Another indication that the original Drake Equation was worthless

One of the oft-noted problems with the Drake Equation was the many ways it assumed that alien worlds would look, not just like Earth, but mid-twentieth century earth including our proclivity for constantly pumping out radio signals...

[Unrelated note, why isn't Missi Pyle a star?]

and would continue to look that way between 1000 and 100,000,000 years.

It appears that Earth at least will fall a little short of that range. 

“The search for extraterrestrial intelligence [Seti] is changing,” he said. “We have relied in the past almost exclusively on radio telescopes to detect broadcasts from alien civilisations just as our radio and TV transmissions could reveal our presence to them. However, to date, we have heard absolutely nothing.”

Nor should we be surprised, [Oxford University astrophysicist Prof Chris] Lintott argues. “Humanity has already passed its peak radio wave output because we are increasingly using narrow beam communications and fibre-optic cables, rather than beaming out TV and radio signals into the general environment.”

Humanity could become radio-quiet in about 50 years as a result – and that will probably be true for civilisations on other worlds, he added. “They will have gone radio silent after a while, like us. So Seti radio telescopes will need to be augmented with other ways of seeking aliens. We are going to have to be more creative about what we’re searching for in the data and find unusual things that reveal they are the handiwork of aliens.”

 Nor is Lintott the first to make this observation. 

Regarding the first point, in a 2006 Sky & Telescope article, Seth Shostak wrote, "Moreover, radio leakage from a planet is only likely to get weaker as a civilization advances and its communications technology gets better. Earth itself is increasingly switching from broadcasts to leakage-free cables and fiber optics, and from primitive but obvious carrier-wave broadcasts to subtler, hard-to-recognize spread-spectrum transmissions."

 

"The city would naturally form a line as it tried to get away from itself."

YouTube is an SEO snake pit, a place where Gresham's Law of content prevails with an abundance of intelligent, informative, and entertaining work buried by a limitless supply of derivative and often largely plagiarized rip-offs alternating with AI-generated crap. The algorithm is great at recommending videos I'm tempted to click on; it's terrible at recommending something I actually want to watch. To add insult to injury, a bad click is usually followed by more recommendations for the same channel.

This makes me reluctant to try a new YouTuber without checking them out on Google or seeing if they were followed by the right people on Twitter.  People like this.

 So when I recommend Patrick Boyle, you know I've checked him out first.

Boyle is a Visiting Professor of Finance at King’s Business School, London. He is also a wickedly funny deadpan commentator on hype, fraud, and general stupidity in finance, business and public policy.

The title of the post comes from Boyle's take-down of MBS's personal Xanadu (which we've also been commenting on for a while)

Neom - The Line - The Rise and Fall of Saudi Arabia's Linear City.

The video that first caught my attention was the following piece on Silicon Valley innovations, which included this addition to my tech bro messianic delusions file.

And this gem.

Our annual Toys-for-Tots post

 

A good Christmas can do a lot to take the edge off of a bad year both for children and their parents (and a lot of families are having a bad year). It's the season to pick up a few toys, drop them by the fire station and make some people feel good about themselves during what can be one of the toughest times of the year.

If you're new to the Toys-for-Tots concept, here are the rules I normally use when shopping:

The gifts should be nice enough to sit alone under a tree. The child who gets nothing else should still feel that he or she had a special Christmas. A large stuffed animal, a big metal truck, a large can of Legos with enough pieces to keep up with an active imagination. You can get any of these for around twenty or thirty bucks at Wal-Mart or Costco;*

Shop smart. The better the deals the more toys can go in your cart;

No batteries. (I'm a strong believer in kid power);**

Speaking of kid power, it's impossible to be sedentary while playing with a basketball;

No toys that need lots of accessories;

For games, you're generally better off going with a classic;

No movie or TV show tie-ins. (This one's kind of a personal quirk and I will make some exceptions like Sesame Street);

Look for something durable. These will have to last;

For smaller children, you really can't beat Fisher Price and PlaySkool. Both companies have mastered the art of coming up with cleverly designed toys that children love and that will stand up to generations of energetic and creative play.

*I previously used Target here, but their selection has been dropping over the past few years and it's gotten more difficult to find toys that meet my criteria.

** I'd like to soften this position just bit. It's okay for a toy to use batteries, just not to need them. Fisher Price and PlaySkool have both gotten into the habit of adding lights and sounds to classic toys, but when the batteries die, the toys live on, still powered by the energy of children at play.

