Quora II

Earlier, I mentioned Quora and getting involved (7-oops-7, fed-aerated, also truth engineering). Quora seems to have no end to subjects and questions. In many cases, the responses are world class.

Quants 

The image is from the FEDaerated blog and from a post on Quants. I did several posts here one the subject (Quants via 7oops7).

Yesterday, I got a comment in regard to my use of "Dismal Science" with regard to Economics (shocking truth?). Of course, I had my usage (very valid extension of the meanings). And, I see that there has been a lot of discussion on the web. So, we'll be picking that up here for a theme.

While looking at the commentator's Profile, I noticed that there were tens of these related to finance, including some on financial engineering (my earlier posts). Blogs are static affairs. One writes and can look at counts. Sometimes, there are comments. But, it's one-sided. Quora is more full in that several opinions can be expressed. That is, opinion meaning a viewpoint based upon assumptions and differences in understanding.

So, expect that there will be more here that ties these two paradigms.

Remarks: Modified: 11/16/2015

11/16/2015 -- Added link to this Question: What are the most shocking truths about macro economics at the global level?

Thanksgiving, again

It's been a year since the financial view was added to that of program management. But, oops abound everywhere, including medicine. It's how we expect oops and then handle them, when they arise, that is important.

For the financial part, things just fell apart this year, though it was predictable. So many things have gone wrong, what with fairy dusting, happy talking, quirky quants, and more. We saw that financial engineering is so in name only.

But, too, the real engineers have had their problems, probably mostly attributable more to management idiocy than to any engineering downside. But, one wonders if the Systems Engineers may not have had a comeuppance that has been overdue. We have to ask what outsourcing lessons are going to be learned.

Now, there are commonalities, between the above finance and engineering views, that go beyond the use of mathematics and computing. What in finance is fiduciary duty is a little more complicated for an airplane program. That is, is rushing the job analogous to putting money in one's pocket? The programs needs to remember that a plane has to fly, do so well, keep people safe, work within cost, make money, and a number of other things.

The medical oops can be instructive, as in many cases protocol can outweigh data, yet there are issues of cost and quasi-empiricism that need to be considered. So, using examples from the medical disciplines can help in discussing finance and engineering.

Remarks:

05/18/2009 -- Testing in flight is within sight.

03/25/2009 -- Rhetoric can be fun, but we have to get into these issues with depth and technicalities.

01/18/2009 - We even need to look at why we need finance.

2/12/2008 -- 787 delays continue.

12/01/2008 -- We need to learn what we might be taught about money by Islamic Finance.

Modified: 05/18/2009

Our basis

Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).

As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.

• Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).
• 7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.
  
• FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.
  

Each blog is to provide a different perspective on a matter so as to fill in a more thorough discussion. That is the hope.

Remarks

08/03/2011 -- The relationship to economics is important.

Modified: 08/03/2011

Best and brightest

Gosh, haven't we heard a lot of those folks lately?

If we start from first principles and re-visit issues related to smartness (or idiocy) and rewards (or not) thereof, a more solid view could be attained. The principles are varied and many (despite notions that we can start from the simple).

Here are some truisms offered in the sense of disclosure. Comparative analysis will always show that money is not as high in scale as many believe; it cannot be eaten (it can buy what we need to eat; it allows efforts at generating food to eat; so, it, its varied looks, and its theoretical basis have necessary functions). But, it's not just money, as many abstracted view are not really conducive to anything positive; of course, that we've excelled in abstract nonsense (used generally, but the specifics apply, too) since the turn of the 20th century (yes, 20th and little before) is one key factor to consider here. We could list a few of these.

This theme will continue across several posts.

That those with the algebraic talents can learn new ways does not give them any more stature than any other of the planet's inhabitants. It especially does not give them the right to foster means that are unstable in their pursuit of big pockets to the detriment of the hapless. Hopefully, the new day will see some of this addressed.

Note: That the Treasury is run by a New Yorker (Wall Street experience) means that we'll have to be more watchful. That the President was in Chicago for an extended period of time and not roped in by casino capitalism (CBOE, etc.) tells us something, to boot.

Remarks:

09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

02/05/2012 -- Time to update this theme.

