Give Me All the Facts!

I think that our governments will do the right thing after they have exhausted all other alternatives. With that said, I recommend watching this ted talk.

This talk's main argument is that you cannot defy economics for long. The speaker lost $150 million investing in wind energy and argues as a result that renewables just aren't there yet. Instead, he suggests that we will proceed to using natural gas as an energy bridge to renewables.

When I Google the definition of economics, I usually get something about the production and consumption of goods. I think this definition is too specific and misses the point.

Now that I am studying machine intelligence, a key question emerges. How can machines learn? It seems that the best way to answer this question is to ask, "How do humans and animals make decisions?" We use economic theories and game theories to produce machine 'brains.' Thus, I think economics is the study of how groups and individuals make decisions about almost anything. Even when the decision is emotional, a sort of emotional economics is taking place. We always try to maximize whatever it is that we value the most, valuing the future in whatever way we think is proper. i.e. is a reward tomorrow better than a reward today?

Because this is true, we vote with our wallets. Regardless of what somebody tells me they think is important, I won't believe them until I see how they spend their money. I have many friends who rant and rave about the Alberta tar sands, yet they consume disproportionate amounts of gasoline, jet fuel, electricity, consumer goods and so on. They cause the Alberta tar sands to happen. They would not be willing to pay slightly more to use Bullfrog Power. It is clear then that their priorities are different from what they would have me believe.

The question then is how can we convince people -- most of whom think like this -- to act in line with the 'beliefs' that they claim that they have? 

People choose to consume oil and coal because they are made to look cheaper than the alternatives. They are still heavily subsidized in many places, the most externalities are multiplied by zero (most like because they are hard to count). I laugh when I hear someone say that coal is cheaper than oil -- maybe it is if you don't count all of the things that matter to most of humanity.

You can't defy economics for long. Natural gas is now becoming cheaper than coal or oil so I think we will move there next, unless thorium reactors becoming cheaper themselves.

I think that if natural gas becomes our energy bridge, it will prove that our economic system is distorted. I don't say that the economic system is broken because it is quite proven that a free market will choose whatever is 'best.' Remember that 'best' is whatever people actually want most - not what is a lofty goal of society. This might mean that we make iPads instead of feeding the world's poor. It only happens because most people see no reason to care about the world's poor. Can you deny reality?

The question then is: how can we make people care about the things that are in the long-term interest of mankind? If we view people as players in a game, then economics are the rules of the game. We always follow these rules. Therefore, world governments need to ensure that the real costs of our choices are clear.

If there is no price on carbon, then we are saying that we think that climate change is not really a problem right now.

If coal plants can cause acid rain and poison nearby inhabitants without being fined or charged, we are forcing people to conclude that acid rain is not that big of a deal and the people living nearby probably didn't matter anyway.

If people can demand oil so much that we decide to invest billions ravaging Alberta's environment, it must mean that we do not value Alberta's environment.

My main point then is clear: if we value something, then we must put a value on it --  a dollar value. Corporations don't do what is ethically right or nice, they are psychopathic constructs that optimize dollars over some period of time. Coal plants don't have parents to teach them that slowly poisoning people for profit is naughty.

Governments (read: you and I) must assign value to everything. How can you compare things accurately if they are not quantified? Once we do this, the 7 billion clever minds will do the rest. If we end up valuing long-term human survival and happiness, we will achieve that. If we value short-term happiness and the demise of our grandchildren, we will achieve that too.

So if we lay out the options and assign a cost (with uncertainty) to coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, thorium fission, uranium fission, etc. then we can choose some collection of them and discard the losers based on the objective interests of humanity. I think they all deserve to play by the same rules.

This is not a trivial task, since our values and interests differ so greatly. But right now we are simply excluding some values, while including others. Instead, if we include them all, things will change for the best. I say this because most people on Earth have children at some point. I don't think it is possible to have children and thereafter live with disdain for the future without having some mental defect.

I originally wrote this because Gord asked me what I thought about thorium fission. So to answer your question Gord: if thorium fission is as good as it sounds (and I've read about it too and it does sound promising) then we will inevitably do the right things after we try everything else first.

I am optimistic. The reach of education and information has never been so pervasive and will only improve as humanity marches onward. If we are more educated, we will demand more than just a partial edition of the facts when making our decisions.

The Mathematics of the Earth

Home
I watched the documentary "Home", which I found on YouTube. The initial scenes portray the balance of the planet before agriculture and the remainder discusses what happened thereafter.

I think of the planet as a massively intricate dynamic system. The physics of everything that happens on Earth is incomprehensibly complex. The atmosphere, volcanic forces, the water cycle and countless other systems interact in non-linear fashion. The Earth is one big system and it changes towards equilibria points. Consider what I mean by equilibrium point: if the rest of the universe were to vanish and the Earth were to be utterly alone without the Sun or any other source of external energy, the Earth would perhaps become a cold, dark, lifeless hulk drifting through a void. The Earth's energy would tend to escape its grasp, and disperse itself evenly across space. Energy is always fair -- it spreads itself out as equally as possible. Maybe this is one of Earth's plural of  but it is not an interesting case because we are giving the Earth a big zero -- no energy in from its surroundings. The Sun is not dead yet, so this is not an interesting case right now.