Double-talk from the other side

Years ago we did a few posts on double-talk, the type of comic improvisation where a performer mimics the sound of a foreign language with gibberish syllables. Sometimes we talked about the practice itself. In others, we used it as a metaphor. Double-talk has fallen out of fashion for the very good reason that, when done badly it usually degenerates into racist caricature and it is almost always done badly. The best known exception was Sid Caesar, whose mimicry was reasonably nuanced and generally respectful, and who gets a bit of a pass for being widely considered a comic genius.

Of course, the term "foreign language" is relative. English is a foreign language to most of the world. This raises the question what would it sound like if someone from, say, Italy were to do American double-talk? The answer in at least one case is that it will sound unnervingly American.

For those who don't know, this song is called "Prisencolinensinainciusol" by Italian singer Adriano Celentano. The lyrics are complete gibberish made to sound American.

— All About Steve (@AllAboutSteveW) October 4, 2024

Here's an audio only version.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Double Talk

Believe it or not, I am going to connect this to one of our threads.

From the Wikipedia page on Sid Caesar

Max and Ida Caesar ran a restaurant, a 24-hour luncheonette. By waiting on tables, their son learned to mimic the patois, rhythm and accents of the diverse clientele, a technique he termed double-talk, which he used throughout his career. He first tried double-talk with a group of Italians, his head barely reaching above the table. They enjoyed it so much that they sent him over to a group of Poles to repeat his native-sounding patter in Polish, and so on with Russians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Lithuanians, and Bulgarians.
...
Of his double-talk routines, Carl Reiner said, "His ability to doubletalk every language known to man was impeccable," and during one performance Caesar imitated four different languages but with almost no real words. Despite his apparent fluency in many languages, Caesar could actually speak only English and Yiddish. In 2008, Caesar told a USA Today reporter, "Every language has its own music ... If you listen to a language for 15 minutes, you know the rhythm and song." Having developed this mimicry skill, he could create entire monologues using gibberish in numerous languages, as he did in a skit in which he played a German general.

Five years ago at the blog we were talking about an aborted twenty year old project that keeps getting more relevant

Didn't do a great job with this the first time. The patches are in brackets.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Agent-based simulations and horse-race journalism

(This was never my area of expertise, and what little I once knew I've mostly forgotten. Since lots of our regular readers are experts on this sort of things, I welcome criticism but I hope you'll be gentle.)

I tried a little project of my own back in the early 2000s. One of these days, I'd like to revisit the topic here and talk about what I had in mind and how quixotic the whole thing was, but for now there's one aspect of it that has become particularly relevant so here's a very quick overview so I can get to the main point.

Imagine you have an agent-based simulation with a fixed number of iterations and a fixed number of runs. You randomly place the agents on a landscape with multiple dimensions and multiple optima and have them each perform gradient searches.  Now we add one wrinkle. Each agent is aware of the position of at least one other agent and will move toward either the highest point in its search radius unless another searcher it is in communication with has a higher position in which case it heads toward that one.

[Let's explain this in a bit more detail. Say we have fifty agents, one hundred iterations, and two maxima (A with height 10 and B with height 5) and that agent 1 shares with agent 2, agent 2 shares with agents 1 and 3, and so forth. At the beginning of each iteration, each agent looks around a radius of one unit then shares the results with whatever other agents it is in communication with. Agents move toward the highest point they are aware of. If 1 found h=0.4, 2 found h=0.2 and 3 found h=0.3, 1 would move in the direction of the sharpest gradient, 2 would move in the direction of the the highest point 1 found and 3 would move in the direction of its sharpest gradient.

[After one hundred iterations, some agents will be at A, some will be at B and some will be in transit. At the end of one hundred iterations, we measure the height of each agent's endpoint and take the average. -- MP]

What happens to average height when we add lines of communication to the matrix? At one extreme where each searcher is only in contact with one other, you are much more likely to have one of them find the global optimum but most will be left behind. [If we greatly increase the number of iterations, all of the agents will hit the global optimum almost all the time -- MP] At the other extreme, if everyone is in contact with everyone, there is a far greater chance of converging on a substandard local optimum [In other words, given enough iterations, minimal communication consistently beats maximal. -- MP]. Every time I ran a set of simulations, I got the same [lopsided] U-shaped curve with the best results coming from a high but not too high level of communication.

It is always dangerous to extend these abstract ideas derived from artificial scenarios to the real world, but there are some fairly obvious conclusions we can draw. What if we think of the primary process in similar terms? Each voter is doing an optimization search, bringing in information on their own and trying to determine the best choice, but at the same time, they are also weighing the opinions of others performing the same search.

