which has uncountably many extensions in \(X\). Now define \(A_1 \) by throwing \(a_0\) out of \(A_0\) and adding in a maximal collection of pairwise incompatible elements of \(X\) below \(a_0\). Choose \(a_1 < a_0\) with uncountably many extensions in \(X\).<br />
<br />
Proceeding in this way, we get a sequence of antichains \( A_k\) and a descending chain of conditions \( a_{k+1} < a_k \) for all \(k < \omega \), each with uncountably many extensions. By assumption, \( \bigcup_{k < \omega \: x \in A_k} x \uparrow \) is countable, so there exists some \(a_\omega \in X \), \(a_\omega < a_k \) for all \(k\).<br />
<br />
So we let \(A_\omega \) contain \(a_\omega\) and not contain any \(x \in X\) above \( a_\omega\). Continuing inductively in this way, we can now define a descending chain \(a_\alpha\) for \( \alpha < \omega_1\). This chain satisfies the exercise.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-17250305444723314622014-09-08T10:32:00.002-05:002014-09-08T10:36:12.682-05:00Alice and Bob visit the cardinal, Part II<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
(Part I of this post can be found <a href="http://infamousheelfilcher.blogspot.com/2014/08/alice-and-bob-visit-cardinal-part-i.html">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
Greetings, loyal blog readers! I'm afraid life took over for a bit after writing Part I, but we're now back in the peanut gallery watching Alice and Bob battle wits.<br />
<br />
In the last post, we talked about a fun game which <a href="http://mattbakerblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/real-numbers-and-infinite-games-part-i/">Matt Baker</a> used to prove the uncountability of the reals. (We'll call this the Nested-Intervals Game.) In his post about this game, he asked a question which (still weeks later) is vexing me:<br />
<br />
<b>Question 0:</b> Does there exist a target set \(T\) such that neither player has a winning strategy for the Nested-Intervals Game targeting \(T\)?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Some background:<br />
<br />
<b>Old Theorem 1: </b>For every game which must always end after some fixed finite number of turns, one of the two players has a winning strategy.<br />
<b>Old Theorem 2:</b> If the Axiom of Choice holds, then there exists a game (one which can go for infinitely many turns) with no winning strategy.<br />
<br />
Never mind exactly what the full, formal definition of a "game" is here. The important parts are that players take turns, each "does something", and eventually the game is over and based on what has been played, someone is declared the winner. (For simplicity, we assume there are no draws.) The classical proof of Theorem 2 uses a game which is related to the Nested-Intervals Game, but a little easier to explain.<br />
<br />
<b>Proof of Old Theorem 2: </b>The game which we will show has no winning strategy is called the Digit-Choosing Game. Once again, it is played with some set \(T \subseteq [0,1]\) of targets in the background. Here are the rules: Alice and Bob take turns choosing the decimal digits of a number \(t\). This goes on for countably many turns, like this: \[ t = 0.a_1 b_2 a_3 b_4 \cdots \]After all the digits have been chosen, we check whether \(t \in T\); if so, Alice wins, and if not, Bob wins.<br />
<br />
What we will do is construct \(T\) so that neither Alice nor Bob can guarantee a win. In particular, we have to guarantee that for any strategy that Alice might choose, Bob could play a counter-strategy and win the game. But if Alice knew what counter-strategy Bob was going to choose, she could change <i>her</i> strategy and win. Etc. It's a bit of a mindfuck, I know. Stay with me.<br />
<br />
So what is "a strategy" in the context of this game? Basically, a strategy for Alice is a function which takes the state of the game so far and decides her next move: that is a function \[0.a_1 b_2 a_3 \cdots b_{2k} \mapsto a_{2k + 1}.\]Likewise, a strategy for Bob is a function \[0.a_1 b_2 a_3 \cdots a_{2k - 1} \mapsto b_{2k}. \]<br />
<br />
So what we'll try to do is run through the set of all strategies, and for each one, choose a number which witnesses that that strategy loses, and put it into \(T\) (if the strategy was Bob's) or not (if the strategy was Alice's).<br />
<br />
But this is easier said than done! In particular, how do we know that there's a coherent way of choosing which points are in or out of \(T\)? That's where the Axiom of Choice comes in (and in fact set theorists have shown that, if we allow the Axiom of Choice to fail in an artificial set-theoretic universe, then we can rig it so this construction cannot succeed).<br />
<br />
We'll use the version of AC which (outside of logic) is least popular: the Well-Ordering Principle. (We'll do this so that we can define \(T\) via recursion, in a step-by-step way.) The WOP says that we can take the set \( \mathcal{S} \) of all strategies and write it as\[ \mathcal{S} = \{ s_\alpha \colon \alpha < \mathfrak{c} \} \]where \( \mathfrak{c} \) is the cardinality of the real line, which is also the cardinality of \( \mathcal{S} \). (This is easy to prove if you know a bit more than I've told you in this post. If not, just take it on faith.) One important thing about this ordering is that, for any strategy \(s_\alpha\), there are <i>strictly fewer than</i> \( \mathfrak{c} \) strategies which come before it in the ordering.<br />
<br />