The Push of the Sun
The Sun drapes the Earth in energy from its furnace of nuclear fusion and sets the dynamic system in motion. The Sun is like a boy pushing a cart. The boy gives a big push and the cart moves quickly until friction has sucked its energy away and it grinds to a halt. The Sun fuels the Earth as the boy fuels the cart. If the universe were only the Earth and the Sun, the Earth would eternally orbit and the Sun would heat the Earth and push its systems to some equilibrium. The energy patterns create the equilibrium of the climate and the seasons are due to the Earth's tilt. All of these things are cycles: the Sun cycles in intensity and weather on Earth is chaotic over a short-period of time, but in general, the Earth is a very stable place in this scenario. I think this is how the Earth would be if it were not for life. Earth might be stable with the occasional volcano or storm raging here and there, but these would constitute no more than noise in the history of the Earth.

The Control of Life
If the system of the Earth is stable by nature, then perhaps life is its controller. Perhaps life can drive the planet to instability or to other equilibria which would otherwise be unreachable. Consider the impact of algae and their predecessors. They have completely changed the composition of the atmosphere and the climate of the Earth itself. I think life is a powerful feedback system which controls the Earth. Life is capable of taking the noisiness of the state of the Earth and shoving it off kilter. If tiny fluctuations in the climate of the Earth allow life to grow and evolve in one direction rather than another, this is like an inverted pendulum being nudged to one direction.

Early Earth had much carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere which allowed life to evolve to exploit this detail. Algae breathed the carbon-dioxide and emitted oxygen in its place. As more oxygen became available, life evolved to breathe that too. Animals breathe oxygen and emit carbon-dioxide. Thus the cycle of plants and animal respiration created itself out of the noise of the Earth. This is a grand simplification, but it is important to see how life pushed the atmospheric trend in a completely new direction.

Are Humans a Controller Capable of Instability?
If life can change the planet, then certainly we can too, being alive. The only matter is the speed of change. It took millions of years for countless algae cells to change the atmosphere of the planet. Now we are changing the planet in drastic ways too, but the only novelty is the speed with which we are doing it. If the Earth is a delicate inverted pendulum, and life pushes upon it, can it push too hard? If the cart in the picture tries to drive too quickly, the drink will certainly spill, but it is possible to move forward very slowly. Perhaps life has always moved slowly and so the Earth remained relatively stable and the drink did not spill. There have been instances in the past where life has "spilled" from changing too quickly, but we are unsure as to most of there causes. The Middle Miocene disruption, for example, may have been caused by an asteroid impact, or otherwise, -- an example of change too rapid for many species. There are many examples of rapid and widespread extinction throughout geologic history.

Life can change the world and has usually done so slowly. Are we the first lifeforms who are able to change it so quickly that we can actually destabilize the system? Imagine if we could understand the mathematics behind the balance of nature. How can a system so complex keep itself relatively stable for millions of years? Can we ever understand such a system?

Artificial Composers

The other day, I was listening to Tchaikovski's "Valse des Fleurs," which I find to be a particularly excellent song. I wondered, "How did Tchaikovski create this?" How did he know which notes to write down? Music is a bunch of sequences of notes which overlap in different ways. Tchaikovsky had to choose every note in every sequences and when to overlap each one. I wonder if it possible to create a machine capable of doing the same thing?

There are many possibilities of how to arrange notes. Do I start the song with an A#? How long should it last? Which note should come next? Should it begin after the A# is finished, or should it overlap? If it does overlap, by how much? How many notes should be heard at any one time?

Q-learning is a type of learning algorithm where the machine is told whether the action that it just took is 'good' or 'bad.' Usually, the machine is just given a number as feedback which is some function. For example, maybe -5 is bad, -10 is very bad, and 4 is pretty good. Over time, as the machine is rewarded and punished, it learns which actions are the wisest to take based on where it has just been and what it has done before. The machine may learn that after it turns left, it should turn right next, for example.

Might is be possible to use Q-learning to build a machine that writes music? Not just a string of sounds -- beautiful music? Let us call such a machine Beathoven.

How would Beathoven begin a new composition? It might choose a note randomly. After some random time, Beathoven chooses another note. When Beathoven chooses a note, it chooses the pitch and duration at once. We could think of Beathoven as a stream of noise. Whenever the noise spikes above a certain value, a note is produced. At any time, a listener can rate the music on some scale. Beathoven can then modify its policies based on the user feedback. Over time, Beathoven should learn how to create music pleasing to the audience.