Given this framework, what is the optimal level of communication between voters via the polls? At what point does the frequency of polling reach a level where it makes it more likely for voters to converge on a sub-optimal choice? I'm pretty sure we've passed it.

 

What did John von Neumann mean by the "singularity"? -- a lemma post

Sometimes, when I try to take on a really big topic here at the blog, smaller related topics start popping up. These tend to be right on the line between relevance and distraction. I like to give these side topics their own little lemma posts. Case in point, I'm working my way through David Donoho's latest and, though this is a minor point, invoking von Neumann is problematic in a way that points out deeper issues with the paper. So here's a little bit of background on one of the foundational myths of the singularity.

 

 From Donoho's paper:

[Ray] Kurzweil quotes one of the 20th century’s most prominent mathematicians, John von Neumann:

The history of technology ... gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race, beyond which, human affairs, as we know them, cannot continue. (Ulam, 1958, page 5)

Von Neumann introduces the idea that a singularity is coming. But when?

At the risk of being overly precise, Kurzweil wasn't actually quoting von Neumann; he was quoting Stanisław Ulam describing a conversation with Von Neumann. That's a fine distinction but not a trivial one.

Since this quote features so prominently in these discussions, let's look at the whole passage: 

Quite aware that the criteria of value in mathematical work are, to some extent, purely aesthetic, he once expressed an apprehension that the values put on abstract scientific achievement in our present civilization might diminish: "The interests of humanity may change, the present curiosities in science may cease, and entirely different things may occupy the human mind in the future." One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.

 All we get from this is that von Neumann once had a discussion with Ulam and possibly some of their peers about the accelerating pace of science and technology and the inevitable breaking point it seemed headed toward. Given the caliber of the intellects involved, we can safely assume it was a profound and insightful conversation. The degree to which it was original, on the other hand, we will never know. It is worth noting that scientifically literate, forward thinking people started talking about that topic a lot starting in the late 19th century and many, probably most, reached that same conclusion.

More important to our conversation, we don't know what technologies and fields of science struck them as the most imminent threats, but here we can make an educated guess. We know a great deal about these two men and we know a great deal about the period when this conversation very probably took place.

Here's more from Ulam's memoir of his friend : [emphasis added.]

I would say that his main interest after science was in the study of history. His knowledge of ancient history was unbelievably detailed. He remembered, for instance, all the anecdotical material in Gibbon's Decline and Fall and liked to engage after dinner in historical discussions. On a trip south, to a meeting of the American Mathematical Society at Duke University, passing near the battlefields of the Civil War he amazed us by his familiarity with the minutest features of the battles. This encyclopedic knowledge molded his views on the course of future events by inducing a sort of analytic continuation. I can testify that in his forecasts of political events leading to the Second World War and of military events during the war, most of his guesses were amazingly correct. After the end of the Second World War, however, his apprehensions of an almost immediate subsequent calamity, which he considered as extremely likely, proved fortunately wrong. There was perhaps an inclination to take a too exclusively rational point of view about the cases of historical events. This tendency was possibly due to an over-formalized game theory approach.

Here's another relevant detail from Ulam.

In October, 1954, he was named by presidential appointment as a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. He left Princeton on a leave of absence and discontinued all commitments with the exception of the chairmanship of the ICBM Committee. Admiral Strauss, chairman of the Commission and a friend of Johnny's for many years, suggested this nomination as soon as a vacancy occurred.

Of course, Ulam also gave a great deal of thought to nuclear weapons.

While these two were unusually aware of the possibility of nuclear war, the threat loomed over everyone and everything. Drills and shelters were part of the culture. When it wasn't implicitly stated in international news, it was always part of the subtext. It is almost impossible to overstate how big a role displayed in the popular imagination throughout the Cold War era, and arguably especially during the 1950s and early 60s. It even generated, not just science fiction genres, but subgenres as well.

The once-popular Phaëton hypothesis, which states that the asteroid belt consists of the remnants of the former fifth planet that existed in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter before somehow being destroyed, has been a recurring theme with various explanations for the planet's destruction proposed. This hypothetical former planet is in science fiction often called "Bodia" in reference to Johann Elert Bode, for whom the since-discredited Titius–Bode law that predicts the planet's existence is named. 

...