02/03/2011 -- This is a place holder, for now, for Lewis' article. The Irish people (where is the rage?) there were screwed over even more than the Americans. Now, one could argue oops; but, the truth is that certain minds need much more restraint than they are willing to admit. Unfortunately, other people bear the effects of these idiots (who, by the way, may, in many cases, test well - too bad there is not an effective arse test).

11/30/2010 -- Finance and pay, always problematic.

10/22/2010 -- We need more like Perelman in order to have a fair economy.

07/27/2010 -- The Boston Globe had an interesting op-ed, recently, about these types. Of course, there are several types, including the quants. We'll need to address this topic again using what we know of the new kings. Ah, such confidence when underdetermination reigns, especially when systems are the main tool.

01/27/2010 -- It's really ca-pital-sino.

11/30/2009 -- No one climbs above our neuropeptidergic limitations.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

09/24/2009 -- Things looking up for those who churn.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

08/02/2009 -- Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

07/17/2009 -- China has eaten our lunch (and dinner). Shows how silly our games are. Yet, finance can be run by people who can be non-profit in scope and who have an impeccable (oh, what quaintness!) un-interest in money.

06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.

06/17/2009 -- A fresh look will be needed, including a newer look at the hapless.

Modified: 09/19/2013

Cracking or fracking

Rick has a post titled: A Crack in the Foundations of Economics. Essentially, the ergodic thought is less strong than was considered.

We suggested that, somewhat, a couple of years ago.

---

We do not need the Santa Fe Institute to know that the dismal science (and some of its practitioners?) stinks. We are to think of mathematization, with its computational buddy, as the means out of the morass? The recent downturn's effect, and the continued reign of the quants, speak otherwise. They, principally, are the reason for the mess.

Too, we have other cracks awaiting discovery.

I don't have to go far to find something to the effect that the Vienna thinkers have cautioned against the over-reliance on the so-called "algorithmic" approaches. But, then, what is the alternative?

We'll get to that, at some point.

---

The only sure thing is that the payout won't be there, for many. How do we get a more fair situation? Well, neuroscience might provide a means, especially when enlightened by the likes of Baruch.

Remarks:


12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Fairy dust

Fairy dust, like its sib Happy Talk, has been part of the run up in business from a shaky start to a very flimsy structure. That the stock markets are dropping severely today (before the open of the US markets) indicates that the recent dust has not worked; that it sometimes catches into a frenzy is very much suitable for study.

Part of the dust influenced Alan's (he of the Congressional query, yesterday) long-time belief that banks (and other capitalistic organizations) could police themselves, that derivatives were magical (did not need scrutiny), and that bubbles could not be seen.

Yes, Alan, we cannot see the future. Science, therefore, has ex post facto eyes, for the most part. Any forward looking is highly constrained. It is mainly the business types who go out on the limb, extrapolating like there is no tomorrow, carrying with them the rest of us into perdition.

Until economics and business is more empirically (actually quasi-empirically) based, these burstings will continue.

Gosh, even the quants started to believe in their magic and led the financial engineers astray.

How to stop this, as WFB asked? Well, there are several ways. Expect these to be addressed in an incremental manner, including more technical analysis of the mathematical problems.

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

10/10/2011 -- The public is recognizing that we've been 'fairy dusted' the past few years. Was it meant to be a means of cover-up? Hopefully, Big Ben is seen to be as much of a culprit.

04/19/2011 -- On territory and its map.

01/19/2011 -- The quirks of capitalism are rank, not by necessity.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits. Ben is happy-talking, again.

09/09/2009 -- Alan's reign will be looked at, in time.

08/31/2009 -- Go to FEDaerated to see Quant series that will expand to cover topics both theoretical and technical.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

05/18/2009 -- Oh yes, got us in a mess and still wants the bonus.

04/17/2009 -- Minsky and the facts of ephemeral value are a couple of topics on the list.

12/17/2008 -- Shoes continue to drop, but they are of several types.

11/20/2008 -- Boon and bust, the way of fairy dust.

Modified: 07/31/2013

Innovation

Of course, we have to live with change. Things wear and need replacement (life cycle). Things become ineffective and need improvement.

As James Surowiecki reminds us, some innovative efforts have reaped many benefits (The New Yorker, 'Too clever by half?'). This technology, that is, the blog, is an example of an accumulation of a whole lot of progress. Were there missteps along the way (ACM is over 50 years old compared to the IEEE's 100)? Yes. Are MS Window crashes even countable?