The problem is similar to the old idea of infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters. Given enough time, they will necessarily reproduce the works of Shakespeare. Of course, "enough time" is far too long to wait. However, if the monkeys had feedback as they were writing -- we add infinite editor monkeys (1 per writer monkey) to read their work and give a thumbs up or a disappointed look. Without editors, the monkeys will explore every possible combination of letters, but editors can point out that many combinations of letters do not mean anything.

Similarly, we can tell Beathoven that certain notes make us cringe, while others may sound eerie or cheerful. We can explain, through feedback, that we like certain rhythms or melodies.

Update: It looks like somebody may be trying to implement this very idea. Apparently the notion is called "Computational Creativity".

Artificial Democracy

I am studying machine reinforcement learning for my master's thesis. Today I stumbled across a concept called "ensembles." There are many different algorithms to which can be used to make a computer learn how to do something that may be difficult to explicitly describe. For example, how do you make a helicopter hover?

You could study the motion of the helicopter and formulate precise equations to control the blades. Reinforcement learning is interesting because you can teach the helicopter that it has blades and it can spin them quickly or slowly; this way or that way. Then you teach the helicopter that falling or shaking a lot are bad. If it does either of these, you punish the helicopter. Over time, the helicopter can learn how to hover because it is trying to get the most "reward" that it can by its actions. There are several algorithms that are suitable to different types of problems. We might choose one of these algorithms and program the helicopter to "learn" by that method.

The approach that I learned about today is like an artificial democracy. Instead of choosing one algorithm under the rules of which the helicopter must learn, you choose several algorithms at the same time. Each algorithm will come up with its own policy of how to fly the helicopter to maximize its own interpretation of the "reward."

Next, the helicopter listens to all of the algorithms at once, either by taking some average of biasing towards some rather than others. It would be as if the helicopter had a group of policy advisers who would provide suggestions. I read a dissertation today which argued that ensembles of policies might actually be more robust than individual policies for certain problems. Perhaps ensembles could work well on problems which are "in-between" areas of specialization for the member algorithms or problems for which very little information is known.

This idea is very intuitive and seems very related to how living systems and human-made systems work (like democratic governments or ant colonies).

The Girlfriend Problem

Anyone who has ever had a girlfriend knows about the problem of feedback attribution.

Perhaps you call your girlfriend to see if she wants to go on a date. When she answers, she seems upset about something, but refuses to tell you what is specifically upsetting her. A man somewhat experienced with women can (sometimes) figure out the reason why she is upset. He can think of what he has done in the recent past and make consider some of the things that perhaps he shouldn't have done. He is able to select a small group behaviors or actions from the totality of his existence that probably made his girlfriend upset and use this knowledge to determine how to apologize properly.

How is it that a man is able to figure out why a woman is mad when she refuses to tell him? Can a robot learn to do this too?

Perhaps Fred knows that his girlfriend, Sarah, usually finds out about his mischievous behavior after 14 days with a variance of 3 days. When trying to apologize to Sarah, he can assume that the she is upset because of an action approximately 14 days in the past. Fred promises not to repeat any of his actions that took place between 11 and 17 days ago, hoping that she will then forgive him.

Should can spread Sarah's disgust over his past actions in many ways to try and determine what it was that he did wrong. He can use any of the stochastic distributions to associate Sarah's frustration with the appropriate actions. Fred might try to take into account the frequency of his actions and Sarah's usual disposition to produce a better guess.

For example, Fred plays golf with his friends each week. Normally, Sarah is quite content during these weeks. Fred decides that because of how often he golfs, Sarah is probably mad for a different reason. he notices that 12 days ago was the only time he can remember when one of his golfing excursions overlapped with Sarah's birthday. It is very unusual for these two events to overlap, so Fred decides that there is a high probability that Sarah is upset about that and decides that in the future, he will either try to reschedule his golfing trip or Sarah's birthday.

An intelligent machine might function in a similar way. Consider a machine that is designed to play diplomacy. As the game progresses, the machine chooses actions that benefit its own nation. However, the machine is attacked by Russia, who had previously been very peaceful. The machine must decide why this betrayal occurred. Did one of the machine's past moves offend Russia? Did a past move hit one of Russia's allies?

The difficulty of the problem is that a machine does not know when its actions will be judged. An intelligent machine must be able to learn from the judgments (good or bad) that are bought upon it. Humans are able to ask themselves, "Why did this happen to me?" We are pretty good at determining what we did in the past to deserve our punishment or reward. From that knowledge, we learn whether to do it more or less.

The Biomimicry Taxonomy

I've become fascinated with using biomimcry (copying nature) to try and address human problems. This approach blends some of the most interesting aspects of science and mathematics. The goal is to learn from the inventions which have evolved in nature because they must already obey all physical laws (including the ones we haven't yet discovered).

The reason I'm writing today is because I came across a fascinating website in my internet wanderings. It's called Ask Nature. The idea of the website is to create a free, open source database of natural designs.

There is an image available on the website called the biomimicry taxonomy and it provides a visual for the different functions that organisms or natural processes perform.