Following the invention of the atomic bomb in 1945, stories of this planetary destruction became increasingly common, encouraged by the advent of a plausible-seeming means of disintegration.^[15] Robert A. Heinlein's 1948 novel Space Cadet thus states that the fifth planet was destroyed as a result of nuclear war, and in Ray Bradbury's 1948 short story "Asleep in Armageddon" (a.k.a. "Perchance to Dream"), the ghosts of the former warring factions infect the mind of an astronaut stranded on an asteroid.^[3][5][16] Several works of the 1950s reused the idea to warn of the dangers of nuclear weapons, including Lord Dunsany's 1954 Joseph Jorkens short story "The Gods of Clay" and James Blish's 1957 novel The Frozen Year (a.k.a. Fallen Star). 

We don't have to fill in that much of the picture to conclude that John von Neumann was greatly concerned imminent threat of nuclear Armageddon, and that when he discussed the idea of technology outpacing our ability as humans to cope with it, he was probably focused on the immediate existential threats of the Cold War: nuclear weapons and possibly biological and chemical weapons as well, things which he believed had a very good chance of devastating the world within a matter of years and possibly months.

The connection between these ideas and the singularity of Kurzweil or Donoho is weak at best and mainly serves to borrow a little reflected credibility from von Neumann. That's not to say he wouldn't have agreed with some or all of these ideas; is just that, as far as we know, the "singularity" in that conversation had nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

Having a Galactic Christmas

To the delight of art directors everywhere, Galaxy, arguably the best science fiction magazine of the postwar era, is in the public domain (sort of) and is available on the Internet archive. The copyright situation is a bit complicated because most of the stories are very much not in the public domain, but the commissioned parts including the columns, reviews, and best of all, art are.

From Wikipedia:

Notable artists who contributed regularly to Galaxy included Ed Emshwiller, who won several Hugo Awards for his work, Hugo nominee Wallace Wood, and Jack Gaughan, who won three Hugos in the late 1960s, partly for his work in Galaxy. Gaughan was commissioned by Pohl to provide the cover and interior art for Jack Vance's The Dragon Masters in 1962; the resulting illustrations made Gaughan immediately famous in the science fiction field.

Wally Wood was one of a number of EC artists who showed up in the pages of the magazine including the unexpected but unmistakable Don Martin.

Throughout the 50s, December issues of the magazine featured Emshwiller's four-armed but otherwise reassuringly familiar Santa Claus on the cover. I thought this would be a good way to kick off the month.

Happy holidays.

Trump did better with women against Harris than he did against Biden -- you'd think that would be the lede

I've seen remarkably little coverage of this. [From the AP. Emphasis added.]

Men were more likely than women to support President-elect Trump, the survey showed. That gap in voting preferences has largely remained the same, even as vote choice among men and women has moved modestly.

Harris had the advantage among women, winning 53% to Trump’s 46%, but that margin was somewhat narrower than President Joe Biden’s in 2020, according to the survey. In 2020, VoteCast showed Biden won 55% of women, while 43% went for Trump.

It's very possible I missed something. I haven't been following the postmortem discussion that closely, but I did multiple Google and NYT news searches and none of what I've found have focused on this one big and completely unexpected result. Many of the articles didn't even mention it.

The dominant narrative going into the election was that we would see the gender gap growing on both sides, men increasingly trending toward Trump, women increasingly trending toward Harris. I don't recall anyone predicting that in a time of Dobbs with a woman at the top of the ticket, we would see women moving toward the Republicans.

Assuming we can trust these numbers, this would seem to be one of the biggest stories of the election, in terms of magnitude, impact, and questions raised. The kind of thing that demands new hypotheses and deep dives into the data. 

It also raises questions about pre-election polling, I don't recall any large segment of the population where women were moving significantly toward Trump. How did the polls do with slightly over half the population? Could Harris underperforming Biden be explained by who turned out? How did women's votes break in 2016 compared to 2008 and 2020?

Before Obama, I remember lots of Democrats asking if the country was ready for a black president. I don't recall nearly so many before Hillary asking if the country was ready for a woman president. Is it possible we were getting things backwards? This is not to say that a woman can't be elected president -- the closeness of the popular vote in 2016 and 2024 show that Clinton and Harris were competitive -- nor should we exaggerate the effect this had on the outcome. It's true that if Democrats had improved on their performance with women rather than lost ground, they might have flipped the popular vote, but lots of factors such as the shortness of the campaign, widespread misconceptions about economy, a slow and timid justice system, and godawful press coverage all arguably played a bigger role. 

It is also important to remember that just as it is a bad idea to assume that conventional political logic applies to Trump, it can be just as much of a mistake to assume the lessons of Trump can be generalized.

That said, this is a big story that raises significant questions and it's joined the long list of important stories that the establishment press has shown a bizarre lack of interest in covering.