Facebook

How the internet gets it way wrong sometimes

A letter to a friend:

People (including me) sometimes sit at their computers and merrily type comments which seem innocuous or possibly humorous to them – but to other people they may be very thoughtless, offensive or downright silly. For that reason, I almost never use Facebook to express opinions on controversial topics – especially politics.

I was telling you about those two characters in my family, my nephew Brent (Ruthanne’s boy) and my nephew Rusty (son of my cousin Virginia). They are from the same general gene pool - but Brent is a bit to the right of Adolf Hitler, Barry Goldwater (remember both you and I supported him in 64!) and Attila the Hun. Rusty, on the other hand, makes Bernie Sanders, Che Guevara and Karl Marx look like arch-conservatives. Needless to say when these two nutters get to arguing (and I use the term “arguing” very loosely) on Facebook it is very ugly – but at the same time entertaining – if you like watching train wrecks that is. Me, I just watch what they age doing and occasionally chip in with something like – “hey, the answers are not usually to be found in black and white – it’s the shades of grey where you are more likely to find some sense”.

Needless to say, they ignore me, mostly.

I think it’s a product of age. When you get old youngsters just think you have lost it and should shuffle off the mortal coil quietly and shut up. (Perhaps, they are right)

My tactic is to use Facebook to look at photos of friends, family (particularly grandchildren) and keep track of the Chiefs and the Royals. (Interestingly, you can have a good, quality discussion with both Brent and Rusty about sport, Chiefs and Royals style – a topic we all agree on!!)

If I find the urge to spout off I use my blog. That way if anyone is actually interested in my opinion they have to navigate to the blog – i.e. it’s not on Facebook where almost anyone can see it. Seems sensible to me.

Regarding our President. I absolutely agree that every President belongs to the whole country, not just those who voted for him or only to those who share his opinions. We are all free to agree with him on matters of policy or to take another stance. Therefore the office of President deserves respect – not the actual office-holder.

Take “fake news”. This seems to be a favourite of the President. And, he is in many ways correct to point out that not everything has equal value out in cyberspace. The problem is many folks now-a-days are getting their “news” from Facebook and other non-verifiable sources.

The fact is there are some facts!

For example you can find people who believe Kennedy was shot by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald. (Polls often show that a majority of American people support this idea) Most of the conspiracy theories are wrong, but entertaining. So, should we stop folks from blogging about the Kennedy assassination? No, of course not, everyone is entitled to take a view and express an opinion.

A better example: did the Russians try to influence the election of President Trump? There seems to be some evidence, but is it conclusive. No, not yet. And if they did, so what? Is it likely that significant numbers of voters could be swayed by Russian propaganda? Not likely. But and this is the important point – just like the Kennedy assassination, if you think they did you are perfectly entitled to do so and it is un-American to insist that those who hold that view are stupid, vile, or trying to subvert the electoral process. What opponents should be doing is finding facts to support their position, Same for the other side. Here’s where “fake news” comes in – it seems that a number of folks are not able to differentiate between some old bovine faeces on Facebook and even the semblance of a reliable fact.

This is a big problem.

I remember having an argument not long ago with James (you know, tall guy – father of Noam and Maya) about the Dutch Tulip Bulb speculation in the 17^th century. Most people think they know vaguely about this and use it as an example of how things can get out of hand by speculation (particularly in stocks and shares). To my chagrin, James turned out to be more right than I. A classic example of “the problem ain’t that folks are ignorant, it’s just that they know so damn much that ain’t true”.

(By the way this is another classic – most folks think it was Mark Twain who came up with this – no it was Josh Billings – you can look it up its a FACT)

Back to the bulbs. It turns out that the speculation in tulips was greatly over-estimated and many other factors led to the collapse of this particular market, Again, there is a lot of stuff on Facebook and the internet about Tulips – but you have to wade through the Bull dust to find out any real facts.

Most folks seem to have lost either the time or inclination to do this.

Likewise, folks can easily find information which reinforces their crazy, mistaken ideas. That don’t make it so!

Over this side of the pond we have the Brexiteers and the Remoaners. They argue, bicker and threaten each other with relish. They muster facts or pseudo-facts with abandon. But, of course, they never get any closer to agreement or understanding. Perhaps this penchant for self-centred preoccupation is just in our genes?

Smells Like Winning to Me

or How I learned to Love Cherry Pies, Again

I'm enamoured with the great bit in Apocalypse Now when Robert Duvall, playing a seriously deranged unit commander named Kilgore, turns, stares at the sky and says,

“Smell that? You smell that?
Lance: What?
Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.
[kneels]
Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like -
[sniffing, pondering] Victory.

