ME In MV

Thought it might be novel to post something about me on my blog. So lets see how this goes...

I'm feeling fairly settled in to the new apartment. Last weekend I purchased the final key touches, a lamp for the bedroom so I could stop stumbling around in the dark was the most key - although really in a sub 600 sq ft apartment turning on a light in any room pretty much covers the whole place. I also bought two small plants for my little patio area, if they live then the plan is to scale up a bit (I hope things will go better for these plants since they are out front instead of out back so less easy to forget about). I do have a kitchen table with no chairs, but cheap chairs don't seem worth it and I can't spend much money on chairs I'll almost never use since any time I eat at home it is on the couch. I imagine one day I'll actually have people over and I'll run out to target to get some cheap chairs. Ok, this has turned way too mundane.

Moving on... I'm really liking mountain view's downtown street, nothing too big, but good food. I've also been good about walking to the farmer's market to get my organic vegetables and tofu (I'm not really bragging since I only cook midnight snacks and maybe one meal a week so it is not that radical to be an organic vegetarian at home). I've been listening to the San Francisco channel of npr in the morning while I get out of bed (so I get hours of npr each day). I'm not in San Francisco, but I'm counting it as close enough so now I just need to get a volvo and start drinking lattes (with soy milk of course) and I'll be a FOX News certified elitist! Speaking of coffee with soy milk - if you take the time between jobs as a chance to go no coffee and if you had no caffeine tolerance to begin with and then at work think - gee I'd like to try my first cappuccino since they'll make it with soy milk and hey, it's free why not and then drink the whole thing - you may need to drink half a bottle of sake when you get home just to keep your heart from exploding. I would never do this, but just like to warn others of potential dangers.

Now that my apartment is all setup I do want to get out and see the bay area. I know I want to go see Berkley to see the crazies and I want to get to the San Jose Museum of Art while they still have the robots exhibition (Oh Silicon Valley, only you could make me want to go to an art museum other than to see what everyone else makes such a big fuss about). But I'm not that sure what else to go see. I'm looking for suggestions. I've spent time in San Francisco, but not really as a tourist. I think Napa is probably more of a group event. As it gets warmer I'll probably go find the ocean and maybe give Great America a try.

A while ago it was revealed to me that the origin of the name Silicon Valley is not universally known. Silicon is the element that is used to make semiconductors aka computer chips (yes, they also have to use some amount of other materials, and yes some copper and aluminum for wiring, and yes there are numerous ways to make semiconductors without silicon but overwhelmingly silicon is the key ingredient). And Silicon Valley is where the transistor was invented and a few people around here made a few bucks off that.

At work things are going well. Right now, especially because I'm new, it is a sit at your desk and do your work type of job - which can be really nice because I can concentrate for long periods and spend time trying different things out. I don't want to get into too many specifics of what I'm doing because the company I'm at has a bit of the Silicon Valley secrecy thing going on. Not that I wouldn't tell anyone I know directly much more. But I'm designing a transmitter (the amplifier that drives the antenna or an off chip amplifier) for WiFi 802.11 a and n. There's stuff about the fab technology for the chip that I'm happy to be designing in, but I'll skip those details more to avoid putting people to sleep than secrecy. I'm starting to get to know the people in my group, but it is not a super social environment, and honestly I haven't pushed it too much.

It was good to see Julie who was kind enough to grace me with her presence before heading off for the Summer (insert predictable joke about her leaving soon after I moved here).

Here's something that seems obvious on reflection, but I only recently realized. If you see someone from a foreign country eating a dish from their country that looks super adventurous to you, that is not a sign they are an adventurous eater - it's the person from far away who is eating a hamburger or a BBQ sandwich that's an adventurous eater. Although the first person has better taste (that's a fact, not an opinion) and will probably live longer. I was going to add fried chicken to the adventurous list, but that seems to be a surprisingly universal dish.

Gas Tax

I find this pretty crazy. So first of all it is nice to see that Obama gets economics (this is actually a standard problem in intro microeconomics), ok fine, he gets it now after learning from a previous mistake. But that leads to the crazy part. The major claim against Obama is that he does not have enough experience, but then when he makes a decision based on what he has learned from his government experience he is criticized for being a flip-flopper. What's the point of experience if you're never going to learn from it?