Everything that is modern came from years of effort. Yet, is it always progress? That is, do we learn without failure (hopefully, with experimentation done under controlled conditions)?

And, if things are heavily model, and mathematical, in nature, then one expects that some type of verification step is involved. We don't expect to see drugs released without the appropriate scrutiny.

Yet, the marvels (in this sense, people) of finance have been allowed to experiment on the fly with our selves and our money.

Somehow, we have let those, who push their numeracy skills on the rest, to roam free of constraint, without requiring their due regard for reality (Quants, for example). Oh yes, the test (and measurement) was whether the efforts filled certain pockets.

Well, we have to get financial 'innovation' under control, somehow. Looking at a sandbox would a good start.

It would be funny ...

Yes, funny indeed. The recent event at the Société Générale. That has all the elements about which we ought to be more familiar. So, we'll be going into this thing further.

This blog is not only just about railing on things related to 'oops, loops, and oops or financial gaming. It's about learning in conjunction with grappling with the truth in these high-flowing times. We cannot learn except through experience; our wisdom is supposed to mitigate the down side.

When will we learn that the financial realm needs sand-boxes? Well, it might be an uphill trek.

Actually, putting some controls on the thing is of essence, too. It cannot be like trying to fly from one place to another via a plane without the proper control surfaces. All to be defined further, in time.

It is funny that Ben blinked. Or was old Ben thinking that he was doing a Zeus-like move as he threw his lightening rod of the rate cut out on the market? Was he to know that the SocGen was unwinding some mega-Euro positions? Over here, would there may be some culpability to not reporting sooner? Dump the evidence prior to reporting to authorities?

From recent analysis, the perpetrator at SocGen was supposedly not motivated by personal greed which is more than we can say for most players. No, it was simple ambition which we Americans like.

In fact, there has been growing world-wide support (the Robin Hood thing); it's understandable; especially as we see the high-flyers taking 99% of the income leaving the rest to 'eat cake'; or we see a company (who was in ethical thralls yet who was supposedly trying - that was the message to the underlings who were forced to go to mandatory ethics training) causing a 52 year old to lose a significant portion of his pension while another in the same subdivision put millions into his (and his cronies') pockets.

On the other hand, there were supposedly the higher-order players at Soc Gen (Quants, in short), who supposedly had the jewels of the kingdom in their mathematical hands, who worried the managers. Yet, they weren't the source this time. But, the gaming aspect of finance will continue to be a problem (more on this, of course).

Soc Gen does have some 'Social Responsibility' awareness, though, according to their site.

Remarks:

08/01/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

05/22/2012 -- FB will be a focus for discussion.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

08/10/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/16/2009 -- Well, effects from several months of meddling (big Ben's economy) can be analyzed. Yet, the main questions is where is all this going? Systemic issues are still there.

01/27/2009 -- Lessons to be learned (as opposed to learnt), including, by necessity, Ponzi.

11/12/2008 -- Well, things feel apart fairly quickly, starting in September of 2008. By N0vember, there was general spooking. Starting in September, movements toward nationalization sped so fast that it was easy to forget that a Republican administration was still in the White House. Talk about rewarding hubris and moral hazardness!!!!

07/31/2008 -- It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking a money and what it is.

06/12/2008 -- Of course, these things are not funny.

05/27/2008 -- Related to this, and the links can be found, Alan went on, at one point, about what the Fed can do to dampen the enthusiasm of the frothy market. Well, he is right in a sense about ex post facto being the better glasses, sometimes (better than 20-20 foresight). Yet, we all, as mature adults, know how to evaluate risks and act accordingly, even throwing caution to the wind sometimes.

However, when the playing-field is so un-level as we see (muddied waters), risk assessment is difficult. One would think that lessons from physics would help identify froth and that this would result in removing some of the 'dismal' from the science of economics.

Modified: 08/01/2013

Jerk or not

We all know who is a jerk and who is not. Agree? Other connotations of the term abound. But, here, we'll use this to talk about how mathematics gets people going awry (jerk from 2008).

Example? Yes, like Ben and his crew continuing to slap savers silly. He started this when things were getting hairy; he had the duty to set things aright; but, Ben's view of this seems to not be firmly based despite his protestations of being data driven. Why is it that interest ought to be subsidized into an artificial state?