The idea is this: if you have a problem, you usually have a main question. How can I store energy in the electrical grid? How can I make more food from the same plot of land? How can I control hazardous wastes? The website challenges you to ask these questions in a different way: How does nature store energy? How does nature produce food? How does nature recycle wastes?

The beauty of nature is that the inventions which have evolved are typically ecologically balanced. Sustainability is essential because organisms that are not sustainable become extinct. Perhaps we too can become sustainable if we learn from all of the other species which have been around far longer than us.

For example, when I navigate to energy storage techniques, there is an entry about how some bacteria use a kind of thermoplastic polyester to store carbon and energy. Learning more about these types of bacteria might inspire some inventions in biodegradable plastic.

Sim City in Real Life

Imagine a website where you could view a city like you do in Google Earth, but the streets were coloured based on traffic congestion like in Sim City.

I'm reading a book called Intelligent Infrastructure. Real-time traffic visualizations like this might be possible with the algorithms the book discusses. The math seems pretty complicated so far, so I won't pretend to understand the details yet, but the hand-waving notion of it is intriguing.

Traffic Congestion by Colour

The sensors gather data and the neural networks "learn" what "good" and "bad" traffic look like. They could have several increments and colour the road based on these ratings. The user could see the colours in real time (maybe updated every 30 seconds or so). It could be a neat tool for commuters and for city governments alike. It could even be used to detect accidents and automatically send emergency crews. Imagine a smarter city that orders services for its own roads.

Happiness -> Success NOT Success -> Happiness

This blog post was inspired by a TED video (as have been many others) called The happy secret to better work. The presenter is Shawn Achor and he studies positive psychology. I've read a bit about positive psychology as a set of tools for improving one's life in many regards.

I won't summarize the TED talk -- it would be like trying to summarize a painting -- but I do want to note the conclusions of positive psychology that he referred to in his talk.

He had a slide entitled "Small Changes Ripple Outward." It lists five examples of practices which can lead to lasting positive change in a person. I have implemented these strategies in my life and I can attest that they work phenomenally. They are:

1. 3 gratitudes (Emmons & McCullough, 2003)
2. Journaling (Slatcher & Pennebaker, 2006)
3. Exercise (Babyak et al., 2000)
4. Meditation (Dweck, 2007)
5. Random acts of kindness (Lyubomirsky, 2005)

I included the authors in case you are interested in reading more about each tool like I am.

What I got from the lecture is that you should make life choices based on whether you will be happy with the results of your decision. For example, if you are choosing a career, you should choose it based on whether you will experience flow in your daily activities.

Flow is a concept with which I first became familiar during summer 2011, when I was doing a lot of introspective thinking. I would describe it as being wholly engaged and mentally involved in whatever it is you are doing. It is living entirely in the present either for just a moment or for an extended period.

Thinking about it, I've experienced this mental state and I'm sure that you have too. For me, it happens when working on an intricate puzzle or problem. My mind is devoid of everything other than the task at hand. I've experienced it a lot lately when I've been working on my 4th year project in the robotics lab at school.

Perhaps you have experienced it too when spending quality face-to-face time with your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend or when playing a remarkably engaging video game. Perhaps it was when you went for a bike ride or a hike and took in the beauty of the world around you without at all considering where in this world you were expected to be next. To an athlete, it might be called "being in the zone" or for a gamer it might be "pwning."

The term was created by Csíkszentmihályi, a researcher in this area. (Don't ask me how to pronounce it) It came from people describing themselves as being carried by a current of water while experiencing the concept of flow. There's also a TED video about flow. In the wikipedia article about it, there are ten factors which accompany the experience:

1. Clear goals (expectations and rules are discernible and goals are attainable and align appropriately with one's skill set and abilities). Moreover, the challenge level and skill level should both be high.
2. Concentrating, a high degree of concentration on a limited field of attention (a person engaged in the activity will have the opportunity to focus and to delve deeply into it).
3. A loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, the merging of action and awareness.
4. Distorted sense of time, one's subjective experience of time is altered.
5. Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).
6. Balance between ability level and challenge (the activity is neither too easy nor too difficult).
7. A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.
8. The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.
9. A lack of awareness of bodily needs (to the extent that one can reach a point of great hunger or fatigue without realizing it)
10. Absorption into the activity, narrowing of the focus of awareness down to the activity itself, action awareness merging.

Read number eight again. And once more. Work becomes effortless? That sounds good to me. It's for this reason that I think that flow should be an important consideration in all life decisions. You must ask yourself, "Will I be able to have flow if I do this?" It encompasses everything that is needed to be a joyous, creative person with a zest for living. After you've asked and answered this question, then you can ask questions like, "How much will I make? How famous will I become? What will other people think of me?" But if you have your first answer, the other answers won't matter much.

Shawn Achor argues that happiness would ultimately lead to success. In my experience, he couldn't be more correct. Looking back, the only times I've failed at something in life were caused by improper consideration of flow. I've held jobs that I hated and, upon reflection, I never experienced flow in any of them. I've held, (and currently hold), jobs that I loved and each of them allowed me to experience flow at least a large majority of the time.