Explaining Probability with Gambling

This post is quite random (and has nothing to do with the other science discussion going on in the blogosphere - I can't believe I seriously just used the word blogosphere). In my academic snobbishness I've tried to explain certain probability concepts to various people at various points in time (this post is not particularly directed toward any of them). I think I came up with a great way of doing it, although I have a feeling that either it has been done before or it just seems good because I agree with what I'm trying to explain - or most likely both. I'm posting this both in case others find it useful/interesting and to see if others agree with its validity.

Anyway... I think people often vastly misjudge probabilities and they often assign a priori probabilities to events that have already occurred. So here's my new tool for figuring out if something is improbable. Ask yourself if someone else would be willing to take a bet on the unlikely event - if it helps actually bet a small amount of money with someone else. If you are offering even odds then if the event is truly very unlikely the other person should enthusiastically take the bet (assuming it is not too significant a sum - I'll spare you the tangent on risk adverseness).

I think this is most useful in clarifying that the probability of an event that has already occurred is 100%. Let's say that on my birthday I sit down in the lunch room at a table with 3 other people, all of whom also have the same birthday. Creepy -seems very improbable. Ok - now I turn to someone at another table and say hey this is super unlikely - want to bet that it will happen? No way he's taking the bet - it already happened! He'd just be handing me his money.

Now let's say that I'm still in the betting mood so I bet the person that something similarly creepy will happen at some point in the future. He'd say - No way! Even if we could establish what creepy means, of course something creepy is going to happy to me - coincidences happen to people all the time and what kind of gambler gets into a bet that can take any amount of time?

Ok, lets say I make it more specific and say that I predict that in two years, again on my birthday I will sit down with exactly 3 other people and that those 3 other people will share my birthday. Well, getting better, although the person would have to believe a promise that I will not do it on purpose (and they would have to know that I do not regularly sit with the three people I am with right now). If they are careful with their money they may also make sure there are no other underlying factors - such as if the table is close to the birthday cake tray. I also imagine they would insist on observing the event, even if they trust me they would probably recognize that the memory is a funny thing (this case is fairly clear cut, but if any part of the unlikely event involves me thinking something, such as if the bet was to have a feeling I would sit next to the people, then the bettor would be very cautions to make sure I didn't reinterpret a stomach rumble for a prediction after the fact - he'd probably make me write down the feeling as soon as it occurred). Once we've established these points, I would guess the other person would jump on the bet - cause let's face it under those conditions I'm probably going to lose.

Yes this situation may have gotten too unlikely. Perhaps I think that I often sit next to people whose birthdays have numerical relations to my birthday. Well, there are a lot of days and a lot of numerical relations. Setting up a bet will force me to define which relations count and what the acceptable time frame is. Also be careful - if I got too detailed, especially with something numeric someone may take me on an even money bet even if the event has a 40% chance of occurring - if I want to really guarantee that it is unlikely - I should give them the odds I am looking for (if I think it is one in a million I should give them those odds - although maybe in that case we wouldn't really bet).

Try it out. If possible really bet - if you don't bet the other person won't have the motivation to really question the probability. If you do try it out let me know how it goes.

Earth Day

Happy Earth Day!

Jon Stewart and Elitism

If you missed Jon Stewart's discussion of elitism on April 14 go here and if you have time watch the whole thing - if not skip to 7:10.

Go - why are you still here - go on.

Godel's Proof

I somewhat randomly read Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel and James Newman. It's a short book trying to explain Godel's Proof to non-math majors. Since the book sort of speeds through things in 100 pages it is tough to summarize in a blog post. But basically some people wanted to be able to take a set of axioms about number theory and using formal mathematics be able to prove if the axioms are consistent (can't derive two theorems that contradict each other) and complete (there are no true theorems within the system that cannot be derived from the axioms). Godel proved that this cannot be done. So in some sense he proved that there are some statements that cannot be proved true or false (before anyone tries to apply this too generally - it only applies to a somewhat specific set of circumstances - but even so was quite revolutionary for mathematics). I think the proof looks a lot like the halting problem from computer science (although I'm sure there's some subtle difference that would cause a mathematician to scream) - or more generally it's kinda sorta "if you can prove this statement is true then it is false and if you can prove it is false then it is true, but if you can't prove it either way then it is true". One major aspect of the proof that I find really cool is how he turns logic into math. You can take logical statements and turn them into logic symbols. Well you assign a number to each symbol then you can create a rule to combine those values to get a unique number for each statement. You can then extend the rule so you get a unique number for each series of statements. Then you can perform arithmetic on logic statements. This is the tool Godel used to create the statement which cannot be proved true or false.