I had just the same experience the other day, simply by accident. I was reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Lots of really interesting stuff – if you are into esoterica.

I particularly liked the section where Hawking explains that the mathematical ideas involved in his speculations on Space/Time are so complex that only a very few specialists in the field could (or do) actually understand them. Great, sounds like the kind of maths I love!

To be more precise, it sounds like the kind of maths which got us into the present economic difficulties – for which the bankers are forever being blamed. They deserve it: that's true. But, perversely; the mathematicians, who provided the foundations for their folly, seemingly get off scot free.

Why? Because the bankers, if you care to believe them, protest that they were just following the mathematical models that they were given. The mathematicians, wisely, keep shtum. Good move!

But, I digress – back to Hawking. The idea that floored me is on page 149. Hawking is explaining some special numbers, called imaginary. Let him do it: “If we take any ordinary (or real) number and multiply it by itself, the result is a positive number. (For example, 2 times 2 is four, but so is -2 times -2) There are, however, special numbers (called imaginary) that give negative numbers when multiplied by themselves. (The one called i, when multiplied by itself, gives -1, 2i multiplied by itself gives -4 and so on.)”

Stephen, you are a genius. (This is not news – most folks accept this) You are now, in addition to all your other accolades the real founder of Cherry Pie Maths! (And I always thought it was me!!)

What he is saying, philosophically, is that if you require a particular system in order to produce a particular mathematical answer – go for it! So, if you can get a Hawking system to produce negative numbers when multiplied by itself – it's a short step to “imagining” numbers that produce positive sequences in the same scenario.

Thanks Stevie – I've been arguing this point for years! In my system, as you all know, when you multiply ½ times ½ you get one. If Steve says you can use imaginary numbers, then it's ok by me. Call it what you want.

I'm sticking to my system.

Just don't pull out some pseudo-math crapola – pick up the phone and call Steve.

Not my problem!

He's on my team!!

Crimson Tide

A particularly un-noteworthy film starring Gene Hackman and Denzil Washington features an allusion entirely lost on UK audiences. The star of the film is the fictional submarine USS Alabama – a nuclear powered ballistic missile boat whose mission is to counter a fictional Russian megalomaniac who is threatening to launch an attack against the USA. Because the University of Alabama's football team is known as the Crimson Tide, the title of the film makes perfect sense to audiences in America – and is lost to the rest of the world.

Most of the excitement in the film concerns the conflict between Hackman and Washington, who cannot agree on what course of action to take when communications are garbled, Hackman believing they must launch a strike to take out the Russians before they can launch, Washington holding that they must re-establish communications so as to be sure they are not starting a nuclear war by mistake. Quite a good idea not to start a nuclear holocaust by mistake one would imagine.

What the audience doesn't realise is that, while this is a work of fiction, it is also is a fairly accurate depiction of naval communications.

Navies operate a different system than the rest of the forces – or the rest of the world for that matter. Because, they say, their ships are always manned and always listening, they simply broadcast messages over and over, hoping that the ships will eventually get the ones meant for them. The senders have no way of knowing if a message is received and read or not. They just assume that if they keep sending the messages, eventually they will all get read by the folks that need to. Interesting system – especially if you are carrying enough nuclear warheads to destroy most of the known world. Touch a large piece of wood – it has worked for the last 40 years, let's hope it continues!!

Which brings us neatly to emails. Email operates pretty much like naval communications. Lots and lots of messages are floating around out in cyberspace and we, the consumers, just trust that someone is listening – and hopefully that someone is the someone we sent the message to! We assume this works quite well, but we have no real way of knowing. Some people add tags that are supposed to flag when the recipient reads the message, but these are few and far between and most people simply assume if the message isn't bounced back by the recipient's mail server – it must have got there. So, when you send an email and get no reply, it may be because it hasn't been read yet, or it has got lost in the system, or whoever you sent it to just can't be bothered to reply! How to tell which?

You can't really.

Therefore, email is a very imperfect system. So, as a matter of fact, is snail mail. While the mail strike is on – people will expect delays. So far – so good. Even in ordinary times some mail doesn't make it to the destination. Some gets lost in the system and turns up years later; some the lazy, irresponsible postman throws in the bin (yes, it happens, but fortunately not very often); some goes to the wrong house and your neighbours can't resist opening it to see what you're up to and then are too embarrassed to hand it on. The list is long. We assume when we post a letter it will get there, A dangerous assumption!

Where does this lead us? Back to the phone, Never mind the paper-less office, the technocrats who drive the communication revolution, the internet gurus who drive us to the computer to cure every ill – facts are - if you want to be sure that someone gets your message – you better get them on the phone and speak to them.

Everything else is problematical.

Blogged with Flock