Success does not lead to happiness. It's the other way around. Why don't they teach us this in school when we're kids? I can't argue with the data.

How to place a fulcrum - Investigating Real Estate Investment - Part 1 -

Recently, I decided to look into buying an investment property. Usually, I would place money in the stock market because the stock market doesn't suffer from broken toilets, leaky roofs nor does it ever need painting. You can just put your money there and forget about it. Then, if you're nice, you'll check in a few years and there will be a few more bucks in the account than when you started (hopefully).

It's never good to create unnecessary work for yourself, and I find that model works pretty well most of the time. There's one problem though: no bank will ever give you a big chunk of other people's money to go and throw into the churning chaos of the stock market, even though it will probably come back and then some, assuming that you're patient. I'm talking about mortgages.

I would say that there are two kinds of money: 1) my money; and 2) other people's money. Assuming all else is equal, it's always better to use #2! Unfortunately, to get access to #2 you need to have #1. The beauty of a mortgage is that you can get a lot of #2 without having very much of #1 at all. That's leverage.

I think it's called leverage for a reason, because it works like a lever. Perhaps Archimedes was also a financial engineer because he said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."

Other people's money can be the lever, an investment can be a well-placed fulcrum, and you can be lifted by your money. Placing the fulcrum well is the hard part.

This begs the question then: how do I know where to put my financial fulcrum? Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out now and I'm writing this series to summarize what I've learned so far.

If I were building a lever to lift the world, I would talk to a mechanical engineer. I'm studying electrical engineering which makes me pretty ignorant about things not involving electrons. Now, real-estate contains electrons but I still don't know that much about it. That leads us to one conclusion:

Step 1 - Build a team


The military has taught me many things: like how to be walk around in a square for hours; how to make shoes reflect photons really well; and how to sleep in any position at any time. Luckily, it has also taught me useful things; the most important being the value of teamwork. You will never achieve anything worthwhile in isolation. It is imperative to draw upon the experiences of others to be successful in any endeavor.

She's growin' too fast Cap'n!

Then, to start learning about real estate investing, I have to find some people who know the territory! I started today by calling people and then asking them who they knew and then calling those people. That sounds a lot like a factorial, so I didn't do it for too long.







So far, there seem to be several main buckets of experience that every good investor needs. These are:

• Real estate agent
• Lender and mortgage broker
• Lawyer
• Accountant
• Bookkeeper
• Property inspector
• Construction and renovation tradespeople
• Property manager
• Prospective money partners (if needed)

Real Estate Agent (fulcrum connoisseur):
I know of services like Grapevine which don't charge commission, but I think that it can be dangerous to put too much faith in your own abilities and knowledge, especially if you're just starting out. Certainly, it is a characteristic of someone my age to believe that he or she is invulnerable and infallible. Perhaps, in some cases, it will work out. But when everything is on the line, it's better to pay for that bucket of experience and be thankful later. I think of it like an insurance policy (albeit one that is not infallible either).

Not that I don't like the music!

Luckily in my alumni magazine, there are three agents in particular who are recommended for the area I'm interested in. They are Marc LaFontaine, Elaine Smallwood and The Ann & Dwight Team. I enjoyed the first site in particular, because it was the only one that didn't start playing music when I didn't realize that my speakers were near maximum volume!

Given my high level of ignorance at this point, I think that I'm going to invest in the experience of one of these agents. In the future, once I know more, it may make sense to use a different service.

Mortgage Broker (lever salesman/woman):


I read and discussed the idea of a mortgage broker and, apparently, they get paid by the banks, not out of commission from the customer. That suits me, because, again, I want a nice bucket of experience to be able to teach me about finding the best mortgage. This is a major part of placing the fulcrum wisely. I don't want the fulcrum to cost me too much every month. Based on the preponderance of economic articles and announcements that I've been reading lately, central banks seem like they plan to keep interest rates low for a while longer. In any case, they are low right now! They can't go much lower before people are paying you to borrow their money.

The mortgage broker can help you determine how long a lever the bank (the lender) will give you. I am scheduled to speak with one tomorrow, and hopefully he or she will tell me how much I ought to borrow, rather than just how much I could borrow.

Lawyer:


Everyone needs a good lawyer! It would be absurd to hope that all parties with whom you deal are going to follow the law and give you a fair deal. Besides, there are some legal thingies that the lawyer has to take care of which I don't want to go to law school to learn about. The lawyer will make sure that your fulcrum is... nice and by-the-book-legal. Investing in a good lawyer is just paying to protect yourself from terribleness in the future. This seems like a no-brainer.

I haven't spoken to one yet, that seems to be a much later step. More on this later!

Accountant and/or Bookkeeper:


If you are just purchasing one property to begin with, you don't need an accountant or bookkeeper to keep track of your financial details. You can probably handle counting your own beans yourself. On the other hand, when you stick your wallet into the convoluted, spinning gears of the tax code, you want to make sure that you get your hand back. I think it wise to lean on the tax expertise of these folks throughout the process. A few well placed questions will save you more money than it costs to hire them! Don't let the government stop you from pressing on your lever.

Property Inspector:


Don't buy a fulcrum that will fall apart in the breeze! Enough said!

Construction and Renovation Tradespeople:

After taking the time to speak with many contacts who own investment properties already, it became clear that houses always break down. When yours does, (not if) you'll need to know who to call to remedy the problem. If I were renting a house, I would want my house to be in proper order. I think it best to treat tenants with an "ethic of reciprocity!"

So far, the real estate agents with whom I have spoken have known many contractors for these types of things. Engineers, electricians, plumbers -- you name it. That's part of what justifies their commission!

Property Managers:


Just because you want to own real estate doesn't mean you want to spend your life fixing it. If you value your free time, you'll agree that it can be cheaper to pay somebody else to deal with the inevitable hassle and just send you the bill. For a first timer like me, a property manager would be yet another keg o' experience. You pay for their service, but you also pay for the valuable lessons which you may glean from them.

Prospective money partners:


This may apply for larger projects, but to just start out, I would rather start small. Mistakes and happenstance are bound to rear their heads for a first-timer -- maybe even for second- and third-timers. When they do, I don't want any failure to be irreparable. Don't get a lever you can't even move!

Until next time...


I'll post more as I learn more. It's an exciting adventure to learn about this continent of business that I had never previously explored. Wish me luck! I wish you the same.

Fractal architecture

A few days ago, I went to the library and took out the book Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension by Beniot B. Mandelbrot. I am fascinated by fractals because they appear so often in nature. I don't have any evidence to back it up, but intuitively it makes sense that nature would employ fractals so readily. The algorithms required to generate fractals are recursive and require very few instructions -- which makes them perfect for Minecraft architecture. (I can't think of how to use them in real life problems yet, so I'll have to start with virtual problems)

Temple of the Exponential

I want to design bad-ass structures and geographical features so that when players enter my Minecraft server, they can be inspired to create some of their own. In the past, I've used math equations to produce things. For example, the temple of the exponential:

The problem with this structure is that it was very complex to design and required a lot of work on my part. The exponential didn't naturally manifest itself into a 3D structure that would look cool.

Now, fractals, on the other hand, are very amenable to construction. So far I've made a world-scar gorge of peril which can be used to house an immense city or could contain some interesting paths. Either it will become a national part of a massive industrial complex. It depends on the will of the people. I constructed it using a Quadratic Koch Fractal of dimension 1.5. Check it out:

Fractal world scar

You can think of the pattern like this:

How to build Quadric Koch Fractal

You start with just a line (or in Minecraft, a row of cubes). Then, you divide the line into 4 segments. Next, move block #2 'up' and you move block #3 'down'. Finally, on every 'edge' that touches air you do the same thing over again. It's really simple but it makes beautiful shapes.

When combined with other fractals, you can really make some triumphant structures. The total area never changes because if you have four blocks, you just move one up and one down. Quadric fractals are best for Minecraft, since you can only build with blocks. I will add more as I find them!

Minecraft conveyor belt schematic download

I've uploaded a small map that contains the conveyor belt for people to download.

Commentary on "Why the future doesn't need us"

I want to remember these points in case I ever have the opportunity to work on Skynet. This is my commentary, with reference to "Why the future doesn't need us" by Bill Joy.

The author begins with a request that the reader assume that machine intelligence will progress to a point where machines can do many things better than humans can. Indeed, this has already happened in many domains and the chest of activities which “only humans” can perform becomes emptier each year. The assumption does not seem all that unreasonable.

If robots become better at doing everything that humans used to do, then where does that leave humankind? The answer may arise from examining the history of technology. The original Luddites were textile artisans who were replaced by steam machines which operated at drastically higher efficiencies. The Luddites protested by vandalizing the machines which had replaced them, but their rebellion was quickly suppressed by the British government. At this point in history, humans were no longer the best at producing large amounts of textile goods. Even today, no human could possibly compete with even a modest mass-production machine. The only hope for a human artisan would be in producing a higher quality good for customers. A human can add value by making something that is more artistic or of an especially high quality in the eyes of their customers. For example, some people would pay more for a handmade rug because they know that there will be some tiny flaws that a machine would not produce.

This begs the question then, if robots eventually become more skilled at producing everything, then will humans not all be forced into the position of the Luddites?  The simplest human efforts have been replaced first, but this does not mean that humanity’s highest cognitive functions are safe. What if machines become capable of outputting musical masterpieces which can express the most guarded emotions of human existence, then will there ever be need for another Mozart? If machines are one day able to instantly generate doleful verse which evoke great feeling within the reader, will humankind need another Shakespeare? If machines are, some day, more capable at sharing profound love with a person, would this person ever yearn to speak to a human again? The answers are clear; humankind would become obsolete.

