kybernetikos.com - Latest Comments

Re: Javascript Puzzlers

Andy Woodly — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:24:02 -0000

https://www.destroyallsoftware...

Re: Javascript Puzzlers

Andy Woodly — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:15:08 -0000

http://wtfjs.com/

Re: A Genuinely Social Network

Amir HHZ — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:58:51 -0000

I think I'll start using the term "social databasing" in conversation.

Re: AV is not a good voting system. FPTP is worse.

kyber — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:35:57 -0000

I don't think there's any hope of a move to PR for a long time anyway - it's only the LibDems that support it, and all indications are that they will suffer badly in the next election. I think that AV is very slightly more likely to select politicians that are in favour of voting reform than FPTP, so simply from that point of view, I think that AV is more likely to lead to PR within the next 20 years than FPTP (but neither is likely to in the short term).

On top of that, consider what how a No to AV vote will be spun - that Britain is happy with their voting system and not interested in change. I think AV losing the referendum is likely to knock any kind of reform on the head for a long time. Referendums are rare in British history, and it's only because it was the price of the coalition that we got this chance to have a significant direct say in our constitution at all.

Re: AV is not a good voting system. FPTP is worse.

Simon — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:09:52 -0000

well I'm just talking in an abstract way really, I can see that it is a fairer system, but I also think that to switch over to this now could spell the end of a move to PR for a very long time - I wonder if people should vote no just because this isnt really good enough? It's a catch 22 in my opinion. Soon find out anyway...

Re: AV is not a good voting system. FPTP is worse.

kyber — Wed, 04 May 2011 05:02:50 -0000

For more on this 'vote it down so we get something better' theory, here's a story of a similar situation in Australia http://www.reddit.com/r/worldn...

Re: AV is not a good voting system. FPTP is worse.

kyber — Wed, 04 May 2011 02:22:04 -0000

I thought an anarchist like yourself would enjoy seeing anything that shakes up the status quo :-)

I'd rather people voted on it on the basis of whether or not it was better than FPTP (which it is) rather than on the basis of whether or not it would make future improvements more or less likely. I've heard arguments both ways on that and it seems it would be difficult to know which is true.

Re: AV is not a good voting system. FPTP is worse.

Simon — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:51:17 -0000

I am inclined to think that in fact it will prove to be a new ceiling, that if we do switch there will be no impetus to switch to PR because of the amount of money/effort etc expended upon the switch to AV... but then if we dont switch, there will be the claim that we are happy with what we have got. Realistically I suspect we wont switch, but it will be close, and that may be the best of both worlds, as it will give leverage to the PR lobby, without tying us into a compromise system.

Re: Advent Candles

kyber — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:23:28 -0000

These candles are from before the current reduction in work responsibilities, however, I can't deny that I've been making use of the time (early in the morning as it so often is)....

Re: Advent Candles

Simon — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 04:55:37 -0000

I have no idea how you did it, but it does strike me that - here is a man with fewer work responsibilities than normal... :) Merry Christmas to all of you.

Re: Javathcript

The Wikihood Team — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:08:23 -0000

Lisp is dangerous: in the end the brackets always win!

Btw. you should call it "Clojsure".

Re: Decimal Time

netzwerg — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:07:52 -0000

i love this (even though it took me a few mintes to understand it)! this is another non-standard approach i've just come across via reddit: http://blog.makezine.com/caten...

Re: Decimal Time

simoncross — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:54:04 -0000

This is either genius or madness, I need a lie down before I decide which :)

Re: Milgram

Psym — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:16:40 -0000

I'm not sure this is a fair comparisson with the original experiment. I assume at some point all the volunteers were more or less asked "have you heard of the Milgram test", and only those who had not were asked to participate. It's likely that those who have heard of the test are more interested in moral or ethical dilemmas and arguably more likely to refuse to shock the actor.

Re: Milgram

woodly — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:35:14 -0000

truely distressing, as well as the fact that an ethcal comission allowed the repetition of the experiment. Well, certainly less distressing than the existence of something like Guantanamo.

Re: Milgram

tobe — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:46:12 -0000

People might be more skeptical of authority, but not necessarily skeptical of what's going on around them.