So, we'll have to have a little discussion to fill him in. But, given our experience so far, it'll take some time.

---

As said before, all's not lost. Some accountants see a change that has been problematic. In short, it deals with pushing too many theoretically unsound things (my characterization) and losing any grasp on virtue. What? Such a term used in the business context?

Well, consider savers. These are those who are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent (never heard of this virtue?). One could argue that prudence can be expected, too, for fiscal responsibility; where did that concept go?

---

WSJ look at a
mortgage-backed bond

Some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to situations, such as annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things go beyond our grasp, too (and, this is how I'm using singularity). The whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (was this done on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). To wit? Look at this graphic from the WSJ that we'll get into later. It follows one bond and it basis while talking about the tranching issues. The WSJ actually used "toxic" in their description (pick Graphics tab; also, my use four years ago).

So, we'll be talking more on prudence and such; of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. Note that the practitioners (who make money at the gaming are responding to Lords - these guys aren't angels, either). Then, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

Get it? China talking virtue to the US who seems to be a crap-game junkey?

---

Now, the modern trend is toward mis-used mathematics and computing. How do we counter-balance this idiocy? Well, it won't be easy; the Harvard crowd is as much caught up as any (and, they have a proud (?) heritage of knowing about virtue). 

The idea is to use our humanness as the basis (how to do this is more simple than the brains let on) for discussion. And, to do this without letting issues of numbers (and facility with equations) become the focus. Sheesh, Ben. That data-driven argument is lame. 

So, on the Wiki page about prudence, they get a little mathematical. You see, they're talking derivatives (of a type that we see in nature, not the artifact that came out of financial engineering). And, they bring in the 3rd (jerk) which is the change in the 2nd (acceleration in the sense of some physical situations). Then, they go further to say that you're not prudent unless the 3rd is positive. 

That is categorically crap, folks, which we can discuss, as anyone wishes. You see, there is a subtle hint here that growth is essential in order to be (as in, being). And, "be" is related to having some property, okay (we're not talking ontology, except loosely)?

But, I can be prudent in my actions and choices without being a jerk (supposed to be a joke -- but, it's this type of thing that leads people to want to keep grabbing and grabbing - enough is enough). A 3rd of zero would imply a constant 2nd. Would you not still be in the region of prudency, thereby? Didn't think of that? 

Well, the text on the Wiki page does say that one meets risk by increasing savings. Not necessarily does one have to increase. It would depend upon many things related to the risk and it properties (note, object-biased viewpoint) at some point in time.

---

This one little example can be extended far and wide. For some reason (methinks it's due to the (supposed) success of cosmology and physics), people think of mathematics as being grandly competent to handle truth. The truth? Not so, and it goes way beyond the concerns raised by quasi-empiricism.

So, those who are fluent in mathematics, and agile thus, dance around (flit) and lord it over others. Tell me this isn't so, Ben, given your academic experiences. Well, we'll learn the impacts (good and bad) from Ben's choices (the past five years, let's say) in the future (over a period time, to boot). We all know that some type of mortgaging of future generations is going on (to which Ben is contributing). How can we get a handle on this?

---

I'll say one thing. Intuition will be necessary. Unfortunately, Ben hasn't shown us this, not that he couldn't do it if the fat cats, and politicos, weren't so adamant in getting their wants taken care of no matter how it might impact Main Street or the little people. But, search these blogs, and you'll see much written about the current state of affairs. Essentially, like some suggest, we are not any better off now than we were before the downturn. The next one could (will?) be even worse.

Remarks:

07/03/2014 -- The Magna Charta is a wonderful example for us to apply to provider (king)/user (baron) issues.

12/16/2013 -- HFT's contributions to the turmoil'd (froth'd) markets.

10/13/2013 -- Janet is awaiting in the wings.

Modified: 07/03/2014

Common Core

As a prelude, let me say that I have heard of Common Core but did not pay attention. Too, I have been seeing all sorts of oops; however, any of the well known are so multi-faceted that it boggles the mind trying to figure out where to start.

The Federalists Papers helped me a little. The image is from their site and supposedly shows a homework assignment to which a father responded. The Federalist Papers said that the father's response was awesome.

It looks like the photo started in Twitter (Ell_mari78) with 438 re-Tweets (as of today). That is where the Federalist Papers (School sends home) picked it up and pushed it to Facebook. There were responses/comments posted on all three sites: Twitter (19), FP (129), FB (48 with 244 shares).

I wrote a few responses (in the following order). All of these are a continuation of discussions in this blog and at the truth engineering site. It's nice that Common Core might offer some material to further the theme using a technical subject.

• 6:49 pm The problem here is that the visual representation does not show the proper perspective. The leaps go from 100 to 10 to 1. Someone, earlier, mentioned that they would rather use a slide rule which was a functional piece of equipment used by many over many years (yes, it had a real mathematical basis, namely logarithms). --- This type of thinking focused on logic may have some merit, but it stinks. Russell gave it up Common Core folks. He and Whitehead took hundred of pages of terse, tedious logic to prove simple addition of two natural numbers. Then, our friend, Bertrand got smart. --- The Common Core folks ought to consider looking into an intuitive interpretation. It might just go much further. -- It may be that we best leave the dry logic to the machines (verifying their basis and extensions, as we are the masters - don't worry, it will not lead to the singularity).
• 6:52 pm It would be funny if the results were not so sad.
• 7:36 pm The parent is over complicating things. It's the same problem that adults get with the 5th grader comparison. Actually, a difference of 427 and 336 would have been more interesting. ... These differences are not those of differentials. But, the person was probably irate at the thought of this type of approach. ... The approach shown here is one of many rules that one could come up with. The trouble with some class work is that things like this are taught as if deus ex machina (all I have to do is appeal to Galois' experiences with the minds of the day). Why not teach a few principles and let the kids discover their own little tricks? Then, don't rate someone's result against another. If they have the right answer, what difference does the method make (path independence, so to speak). ... I told one of my early teachers (later on in life) that the first thing that I forgot was the times table. She was upset, a little. I told her that remembering the diagonal (squares) was sufficient. Everything else comes out by simple rule (eventually leading to the fingers). ... Of course, others have their own little tricks. Are any better than others? ... Well, when we finally get to where optimization is required (all sorts of reasons) then we might have the justification to evaluate and rate these types of rules of thumb. ... Otherwise, live and let live, especially in mathematics, in an operational sense.
• 7:41 pm Try the method with 427 and 336 to make it interesting. ... Why not drill the squares and then use logic (loosely used) to fill in the table? Have fun with it? ... Mathematics is more amenable to the general populace than the experts will allow (arguable, but definitely one of the arguments against the singularity).. STEM will not stem the divergence between those with the supposed best-and-brightest approaches versus the rest. However, the rest, many times, are more broadly based in being-ness. ... It's sad that we have the lasting repercussions from the early travails caused by over-zealot idiots (an idiot is world-class when they impact a lot of others' lives; an idiot with a small sphere of influence is tolerable).

---

My first reaction was that this an example of mathematics being misused. As in, teach someone a little of the subject, and they become dangerous (like the bosses of quants). The approach is tedious and not really intuitive. But, as the second reaction shows, the thing is not as bad as it appears, albeit it's flaky (as in, more complicated than necessary). Finally, the push behind this type of initiative is to teach and assess the effect of teaching.

That there seems to be a bias toward the more formal approaches is troubling. But, we have gone over that a lot. Mathematics is not our God send. Rather, if one looks at the troubles of the world that are economic, a lot of the mess comes from world-class idiots abusing mathematics and the enabling computational system.

So, thanks Common Core. I'll have to catch up on what they're up to before proceeding.

---

Added this comment at the Federalist Papers site (03/22/2014 - 12:40 pm):

My mathematician friend (old-time professor) used to joke that engineers didn’t do math. Engineers open a book and find equations, he noted. On the other hand, by the time someone obtains an engineering degree, their mathematics exposure is far more than most math teachers face. Too, the engineer just might have a better grasp given that they bump up against the most reliable of truth processors. Nature. So, we’ll let that be. I have not paid attention to what Common Core is up to. From a brief look, it seems that they want to partition people into those who can handle this type of tedium and those who cannot (not unlike a whole lot of scholastic testing). Yes, tedium, of the utmost extreme (cast that upon the number line). Now, how that bifurcation of people will play out is something that we will have to see. Some of it is, like Scott says, to determine the class that will be subservient to the masters. I am upset that the general educational community has bought into this warped way of thinking. From where I sit, they will cause even worse incursion of interlopers into mathematics than we have seen now. From my long years of experience, this type of thinking is the culmination of gaining computational prowess. After all, are we all not worried by the Singularity? Supposedly, in some minds, tackling things this way will help us compete with computers and stay ahead. No so. Mathematics (the real one) is peripatetic in nature (some of those who are drugged into submission now could very well be misunderstood geniuses). Marie, in one sense, mathematics starts with our fingers and markings on what might be a line (however, not conceptually, but rather in the real life of being). Then, objects are the key thing (think sets and then classes). What we call the number lines come much later (remember, it took Russell and Whitehead hundreds of pages to get to proving a simple addition). The older methods for teaching these simple maths were more intuitive (in the sense of the finger, and toes for that matter). And, many more got through the rigor than we see with the approaches that force feed supposed superior insight. The kids ought to use operational means and see them work. Then, slowly the abstract can be introduced. Generalizations are best made upon something known. That there is some type of abstraction that teachers can claim has support, that support did not drop out of heaven. Rather, years of work went into the framework. Given that this teaching method is new to me, I’ll look at the Common Core site and see what’s up. This introduction, though, is not encouraging as the world-class idiots (who, many time, could handle the above tedium) have over-laid us with an insidious entrapment that will cause hell on earth (even worse than we have seen so far). For some reason, I never suspected the teaching community as being meant to perpetuate such an infernal viewpoint.

Remarks: Modified: 03/27/2014

03/23/2014 -- Turns out that there was a story involved and that it was written.

03/27/2014 -- Based upon other examples that I've seen (say, friendly numbers), this whole thing aligns with my complaints about the misuse of mathematics. It has not been shown that mathematics is the way of truth (despite its operational successes), necessarily. As we know, numbers can be manipulated via interpretation (that is the human lot). To impose on young minds, the methods, etc., of elders, in the case of rules of thumb, is onerous. We need to bring out the "universals" to teach. Let the youngsters then discover their own approaches. What? Yes, look, mathematics came up with path independence in one area. There is a generalization of this. If the student gets the right answer, and the teacher cannot follow their thinking, blame the teacher (ala Galois' story).  

Facebook, as metaphor

Note (11/18/2022) -- FB, now Meta, is following predictable tracks. We'll be observing and commenting more closely, from outside the monolith, of course. See Remarks, below. Also, the posts that get references in this work will be cleaned up (normal little typos, stale pointers, etc.). 

---

Metaphor of what? Well, The New Yorker had an article on Mr. Z which was a great read. Since he does represent the epitome of the generation (and just not because of his wealth), his thoughts are of interest.

You see, the ubiquitous nature of computing was seen before [now], by some of us [who were looking at the future of computing]. Yet, insights due to being immersed already in the technology from day one [as in, from youth] are not what the older wave [as in, those who paved the way] sees. Mind you, not talking age, as even 30-year olds are not privy [to whatever appeals to incessant enthrallment with the glowing tube -- err, screen].

---

The generation gap is real [always was]. But, would it not be nice for the younger set to, at least, acknowledge [each new generation rests upon its own foundation] that what they were immersed in was the result of the work of many [Newton's comment applies, shoulders of giants]? It [anything that appears to be a basis for progress] was not just something that emerged by itself (oh yes, that is the prevalent ontology of the best-and-brightest, some, that is [some, meaning, of course, secular reasonists], that we're just something that 'emerged' from nowhere [to wit, Krauss,et al] (albeit over a long period of time and during completely random events [oh, I know, only partly random]) -- so why wouldn't the kids pick up on that [mis-use of Markov, to boot]). Rather, people, of talent, somewhat like the Mr. Zs of the time, worked with what they had to improve matters.

---

So, of what is Facebook going to be a metaphor? Well, whatever it is that is pulling attention to those little boxes [existential smashing of the spirit, probably worse than altering the mind with excessive mineral, or herbal, intake] such that people [dumbing themselves down]  run around like zombies mindless of their rude intrusions [physical presence talking, looking middle distance, close to the personal space -- overbearing, to the max] on the peaceful lives of those [what happened to civility?] who are unlucky enough to be in their presence [luck of the draw, more now of these than ever].