Alternatively, one might envisage an opposite future in which the machines become superior in their capacity for destruction. This is also one of humanity’s strong suits. If the robots grow beyond human control, perhaps they will decide that the paramount experiences of human existence are inefficient and pointless. Perhaps artistic expression, love, creativity and the other joys of being alive will become obsolete before humans do.

Ironically, it is the very nature of humankind to blossom towards its own obsolescence. Human creativity uses old ideas to spit out newer, better ideas. The unquestionable tenet of continued progress drives humans to accept and become familiar with new technologies. In the past, implements of destruction were of relatively small impact and could only affect their local surroundings. The unrelenting progress of humankind has allowed for previously unimaginable destructive power, especially in the 20^th century, but these technologies were difficult to acquire and exploit. In the 21^st century, there will be and already are beginning to be readily available tools to allow almost anyone to make a weapon of mass destruction.

For example, consider the impact of robotics in the field of 3D printing. As this technology develops, people will increasingly be able to manufacture almost anything within the comfort of their own home, perhaps even dangerous weapons if not properly controlled. Over fifty years ago, Churchill said, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” Because the rate of technological innovation is growing faster than exponentially, the article is wise to point out that humanity’s methods for safeguarding the technology against unethical exploitation simply cannot keep up. As the power of technology grows, so too do its associated risks. Technology is in the 21^st century and moving quickly whereas the goals of this technology are usually undefined. Humanity follows a path of technological determinism. Technology dictates how humans shall live their lives; it does not seek to better the way that humans currently live.

The article quotes an interesting point made by Oppenheimer after the development of the atomic bomb. He said, “It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity, and that you are using it to help in the spread of knowledge and are willing to take the consequences.” Perhaps some scientists succumb to an almost religious faith in believing that all new knowledge will improve the human condition. It is not unreasonable to think so; for a long time, it was generally true. With the development of robotics, humans must hold this notion not as a belief, but as a theory which must be tested against real experience. Robotic technology has the potential to serve humanity, but also to endanger it. Carl Sagan described two types of civilizations: one which would be able to survive the dangers of technological growth through reasonable restraint; by determining what ought to be and what ought never to be, and one which could not control its technological surge and would be wiped out like so many other species in evolutionary history. We humans have the intelligence to be the latter, but let us hope that we will have the wisdom to be the former.

Breakthrough

After nine hours in the robotics lab today, we had a breakthrough and the quadrotor can control its height on its own. It still does so rather aggressively, but with a bit of tweaking and fine-tuning that can be fixed.

We're planning to film some of our next crashes because they are hilarious to watch. We had our most violent crash to day when we tried to switch on our pitch and roll controller during flight. The quadrotor flipped over and headbutted the ground at high speed. Good thing it has a geodesic shield.

Don't forget

"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to leave alone." - Thoreau

Hydroelectric nets

Today marked the beginning of a class about electric power distribution networks and devices and it made me think about hydroelectric generation. The professor was briefly describing the basic block components of a hydroelectric power dam and it made me wonder if there are any examples in nature of organisms which live off of the flow of a churning river. Are there any plants or bacteria which could produce a voltage? A fuel perhaps?

I pictured a babbling brook with an biological weave of cells spread perpendicularly across to gather the energy of the moving water in some way. It doesn't seem like this idea could compete for large-scale power production on par with a massive hydroelectric dam. Instead, maybe it could be used to power remote small-scale facilities. In any case, it would be an interesting thing to look into.

I don't think the net would block the entire river, instead of would just try to leech off of its flow. If the idea is efficient enough, it probably exists in nature in some way. I'll have to ask somebody who studies living things much more than I do.

Keeping Creative

Being creative is really important: both in business and in play. I've been trying to learn new ways to be more creative, to record my ideas and try and implement them in some way through inventing. This is what I've learned so far about fostering creativity:

1 - The best time to start was yesterday; the second best time to start is now.
If you come up with a new idea or a new way of doing things, don't feel as if it's too little, too late. You just need to smash your fist on your desk, jump out of your chair and say "Let's do it." If you think of a tiny way to make your life better, then do it right away! At the very least, write it down right away. That way, if you actually are extremely busy right now, you can come back to it tomorrow without forgetting your idea.

1.5 - Know your best times
Personally, I always have my best ideas and motivation when I'm trying to go to sleep. When I wake up in the morning, I always forget whatever it was that I was thinking about. But one day I punched my desk and decided that if I have night time inspiration, I'm going to jump out of bed and write it on a notepad, this blog, or even leave some sort of symbol made out of clothes on the floor so that in the morning I can remember what I was thinking about.

2 - The third best time to start will be tomorrow.
This follows from point 1.5. Everybody is creative at different times, but if your time is really inconvenient, you need to have a way to transfer your ideas so that you can use them tomorrow. If you're actually very busy and can't start an idea today, then tomorrow is the next best thing. Don't give up on it or use the crutch: "not enough time." Everybody has some amount of discretionary time and you can use it however you like. Free time does not come to you, you have to make it.