So let's see how the construction goes. At each stage in the recursion, we'll have one pile of points (fewer than \(\mathfrak{c} \)) which are definitely in \(T\), another pile points (also fewer than \(\mathfrak{c}\)) which are definitely out of \(T\), and the rest are in a giant not-yet-decided pile. Let's say we're at stage \(\alpha \), and \(s_\alpha\) is an Alice-strategy. There are continuum-many possible \(t\) which could result from Bob's play, depending on what strategy he uses. Pick some strategy \(r\) such that, if Alice plays \( s_\alpha \) and Bob plays \(r\), then the resulting point \(t\) is currently undecided. (Self-check exercise: why is this possible?) Put \(t\) into the "definitely not in \(T\)" pile. (If \(s_\alpha\) had been a Bob-strategy, we would have put \(t\) into the "definitely in \(T\)" pile.)<br />
<br />
What happens after we've recursed over all \(s_\alpha \)? Well, we've now got \(\mathfrak{c}\)-many points which are definitely in \(T\), another \(\mathfrak{c}\)-many which are definitely not in \(T\), and maybe some leftovers. We don't care about the leftovers, so we'll just leave them out of \(T\). What happens if Alice and Bob play? Well, imagine if Alice has to tell Bob what strategy she's using: then Bob goes and looks up what the number \(\alpha \) of that strategy was, finds the \(r\) which was found in the recursion at stage \(\alpha\), and plays according to \(r\). By construction, the resulting point is not in \(T\), so Bob wins.<br />
<br />
But what if we did it the other way: that Bob had to declare his strategy first, and Alice could modify hers based on what Bob said? Well then, by the same logic, Alice would win.<br />
<br />
So no one has a winning strategy. Q.E.D.<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with <b>Question 0</b> that we started with today?<br />
<br />
<b>Exercise 3:</b> Prove that, if Alice and Bob play the Nested-Intervals Game, but are restricted to choosing only rational endpoints, then the same construction as in the proof of Theorem 2 constructs a \(T\) for which neither player has a winning strategy.<br />
<br />
Why is the "rational endpoints" restriction important? Well, it isn't, in the sense that there are <i>lots and lots of potential modifications</i> that have the same conclusion. What all those modifications have in common, however, is that the number of strategies is the same as the size of the continuum. We used that in the proof above when we well-ordered the set of all strategies in order-type \( \mathfrak{c} \).<br />
<br />
Question 0, on the other hand, doesn't have this feature. In fact, each player has \( \mathfrak{c}^\mathfrak{c} = 2^\mathfrak{c} > \mathfrak{c} \) strategies to choose from, so we have to worry about running out of target points before we run out of strategies.<br />
<br />
My instinct is that the answer to Question 0 is still yes -- but we'll need a new method of proof to get there.</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-89055078928387991812014-08-29T07:30:00.001-05:002014-08-29T07:30:29.953-05:00On voter fraud<p dir="ltr">Dear Texas,</p>
<p dir="ltr">If you're so damn concerned about someone else showing up and voting under my name, sending voter registration cards as postcards seems awfully...casual, no?</p>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-426862761497757194.post-61701231914981068092014-08-28T19:27:00.001-05:002014-09-08T08:52:20.970-05:00Artery Metal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Nine Minutes<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjchgpRqbdUvnP2ZsM8cnP031dfx6FlMMQtbrldXexUf3xK5_eSngd-6EDtAK0isSmIod9oCKXjwvl7nfq0AKfl54LR_uIZFWBI40mvMxqN4cBNKAJjOswTTPIno4iCbySzcd4Og9lz7Mw/s640/20140828_190721.jpg" />
<br />
Nine minutes of local support. Have potential.
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<br />
Find Balance
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6pz8o3b5qzyUl0gWgJUCiOJq-HYj1Q4_mVrJ-kqLafNN5mtUEeYnsAzeiFoej0xKnrbahZmEgWHODJXIcBzhTBS2wNvVH7hroDYWU2k7ICCu7kLR-05LjFS-5vaTLpAnrvQXxMS4oWPo/s640/20140828_194608.jpg" />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<br />
Silence The Messenger
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk_XkfbLp4o2mqVZ-e0KO7L4b6-jgIyeRepfqubrraPPheoLtsQeEqmL9xVQyOyo6UUVuDfG2s_ZZSFV3nUIacvFSvkYMzX5oTUjcmfVXNetdSBlzbQ2kBOaXX2eB3E88MTTM0yhKP2w4/s640/20140828_202939.jpg" />
<br />
Technically proficient screamcore<br />
<hr />
<br />
<br />
Allegaeon
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvBWVlkwb7JEDiiEr9E8f4cDmVqvJUlhie3QcnDGfPMwFMukzDZqdQyPc3Bw7iMDFJe5BeQNsUBxU8kN-lLt7qoU0vuOwzCUbjVVeFEH39RE9zBiv1ESPmFwqtQWYLOnjKsU0OEu_I7JA/s640/20140828_210921.jpg" />
<br />
Worth the price of a ticket on their own.<br />
<hr />
<br />
<br />
Upon This Dawning
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjG20UDGLITDlVi20l6r6FYloZvQ8U3LcEx0047yGhJeyKOcHqonDx23G0A5bXcCZUACzfpklgzzCaNnA_aF-g54k1Z6a5uo-mKOsmNKkELKta3f6-GjAi45oDwl0TCMN8XNdb26iolsM/s640/20140828_214856%2525280%252529.jpg" />
<br />
Hey, if it gets screaming teenage girls to like death metal, who am I to complain?<br />
<hr />
<br />
<br />
Chimaira
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdyd2ouymzcklkQ7bdQ9a7XpfOrRmK6kYKdsH2HncD9ZIKZPXoPagTxF2jlUlqbPXvo6UjWd68Ho-cx6jNAJfR9NTxeerPTRxGcJVBr5JtnlTu7DtK7JamrrHqvs80jGfYudBSgJ-2u_c/s640/20140828_223409%2525280%252529.jpg" />
</div>
Infamous Heel-Filcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01563944746526316293noreply@blogger.com0