You see, Ford and GM are bringing Facebook to the auto experience [or so we hear]. Mind you, how much attention will the driving responsibility get [we already know about this from ample evidence via the texters who cannot put aside that part of their brain -- for even a moment]? Of course, they could also put into place the heads-up technology so that there can be some attention paid to the people (walkers) or other cars who might be in the way.

---

Or, there would need to be more real-time warnings. Imagine this: driving down the road, engaged in Facebook (or some ilk of a similar nature) with a small screen showing what lies ahead (of course, one could glance out the windshield from time to time, if one chose - but, hey, the legal profession just might make it a crime to be in the area of a moving car (as a pedestrian) thereby increasing the probability of an accident -- that is, blame the victim-ness). And, don't you think that the screen would have to be real-time and not propagated through the delays of the internet and its servers?

This could work with heads-up, assuming proper training, sensors, and the like. But, how long would it take, and how many lives, to shake out the bugs [FB, et al, push out for real tests, it's atrocious that the populace gets to guinea-pig new products (as in, shunted test periods in order to rush to market)]?

---

Mr. Z sees Facebook as a new layer (as in the context of strata) that is everywhere and always present. Does this sound like a possible modification to the communications model (orthogonal dimension - spirituality? - jest, in part [not really, see 01/05/11 Remarks, below])?

But, he is right that such will come about (Facebook? Mr. Z, consider that as a vanguard, it would not be your thing [new technology is always on the way]). Except, we don't know what this might look like, the rules of the road (etiquette), affects on ourselves (neuropeptidergically) [our bio selves], and much more.

---

We ought to be considering these things with the public (various domains already have an interest - including those of the nefarious intents).

Having Facebook (and, thank you, Mr. Z, et al) as the thing to look at in this regard is apropos to the time and the technology. Given the theme of this blog, 'what oops lurk?' (mind you, Facebook has already face'd a few of these) is of interest. Are they boundless (yes, Mr. Z's quote from classical literature)?

---

By the way, in another context, the question is asked, about unbounded domains and those who seek such (or what the new royalty thinks is without limit): how many royal pabodies are we expected to kiss?

Actually, there are more metaphors which we'll be getting into from time to time, thanks to the growing presence of Facebook.

Remarks:

11/17/2022 -- See Quora, Psychether for a discussion that will use these concepts as point-in-time observations. 

04/09/2015 -- We need to get back to the metaphor issue.

11/03/2014 -- Really need to raise this topic back to fore. The viewpoint is from many decades of computing, even more in dealing with "smart" humans, and even more in analyzing systems (their good and bad points). The 80s.

10/08/2014 -- Many, many metaphors.

10/04/2012 -- 1B users, give or take. Too, a re-look.

08/04/2012 -- So, the market pushers say that they need things like program trading, and whole bunch of other stuff that we'll get to. So, the idea is that we need computer-based 'gaming' in order to discover 'price' and to provide liquidity. Liquidity? Yes, like that put into the pockets of Zuck (see 7 points on FB) and his ilk after the IPO. You see, those who made money bailed when the price was high. It is estimated that if they sold now, the take would be 1/2. Notice that I didn't say return (for what? -- 'gains' obtained this way are near-zero. Whose to cheer that a few make some massive amount of bucks (well, beyond those personally involved -- even the bankers who put deals together)? This type of thing is capitalism? If so, do we really need this, folks?

05/22/2012 -- Facebook, again.

05/18/2012 -- Thought for this IPO day, motivated by Borel, et al: forget a million monkeys, how about a zillion+ FB users? What would be the 'remarkable' output of such? Ah, I see? Infinite Monkey Theorem. We'll get back to this theme, later. Given my experience, several things seem to be missing (and, a large IPO does not fill in the gap, folks). For one, we won't converge toward a reasonable architecture (or a number of other properties that we've learned) by happenstance, nor can the hackers lead us to such.