A New Earth

I read A New Earth based on a recommendation. I do think there were some interesting ideas in there, but I think that all of them come directly from Christianity and Buddhism. Let me summarize (very much in my own words) - if you are feeling frustrated, upset, worried... then stop, take a deep breath, relax, put the situation in perspective (good advice, but not exactly original).

I think I could write a book as long as A New Earth describing my issues with it - in fact kind of like the books talking about the science of star trek or harry potter, you could write a book explaining the science that he gets wrong or fails to account for. So I will merely list the types of issues I had with it. First off were numerous scientific inaccuracies which ranged from somewhat subtle to glaring to purely nonsensical. Next were internal inconsistencies of which there were at least a few and had to do with major points he was trying to make. I think he somewhat clearly claims to be a messiah. He talks about God and spirituality without ever really explaining what he means which is crucial since he is turning away from conventional religions. He uses the Emperor's New Clothes Argument - those who are ready to be awakened will be and those who aren't will dislike the book. Some of his advice is good, but some is bad even though it might sound good on the surface. And probably the most subtle and most infuriating is that a number of the things he tries to explain with his ideas are already explained by established science. There were portions of the book (especially where some of the contradictions occurred) where I wondered if he was writing a parody and actually read portions of the book that way so the mistakes wouldn't be as frustrating (or maybe it is genius and he purposefully made the book frustrating to give people a chance to practice relaxing).

Ok - must stop here before embarking on full rant. Although I will say I haven't read anything about being spiritual apart from traditional religion - so from an outside seeing what others are reading perspective it was interesting. If you are interested in any of the interesting ideas I recommend reading about Buddhism and meditation in particular.

Sniper Fire

I know the Bosnia sniper fire thing is so two weeks ago, but I have a new theory on what happened (just to be clear - a theory I absolutely do not believe). It seems quite extreme to just create a memory of something that significant. And it seems rather stupid to purposefully tell a lie about a well documented event. None of the explanations were really adding up for me.

Here's an alternate theory: what if Hillary did land under sniper fire once, just in a different country or the same country, but at a different time. But she couldn't talk about it because the real sniper fire trip was top secret. I'm talking like landing in Cuba to talk to Castro about what it would take to end the embargo or a trip to Iran to gather information using her status as first lady as cover or a previous trip to Bosnia (hm, I know so little about Bosnia I can't even come up with a top secret thing for her to have been doing there) or an assassination attempt (or success) on a foreign leader... Something that shows she has CIA operative levels of foreign experience. She would badly want to talk about it, but couldn't because she is sworn to secrecy - wars would start if she described the true purpose of the trip. So in an attempt to discuss part of it she blended it with another trip and just didn't fully think through the trip she was blending it with. That is something that could have happened spur of the moment or even if preplanned it seems more plausible that she just wasn't careful about which trips she was blending together.

Or for the anti-Hillary crowd - it could be that she is blending two trips, but she couldn't talk about the real sniper fire trip, not because it was top secret, but because it is embarrassing - like going to Cuba to get Cigars (hm, honestly didn't intend to go down the road of Clintons and cigars).

The World Without Us

I stayed up last night and finished The World Without Us. It's an odd book - he tries to figure out what would happen to the Earth if humans suddenly disappeared. Part of the book is about what would degrade and how the earth would taken down human creations (apparently most of civilization is kept up by repainting - it seemed like if nothing else got to man made structures - eventually the paint would peel allowing rust to form and from there everything collapses). Part of the book is describing various impacts we have had on the Earth so that he can then look at how that would continue to impact life if we left. One example that really struck me is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch - it's tough to buy plastic after his description. There are also non-pollution impacts, such as the spreading of different animals and plants between continents. And the other part of the book is him traveling to different areas that have been abandoned by humans to give clues about what would happen such as Chernobyl and The Korean DMZ.

I think one issue the book had is he would sometimes use words like long or short, but his discussion was covering anywhere from decades to billions of years so it was sometimes hard to have a grasp of what order of magnitude he was talking about. Overall the answer to the question of what will happen is that the planet will continue to be impacted by our presence for a long time, but life will go on and adapt to the changes we made. But much more interesting than the actual answer to the question is each story he tells to show different impacts of humans and the areas where humans have left.

Work Day 2

I'm two days into working. Well, vacation still beats work, but once I get past that thought, things are going well. The orientation was quite extensive (lasted all of Monday morning). I'm now decked out with company branded shirt, mug, and briefcase (hm, if only I worked for the company everyone thinks I work for, that would have made the freebies really exciting).