3 - Find some time to think and tinker
Boredom is creativity fertilizer. Everyone has some time in their day when they are bored and this time should be used to think about the ideas that you had when you were too busy or were trying to go to sleep or whatever, whenever.

If you ride the bus to work, for example, you can read a book that is related to your idea or perhaps one that will inspire other ideas. You could think about problems you see every day. If you can stop and think about some problems that you see each day, then you will have something from which solutions can flow. They don't have to be important problems. Your ideas don't have to be 'good'. They are just ideas. Ideas are only good or bad according to somebody else with a different idea.

An effective way to protect your ideas from yourself is to remember this mantra: "To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." It doesn't matter what idea you have. Somebody will think that it's gold and somebody will think that it's trash. The point is that neither of them are right. The idea is what you make of it.

4 - To get a good idea, have lots of ideas
Even if you don't manage to make something of even a majority of your ideas, it doesn't matter. Keep having ideas and keep trying them on for size. There is a perception that brilliant people just think of brilliant ideas and suddenly know what to do with them. This just isn't so. "To get a good idea, have lots of ideas."

If you judge your ideas harshly when they are young and weak, then they will never grow into anything worthwhile. You need to protect them until they can protect themselves.

5 - Get rid of the unimportant stuff 
Having lots of ideas takes lots of time. You need to make time for yourself to have lots of ideas. During your reflection time that you created for yourself, you need to look at your life like a time budget and chop out the stuff that just doesn't matter. Everybody wastes time doing things that they don't really want to do or that aren't really important to them. Don't divert yourself from your ideas! You don't need to change your entire life, but start with something small.

If you don't feel like you have enough time, make a list of all of the things that you do and just destroy the least important one. Don't make excuses, just stop doing it and make it your creative time. If you spend lots of time commuting to work and then spend more time exercising later on, then exercise while you go to work. If you watch TV and then play video games, do both at the same time. Eat while you work.

You wouldn't waste money, so don't waste time.

6 - Write down your ideas
Now that you have chosen to make time to be creative, write your ideas down. Write them down. Write them down! It doesn't really make sense, but if you write them down then they become more official or realistic somehow. Everything seems more official if its on paper (but you needn't use paper). This part is vital because your aren't always going to be able to use your ideas immediately. If you write them down then they are stashed away for a future time when they may be more valuable to you. This blog is my idea stash.


7 - Share
The greatest beauty of the internet is that if you have an idea, then somebody out there probably had another idea that can complement yours in some way. The internet pulses with creativity. Use it to help you. If you have an idea and there's some part of it that you don't understand or is outside of your realm of expertise, then Google it. You should consider the internet to be an extension of your brain.

The best part about the internet for improving creativity is that it isn't a TV. You don't just sit like a zombie and suck up programming. You can input. You can contribute! That's the most important part.

Find videos or pictures or writings that inspire you in this great information bucket. Once they've inspired you, make your own! One of the greatest experiences of being alive is having someone use something you've created in some way. That's the satisfaction of sharing. Remember: it doesn't matter what you create, just create something to get yourself started. And start right now because it's the second best time to start. Be an artist in your own way.

A great example from a TED video that I saw was that of lolcats. Lolcats are probably the stupidest thing ever placed on the internet but the people who made them took the crucial step of making anything at all.

Summary
To summarize in three (four) steps:

1. Smash your fist on your desk
2. Jump out of your chair
3. Yell, "Let's do it!"
4. Do it

You'd be surprised, but the first three steps are the hardest.

Bio-mimicry: the Fountain of Ideas

I just finished reading Tyler Hamilton's Mad Like Tesla which described "underdog inventors and their relentless pursuit of clean energy."

One chapter therein was of particular interest to me: a chapter about inventions inspired through bio-mimicry. I had previously been aware of the idea of looking at nature a source for engineering design ideas, but I didn't know the proper name for it.

It occurs to me that nature could be an endless source of innovative inventions and the book provided many examples to support that notion. The coolest idea described was pioneered by a company which froze water as it spiraled down the drain in a bathtub and used the shape of the vortex to make a super-efficient propeller blade. There are innumerable applications for something that moves fluid more efficiently. If the shapes exist in nature, it's probably because they are the most efficient thing the universe could come up with, so far.

The Lily Impeller

Mad Like Tesla refers to another book called Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature which I will have to read sometime soon. The book is by Janine Benyus. It should have more examples of bio-mimicry which might inspire me further!

It seems like an excellent way to begin the process of inventing something is to ask, "What would nature do?" Nature has been doing billions of years of trial and error experiments and what's left is the best it has to offer. Asking this question to oneself seems like an excellent way to delve into a previously unknown field.

The more I learn about bio-mimicry, the simpler and more obvious it seems. I think that it will serve as a great source of creativity and insight for me in the future.