Author: admin

Visions of the future often seem to go to one of two extremes. Either the future is a bleak and nightmarish dystopia (eg: Orwell’s 1984), or it is more of a utopia, better in many ways than our own reality (eg: the original Star Trek).

Of course even a utopia can have a dark underbelly. The seeming perfection of a future world, with all of its lovely techno-polish, can mask various sorts of deficiencies.

For example, a world that is perfectly devoid of crime might be the result of some extreme form of law enforcement. Similarly, a world without health problems might be the result of forced eugenics.

This kind of deceptive vision of a more perfect future might be termed a “futopia”. At first glance a futopia looks like a utopia, but that extra letter “f” signifies futility — the futility of trying to achieve perfection when dealing with something as messy and complicated as the human condition.

What do you do when the executive branch of your federal government is doing everything it can to manufacture the appearance of violence and chaos in your nation’s cities, just so that they can declare martial law and thereby avoid holding a midterm election?

Maybe you just have to hope that they are stupid enough to pick on an extremely peaceful city like Portland Oregon, so that everyone will understand that they have no idea what they are doing.

Sutton’s Law states that you should spend your resources focusing on the most likely solution, rather than spending time and money looking into every possibility. It comes out of an apocryphal story that the bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why by a reporter he robbed banks, and he replied “Because that’s where the money is.”

Interestingly, Sutton claims that the reporter made that story up, and that he never said any such thing. Which leads to an interesting question: How many well-known laws or principles are based on a story about something that actually never happened?

As Yogi Berra once said “I really didn’t say everything I said.” By the way, Berra really did say that.

Recently I was at a workshop in another country. Over dinner one of my colleagues, a scientist, told me that he had made the difficult decision not to attend an upcoming international conference in the U.S.

He was worried that the current political environment in America might be too unfriendly to researchers from other countries. His exact words were “I feel uncomfortable going to the U.S.”

“I know what you mean,” I replied. “Even I feel uncomfortable going to the U.S. I can only imagine how you feel.”

This past week the U.S. administration flew in all of the top U.S. military brass from where they were stationed around the world — most likely at great expense. And then proceeded to bore them with several hours of bizarre and rambling talks about nothing.

Somebody told me that the entire episode seemed very embarrassing and dysfunctional. I pointed out that there is always a silver lining, and that this farce has actually served a practical purpose.

The administration is actually doing our nation a favor by making sure the military knows that they are complete idiots. This will hopefully increase the chances that we can trust the military to act responsibly if these wiseguys attempt a coup.

The shutdown of the U.S. government is going to cause a lot of pain for a lot of people. I would like to think that we didn’t need to end up here, but maybe it was inevitable.

Since the start of his current term, the president has seemed interested in nothing more than “slash and burn”. Rather than actually govern, he has focused on gunning for anyone in the U.S. whom he sees as vulnerable. And the more vulnerable the target, the better.

Now those shenanigans have succeeded in bringing the U.S. government itself to an ignominious grinding halt. Sadly, it all seems like the logical conclusion of the policies of the current administration.

There is no one correct way to give a talk. But there are many wrong ways.

The most important thing is to engage your audience in a compelling story. The story can be about pretty much anything, from particle physics to relationship advice. But there needs to be a story.

Too many people get up in front of a group of people and just recite something to the effect that “I did this.” Then they wonder why everyone in the audience is staring at their phone.

It’s your responsibility as a speaker to set up a problem that catches the audience’s attention, and then proceed to work through that problem with them, engaging their minds with the search for possible solutions. They need to feel involve in that process.

This is true whether you are discussing particle physics or relationship advice. Especially if you are discussing particle physics or relationship advice.

Somebody had to invent the modern novel.

As it happens, that honor goes to Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, who was born on this day in 1547. His master work Don Quixote is still considered by many to be the best novel of all time.

How often does it happen that the first to do something is also the best at it? Imagine if the first movie ever made turned out to the best one, or the first pitcher in the Major Leagues established records that no other pitcher was ever able to top.

I cannot think of a single other instance where an entire new category was conceived by one person’s creation — and then that creation turned out to be the best of its kind.

Some people have a way of making broad generalizations about entire groups of people, and then saying those things in what sounds like a reasonable and friendly tone of voice. This can mislead many others into thinking that the ideas themselves are reasonable.

For example, such a person might say, in a reasonable sounding tone of voice, that black people are inherently violent and incompetent. He might add that all black women in particular are stupid, and could never, on their own merits, be in positions that require intelligence and competence.

Or he might say that Jews are secretly organizing a vast conspiracy to replace white people by “inferior” races. This is the same theory that Nazis adopted, and most people today don’t think that Nazis were reasonable. But apparently, if those same hateful ideas are advanced in what sounds like a calm and reasoned tone of voice, they can gain traction.

Here is what I am wondering: How flexible are these techniques? Could they be used to target Italians, or left handed people, or people with red hair?

Could a persuasive person, speaking in what sounds like a calm and reasonable tone of voice, get millions of people to espouse virulent hate and contempt against any particular group?

One thing that stands out about the current US administration, aside from the cruelty and destructiveness, is the enforced level of stupidity. The administration insists that everything needs to be stupid.

If you say or do things that require a three digit IQ, such as insist that policy needs to follow the Constitution, you get fired. If your reasoning exhibits sny nuance or understanding of complexity, you get fired. Or you are declared to be the enemy.

I wonder whether the millions of Americans who voted for these bozos will turn on them in the next election cycle not because of the cruelty, but because of the pervasive level of idiocy. Some people find cruelty attractive. Very few people find unforced stupidity attractive.

To quote Archie Bunke: It’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity.