##
This is the Virtual Keyboard/Monitor I Want
*March 19, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Applications, Awesome, Geek Stuff, Star Trek Technology, Toys.*

add a comment

add a comment

##
I Should Just Quote the Whole Darned List
*March 19, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Brilliant words, Geek Stuff.*

add a comment

add a comment

“It’s not really a small world, but we are embedded on a strangely folded thin manifold.”—from The List That Cannot Be Named

##
The Singularity Started With the Wheel
*March 16, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in 3D Printing, Applications, Awesome, Brain, Brilliant words, Mutants, Science, Star Trek Technology.*

add a comment

add a comment

As difficult as it may be to comprehend, the wheel is the basic unit of technology. It made the repetitive business of carrying stuff easier. When tasks can be easily repeated (preferably automated), they can also be tweaked to do them better, maybe each time.

With computer controls, these tweaking steps can be automated, and the results don’t even have to be seen by a human. These results can be used to produce new methods to experiment, ad infinitum. This is precisely why we should not allow AIs any autonomy whatever in creating new AIs.

But I digress.

The tools of automation are now cheaply available, giving everyone who wants it access to finely-controlled stepper motors which can be used in the trial and error methods heretofore mentioned. Cheap microcontroller systems to run them combined with said stepper motors give us robotic assemblers, 3D printers and molecular assemblers.

Yeah, you heard me.

Usually, small-molecule synthesis usually relies on procedures that are highly customized for each target. Martin Burke, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) early career scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, used a single, fully-automated process to synthesize *fourteen* distinct classes of small molecules from a common set of building blocks.

A broadly applicable automated process could greatly increase the accessibility of [this class of compounds] to enable investigations of their practical potential. More broadly, these findings illuminate an actionable roadmap to a more general and automated approach for small-molecule synthesis (he used Csp3-rich polycyclic natural product frameworks and developed a catch-and-release chromatographic purification method).

As a former chemist, I must say this is plenty difficult and detailed…*but it only has to be done once* and this genie is not going back into the bottle. This will step up the pace of novel moiety experimentation, especially now that we have computational chemistry on a sound footing. Picture this: computer cranks out theoretical molecule families for research. Magic chemistry machine makes them. Another automated machine tests them. Potential drug candidates can be screened without human intervention, for conditions that currently have no treatment, but do have a good theoretical model.

Honestly, I have been thinking of this for thirty-five years, when one of my classmates described the room-temperature chemistry that was just being used for automated peptide synthesis, a hot subject in my college years^{1}.

Now, with automated synthesis producing testable quantities of continuously-varying drugs, we can start continuously comparing them with standard drugs for, say, antibiotic activity in a Petri-like environment (I hope it is no surprise that this technology exists already, although it is not in concert with the aforementioned molecular assembler), quickly finding optimal candidates in what could be an entirely automated process. Promising candidates’ structures can be continuously varied by the molecular assembler under the watchful eye of an expert system (it is fun to imagine the expert system eventually deciding that chlorine bleach is the optimal antibiotic; obviously safety trials against mammalian cell lines need to run in parallel).

Aha, I hear you cry, what about diagnosis? I’m pretty sure I covered this already^{2}, when I talked about brute-force cracking the human medical condition through big data: thousands of tests administered cheaply, regularly through millions of peoples’ lifetimes. This data would be trawled for correlations between medical conditions and test results, telling us things clinicians would miss just because human heads can’t hold that kind of data well enough to draw statistical conclusions, or even reasonable inferences…but computers can. Frustratingly, the legal problems here are beyond human comprehension as well; the intellectual property costs to create this many tests would be astronomical, although once acquired it could be quite cheap to administer (this is *already possible*, just not done for greed’s sake). This will require a revolution in thinking which is not, alas, forthcoming soon^{3}.

Other science can be brute-forced in a similar fashion by automation in other chemical reactions; I picked drug discovery for illustration since that’s where the most money can be found currently.

These are delightful speculations and become even more possible as long as things continue the way they are going, at least in terms of physical possibility. Cheaper, faster processors make it possible to control all manner of laboratory and industrial devices, not just your toaster, son.

It all makes me wish I were a better writer, because these ideas deserve better advocacy than I can bring to bear.

Homework:

______

^{1} We’re getting there, fellas. Keep up the good work.

^{2} Please try to keep up.

^{3} If ever.