I've been spending a lot of time at work since they feed me (I'm quite impressed by the food so far) and give me internet access. I was supposed to get internet access at home today, but the free Google wifi network doesn't reach my apartment - garrr! Compared to free, cable internet access is looking very expensive. One guy at work is telling me I should just make a directional antenna out of a pringles can so I can get on Google's network, but losing the internet every time I bump my desk doesn't sound very attractive.

Mountain View

I am now a Bay Area resident. Now if only my stuff would be a Bay Area resident too.

The new place is a bit small, but I think that will be fine. It is a short walk to downtown mountain view which is great. It is also a short walk to the library which is good since I don't have Internet access at the apartment yet. I think there has been a transition in awareness about leaving wifi networks open which normally I would think is good, but right now it is quite annoying.

Tomorrow I start the new job. While I'm excited about the new job, after a two week vacation I'm kinda liking not working.

La Brea

Today I went to the La Brea Tar Pits as part of my drive up the coast. The whole thing was a bit smaller than expected. There are a few tar pits outside you can see and then a museum showing some of the fossils from the tar pits. Seeing all the fossils was interesting (mostly mammoths and saber tooth tigers - at least those are the cools ones I remembered) and I felt like the tar pits were a SoCal check list item (of course surfing would have been a better one, but oh well).

I think it is funny (and appropriate) that 40,000 years ago a big plot of asphalt naturally formed in what would later be the center of LA! (Take that Jeff Foxworthy with your: Gee I wouldn't have thought the animals would come this close to the city.)

Where did the sun go?, The Big U, and The God Delusion

I spent the past 5 days in Pittsburgh. It was great to get to see Eric and Jess. In addition to hanging out and getting a tour of Eric's lab, we went to an Obama speech. As excited as I am about Obama I was a little overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of others who were there. It was really interesting to see him in person rather than just watching on TV - especially how he keeps everyone going not just through a 30 second segment on TV, but through a more than one hour speech. There was a blog post I had kind of written in my head about Hillary's "it's 3 am ad" but never actually posted (its title was going to be it's 3 am and you lost my vote) - now I wish I had written it so I'd have proof that Obama's comments were almost exactly the same as mine. Thanks to Eric and Jess for being great hosts even while working, studying for classes and studying for the boards!

While I was in PA I read The Big U by Neal Stephenson and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

The Big U is a book Stephenson wrote in 1984 as a parody of American universities. It has the same style as Snowcrash, The Diamond Age, and Zodiac (fast paced, comedic action, starting absurd and working up to super absurd and the interweaving of many characters, and not really knowing where he's going with the story till near the very end). But it doesn't have the futuristic settings and predictions of Snowcrash or Diamond Age or the environmental message of Zodiac so I'd tend to read those first, but if you've made it through them and want more then definitely grab The Big U. While the story definitely is not set in Boston, I do think the big neon sign is a take off of the citgo sign. I'd say more, but it is really hard to describe without laying out the whole story.

The God Delusion was interesting. I think Dawkins had a lot of good points and in general I agree with him, but he took on such a huge topic that I sometimes felt like he sort of wondered from point to point. There obviously was some organization, but 400 pages clearly isn't enough room to disprove the existence of god (yes singular - I'll get back to that), explore the causes of religion, discuss how religion hurts and helps society, and discuss the importance of letting children keep their minds open. In addition it is written for a wide audience so he has to explain each concept (such as how evolution can build complexity from simplicity and the concept of memes). I almost feel like this book is designed as an introduction to the topic, which corresponds to the numerous places he recommends other books and websites that go into more detail on certain subjects. One thing he did to limit the subject is to keep to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (hence god as a singular).

There are a few points I found very interesting. The first was his proof that the existence of god is unlikely. Going into all the details gets to be long winded so I'll leave it to the book to explain this one. The second is discussing the concept that religion is need (or valuable) in defining morals. The interesting thing is that all three listed religions say some really good stuff, but also say some really really bad stuff (like stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath and that's not even close to the worst). Reasonable religious people choose not to follow the bad stuff, but the fact they are picking out the good from bad, shows they already have their own set of morals that lets them pick good vs bad, so why not just use those, instead of having religion as a middle man. He also makes a point that a child is raised by parents of a particular religion, but it should not be assumed that the child is of that religion until s/he is old enough to choose for him/herself.

I would recommend this book to everyone reading this blog (I think anyone who takes scripture as fact would get very offended very fast). Although it might be more interesting to read about more specific topics - like evolution (maybe the Ancestor's Tale) or memes and why people believe in god (maybe Breaking the Spell).