On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Stephen Paling wrote:
> Algorithms are ... the difference between abstractions and solutions
Actually, you could say they are the LINK (tools) between abstractions
(concepts) and solutions (output). But if you start with invalid concepts
you will get invalid output, regardless of the methods used to get there.
> (Google = Nazis and predators)
Are you implying I wrote that? Rather manipulative, don't you think,
especially to put me on the defensive?
To set the record straight, I wrote: "Google = predator; googlers -
prey."
We (humans) have always lived in a big henhouse and are always being
trained that foxes can supply all our needs (basic) if we just ignore
ulterior motives and possibly dangerous unanticipated consequences that
bleed the prey and keep them powerless.
> (I'm working on a prototype system to demonstrate what I mean. You can
> have it when it's finished.).
What's the underlying "working hypothesis" of your proposed system? Not
the purpose of the system, but the rationale for it.
>> "Bikeshedding" happens most commonly when actions are taken without
>> regard for potential consequences, such as how to get the most out of
>> fracking with no concern for earthquakes and pollution.
I like that. It may not be a perfect definition, but it is a practical
one. What other words could be used to describe that phenomenon?
> Bikeshedding is more like getting too concerned with metaphors like
> trains, and focusing on the metaphor instead of fixing the problem.
That would make Godwin's law a good example of "bikeshedding", because it
*can* be used to distract from the problem (e.g. the predator-prey
relationship) with a banal metaphor instead of fixing what's not working.
Consider this: The basis of Godwin's law is one tiny example of a general
problem called misdirective glib speech [paraphrased]: "Oh, yeah, sure,
eventually somebody is going to refer to ... [subject being maligned] but
what's real is ..."
You can plug in any subject you want people to ignore: "plight of the the
poor", corruption, greed, education, "talking-heads", the GOP, "defunding
social programs", corporatism, sociopaths, "rights", the "predator-prey
relationship", Hitler, "anarchy", "capitalism", etc.
But look what happens if you plug in talking points like "pinko-commies",
"right-to-life", the Bible, patriotism, taxes, "the government",
"terrorism", "the corporate model", "liberals as a mental disease",
"freedom", "big government", "the Constitution", "tort reform", etc.
Fun, huh!
The gist of all this is that actually focusing on describing the banal
metaphors themselves as potential tools to promulgate doubt and fear in
the henhouse can teach the hens to ignore them and reduce the
effectiveness of the foxes, as could use of similar metaphors by the hens
to draw attention to predation.
Godwin's last word actually was "Our challenge as human beings who live
in the period after [the predations that drove the Holocaust] is that we
no longer can be passive about history. We have a moral obligation to do
what we can to prevent such events [predators running whole societies, or
henhouses] from ever happening again. Key to that obligation is
remembering, which is what Godwin's Law is all about."
from "I Seem To Be A Verb: 18 Years of Godwins Law" by Mike Godwin, at
http://www.jewcy.com/arts-and-culture/i_seem_be_verb_18_years_godwins_law
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
californiastop_at_hushmail.com
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Tue Jul 30 2013 - 14:48:54 EDT