##
Because it’s Beautiful
*March 16, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in 3D Printing, Awesome, Geek Stuff, Science, Star Trek Technology, Toys, Video.*

add a comment

add a comment

This hand-held 3D printer is made of LEGO and a hot glue gun, just the way God intended it to make bespoke hats and whatever else you can’t be bothered to scan, convert to pointcloud, convert that to STL, put in your (horrendously expensive) 3D printer and wait. Like this tasty video (with cheery music) shows:

##
I Googled Ukulele Karaoke
*March 14, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Uncategorized.*

add a comment

add a comment

The results were nowhere as terrible as you might have imagined. I found that that “ukulele karaoke” is the best way to learn a few uke songs fast. My sainted sister got a ukulele at Newtonmas and hasn’t touched it, so I lent her a hand.

##
Thank You, Terry Pratchett
*March 14, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Books, Brilliant words, Uncategorizable.*

add a comment

add a comment

Thank you, Sir Terry, for countless hours of pleasure listening to your works. I have enjoyed your work more than anyone’s except Will Durant. If there is an afterlife, I hope you are welcomed there with honor and love.

EDIT: That’s a cake, friends.

##
Good! I Can Skip The Learning Part!
*March 13, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Uncategorized.*

add a comment

add a comment

Better for everyone that way.

Safer, too.

##
You Know Who Will Win
*March 11, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Mutants, Uncategorized, Video.*

add a comment

add a comment

##
This Oughta Fix Your Childhood Memories
*February 24, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Japan, Mutants, Video.*

add a comment

add a comment

Thank gods I’m too old for this to have been MY childhood.

##
Housewife Assassin’s Handbook by Josie Brown
*February 23, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Books, Uncategorizable.*

add a comment

add a comment

The Housewife Assassin’s Handbook was such a good idea for a short Saturday Night Live skit that I grabbed it, and enjoyed the quixotic juxtaposition of the two sacred callings (motherhood and murder). I mean, how often do you see the two together as they should be? Not nearly often enough, it turns out: there are eight books in the series (*eight*? ** SERIES**?) and no, I’m not kidding. No, not even a little:

The Housewife Assassin’s Killer Christmas Tips

The Housewife Assassin’s Relationship Survival Guide

The Housewife Assassin’s Vacation to Die For

The Housewife Assassin’s Recipes for Disaster

The Housewife Assassin’s Hollywood Scream Play

The Housewife Assassin’s Deadly Dossier

I do get it, based upon the first book. It’s the perfect fantasy for any suburban mom: sexy(!) mom with time to kill(!!), a mystery or two, handsome men vying for her affections (complete with steamy sex scenes) and successful mothering of near-perfect children.

You know, I could have bought the whole premise right up until then.

##
Apocalypse Cow by Michael Logan
*February 23, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Uncategorized.*

add a comment

add a comment

Apocalypse Cow is World War Z, with cows.

Since it is told in the British English style it is, in fact, as hilarious as that scenario can be, which is considerably. No, really:

"*Apocalypse Cow* made me snort with laughter." — Terry Pratchett

‘nuff said.

##
The Story of India
*February 23, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Uncategorized.*

add a comment

add a comment

As a closeted history geek, I am often driven to confess my adoration for particularly informative books or films. India is probably the best place to start developing a ridiculous love of history, because they have so much of it. The Story of India displays lovely glimpses into some of India’s glorious and notorious past, from the 5000-year old plumbing to temple rites conducted continuously for two thousand years, unchanged in the same temple.

Ancient Romans worried about the balance of payments to India. How’s THAT for perspective?

This two-disk BBC video is presented (and written) by Michael Wood in the standard BBC way, but with about a million human touches: interviews with locals about their town, village, temple, museum, architecture…it goes on. A fine piece of video presentation with breathtaking scenery that shows the range of modern and ancient India’s influence on the world, I recommend this video to any history geek. The DVDs are on sale of course, but it’s currently free on Amazon Prime and an excellent introduction to India’s storied past.

##
No Mud, No Lotus, by Thich Nhat Hanh
*February 23, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Brain.*

add a comment

add a comment

No Mud, No Lotus is pretty much a simple manual for transforming suffering into mindfulness and perhaps joy by ancient (but not mysterious) practices: stopping, mindful breathing, and deep concentration.

The devil is in the details, and I urge readers to stop after this book. Tibetan Buddhism is very, very busy with details which are (probably) unnecessary to enjoy a peaceful, enlightened life, or at least slow down and appreciate the life you have now.

Still, this particular book seems to me to strike a balance I can appreciate. I do recommend it.