05/15/2012 -- We'll have to get back to the discussion of this important subject. FB struck a nerve and attracted users. Given the market mania that'll be going on for awhile, we will have that sort of thing to look at closely (as in, within the current context of 'near zero' (remember, folks, 2000)). One analysis said that this company was found, and run, by coders. I'm one of those (coder, that is, for over 30 years, in advanced technology, so using modern techniques throughout the time -- by the way, over 50 languages, countless environments, non-trivial applications, and many types of platforms -- it's nice to see the 'app' architecture mature -- wait! wrong word, we're a long way from maturity). It's interesting how the FB milieu is such that they determine the requirements and push out at their will. On the other hand, we could look at serious computing issues where determining requirements, minimizing bad side-effects, and more are of utmost importance taking much time and effort (but, we'll get back to all that). Again, 'metaphor' for what? Not being cynical, I won't put things like dashed expectations, compromised personal information, or a number of other things that we read about. No. I'll leave that for others. FB (and whatever follows) is part of a long evolutionary chain going to where (need to switch to teleological matters, folks) we do not know (yet -- can we ever?).

03/15/2012 -- 'jewels' and computing.

02/04/2012 -- Edited content for readability and for unraveling some confounded-ness. Motivated by a recent read.

02/02/2012 -- FB's IPO. We need to update this in another post, and re-edit this a little for readability.

06/10/2011 -- USA Today reporting on the NHTSA comments on autos as smartphones.

02/27/2011 -- Rick Bookstaber's thoughts on Facebook.

01/10/2011 -- Many ways to connect -- Boston 1775: Because We Must All Be Connected All the Time: "Though I like a lot of people on Facebook, I still have no emotional connection to the service itself besides frequent puzzlement. In contra..."

01/05/2011 -- More than metaphor, actually the growing interest in Facebook depicts a whole bunch of things. However, one has to wonder who may rue what they have let themselves post in this newfound enthusiasm. In a sense, Facebook could be thought of as a limited model of the Akashic, albeit grossly, as there is a growing footprint (increasing set of permanence'd data -of varying degrees of frivolity and triviality) whose ultimate dimensions we can only wonder about. At what point will the thing (applies to the total collection from Internet activity) collapse?

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies

11/18/2010 -- Philip's review of the movie and the comments are worth a read. Indeed, the smartest nerd does not make the most money (is that Perelman's lesson?).

10/29/2010 -- Zuckerberg's public page on Facebook. It's nice that he talks technical issues, somewhat. Initiatives, like Code for America, are interesting and of interest to this blog and truth engineering. This old coder (the oldest around?) wonders how these young guys can flip/flop after the latest technical upgrade without (or what appears to be without) due consideration of ramifications (to wit, backtracking due to criticism after the fact). My message to these young guys would be to allow that an older mind (such as mine) can very well participate and contribute to their progressions. How is it that each generation has, of late, thrown knowledge and caution to the wind and attempted to re-write the world? Oh, code is it?

Adage: the world is being screwed by coders running after money and fame without regard to the consequences of their twiddling ways. (Quants are one example; now, let's add web weebles)

10/26/2010 -- One way to know, the media.

10/15/2010 -- There is much more to Facebook than the rush of fame (beyond the 15 minutes) of having one's face (and activities and thoughts) observable by the world. It can help us learn how computational assistance can augment talents, thereby improving one's being, effectiveness, and much more. After all, capitalists are exploiting this, and us at the same time (to wit: the ca-pital-sino was enabled via computer, colonialism (out-housing) requires a world-wide communication scheme, -- the list is long, people). Let's give the suckers power to withstand the onslaughts of the sack'ers, at the same time, educating Big Ben.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

09/26/2010 -- What was the number? 1/14? That is, taking the current Facebook registration over the world's population, you would show that a very large percentage have signed up. If you dropped those not of age (assuming an almost uniform distribution which isn't the case), you could say that 1/4 of those of rational leanings (again, the behavior of some begs this question) are using the social medium. That points to some type of basic metaphysics (which is where the action is going to be - as the web will enable all sorts of experiments and events that were not possible, nor imaginable, prior to now) in action.

09/21/2010 -- We won't be picking on Facebook, alone, as a whole bunch represent the accumulated notion. We're 15 years, give or take, from that early phenomenon, called Mosaic, and all sorts of things have happened (some good, some not go good). Having been in the technology, but neither immersed nor embedded, from the get-go, almost, what seems imperative for us to learn are the principles of 'truth engineering' (look it up), the first step being the discovery and clarification of these. Facebook can help there. Since it's new, its founder is young, and the strongest analog is that we, the humankind, are like adolescents in this regard (with all due respect to the heads-in-the-clouds, pure mathematicians, logicians, et al) - this is an evolutionary phenomenon and needs to be understood thusly.

Modified: 11/18/2022