"They tend to identify massively with the 'experimenter', and become very engaged and distracted by the research"

And the evidence for that is overwhelming: how many (reasonably) smart people were similarly "distracted" in their daily work at investment banks? Some must have known that their activities were logically threadbare (and ethically, something altogether more so).

But they still keyed in their nonsense bets.

Re: Hurricane, Charity and the New Stone Age

DW — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:49:49 -0000

The phenomenon of vicarious grieving is interesting.

Re: Hurricane, Charity and the New Stone Age

Rosie — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:50:46 -0000

You gave me hope. Thankyou.

Re: Hurricane, Charity and the New Stone Age

Andrew — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:03:59 -0000

This is better on the radio, but still.....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpeqPd...

Re: Hurricane, Charity and the New Stone Age

simon — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:46:15 -0000

the soap nuts thing was a low blow man, very low

LOL

Re: Hurricane, Charity and the New Stone Age

kyb — Tue, 27 May 2008 04:33:59 -0000

I don't think of it as a technological approach to the future, but as a social one - the technology was made possible by people who were not fooled by the difference between them and others, but chose to build relationships with them anyway.

It's that recognition of the humanity of those very different from ourselves that gives people compassion for those on the other side of the world. You may be right that there is much imperfect in the compassion, but the fact that it is there at all when we spend so much of our time telling ourselves scary stories about foreigners is a cause for hope.

"At least in a tribal society (aka, before writing technology) commitment to a relationship was out of necessity long lasting and meaningful - even if it was just enmity."

Much that is wrong with the modern world, as well as much that is best about it comes out of the fact that we have much more choice. Our scope for compassion and collaboration can span the entire world now, whereas in the early stone age, it would have been not much further than a few days walk for most people. It means that weirdos can find those who share their weird rather than being mistrusted and cast out from the community as wizards or for washing their clothes with nuts :-). To me, the essential difference is between small groups filled with mistrust for outsiders and the unfamiliar within the group, and groups with an experience of the world that makes them appreciate diversity. The group that appreciates diversity has so much more potential.

"all we now deal in are concepts - conceptual people"

I don't believe in non-conceptual people.

Re: Hurricane, Charity and the New Stone Age

simon — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:47:16 -0000

hmmm, colour me unconvinced.

when our horizons grow through the expansion of technology, to the lengths with which we are now familiar (or immersed), it seems we become more distant from one another than ever.

to pinch a thought from Marshall Mcluhan, the medium is the message after all - TV and other broadcasting technologies, even the good ole interweb itself, serve to make us connected yet distant. So called social networking make us connected globally, but without ever having to connect, people become avatars, life becomes a mprg (right use of initials?). Situations like the Burma cyclone are made so huge that we fail to properly grasp the small scale human tragedies which club together to make a massive disaster. This overwhelms us, leaving us with a collective sense of hopelessness, and resulting in a brief rushed out guilt/sympathy offering, before we all lose interest again.

wheras your bronze age relied on the interaction of real people in real space and with something tangible to hold, all we now deal in are concepts - conceptual people, who have conceptual disasters, to whom we wire conceptual money - through conceptual relief agencies (we know they exist because... we've seen them on tele, visited their website, read some marketing product...)

I guess you ought to be keen on a technological approach to the future, personally sometimes I feel I'd rather go back to the stone age. At least in a tribal society (aka, before writing technology) commitment to a relationship was out of necessity long lasting and meaningful - even if it was just enmity.

Cheers,

Re: Res Judicata

woodly — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:05:54 -0000

remarkable snippet through frequent usage of "unremarkable"

Re: Guest Author: A genius for leadership, or a genius for being led?

woodly — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:18:42 -0000

interesting indeed. I suspect a hidden management variable we undeveloped 21st century humans can't fully see.
can you drop me a note, where I can watch it to decipher it?

Re: Could you be British?

tobe freeman — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:38:23 -0000

As a certified form-phobic, all this sounds awful.

In good times, governments with heavy immigration have historically delivered useful information to new citizens. I am thinking about the 50's in Canada and Australia.

In tighter times, a keen interest in this kind of education seems to have more to do with raising the bar, not settling in the newcomers.