##
Cheap Complex Devices by John Sundman
*February 23, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Books, Brain, Brilliant words, Geek Stuff, Mutants.*

add a comment

add a comment

Cheap Complex Devices is a lovely slap on the head by the wet fist of surrealism. It is a frothy coffee-like concoction with tentacles sticking out of it, and they are made of licorice. Mmmmm…licorice. And it is the story of the first (two) book(s) written by intelligent machines and delightfully complex and confusing. Cheap Complex Devices makes your sanity sit up and take notice, your grip on reality double its fists and say "Come at me! I can dish it out, too!"

I do love a book which confounds my expectations, and Cheap Complex Devices delivers.

##
I May Just Stop Here
*February 23, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Hello Kitty, Japan, Mutants, Uncategorizable.*

add a comment

add a comment

Look. I’ve been documenting Hello Kitty artifacts from before the dawn of time, but I’m just about done (no SM gear yet, although I can’t say I’ve looked for it) with this.

##
What is Dark Energy?
*February 12, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Brain, Brilliant words, Geek Stuff, Science, Uncategorizable.*

add a comment

add a comment

On The List That Cannot Be Named, Joshua is perhaps the best exemplar of all our extended cocktail conversations held over the last twenty years by e-mail. He recently had occasion to explain to a bright young man the current state of understanding of the nature of dark energy. I asked him if I could reprint it here and (after redaction) I do so now:

Looking randomly through old email for something else, I stumbled on this attempt at "general relativity and beyond, for the bright 10th grader". I’m rather pleased with it, and thought some folks on [The List Which Cannot Be Named] might enjoy it, as an example of "teaching science the student can’t actually do yet, without telling any lies." The usual practice of science popularization, of course, is "tell entertaining lies that remind people who actually know of the science, while convincing the layman that he almost understands it." I think the first way is better, and find it frustrating that no one else seems to agree.

Joshua

{BEGIN EARNEST YOUNG MAN’S HEARTFELT APPEAL]

> I’m a student in Mrs. [REDACTED]’s class and a member of QuarkNet, and

> I’m having some trouble researching for my physics expo project. I also > think we met for Shabbat dinner at the [REDACTED]’s a few weeks ago.

> My project is on Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and while I had no

> trouble finding sources that discussed why we know they exist, when it

> came to actually defining what Dark Energy is, most sources just said

> "we don’t know what it is but here are some wrong ideas ….". I was

> wondering if you could tell me what physicists today actually think

> Dark Energy is and why it’s causing the universe to accelerate.

Hi, [REDACTED]. Yes, certainly — I remember you from Linda [REDACTED]’s lovely Thanksgiving shabbat.

The basic idea of dark energy is a bit mathematical, and is therefore

going to require some handwaving, unless you want to skip ahead and

actually learn differential geometry.

(Aside: calculus is all about limits and derivatives and integrals,

and Newtonian mechanics and calculus grew up together and were made

for each other. Vector calculus extends those ideas to functions

that have direction as well as magnitude, so it’s all about gradients

and divergence and curl — Maxwell’s electromagnetism and vector

calculus were made for each other in the late 19c. The next step

beyond that is doing geometry and calculus on "manifolds", which are

n-dimensional spaces that are curved, so that when you carry a vector

around a loop it doesn’t always come back pointing the same way. If

you have ever seen a Foucault pendulum in a museum, this is the point

they are trying to get across; the old riddle about the man who walks

a mile south, shoots a bear, walks a mile east, then a mile north

and is back where he started — what color is the bear? white, of

course, because he must be at the north pole — is another simple

example. Differential geometry, or "calculus on manifolds" as some

people call it, is the math that drives Einstein gravity, because to

study curved spacetime you need this kind of machinery. But we can

talk about it, without actually teaching you to do problems. If you

want to get a headstart on the actual math, I can point you at some

good texts, but really you should focus on getting one-dimensional

calculus well mastered before investing too much effort beyond it.)

So, the Einstein equations look like T_mn = 8 pi G_mn, where T_mn is

the local density of "stress-energy", or mass, energy, pressure,

energy flow, and momentum flow, at a given point. That is, roughly,

T_00 is a function of position and time that gives the density of

mass and energy at that point at that instant, and the other 15

components, m=0..3 and n=0..3, are things like "how much x-momentum

is flowing through that point in the z-direction" and so on. This is

sort of complicated because it has so many components, and you’re

not used to thinking about exotic things like momentum flow as a

source of gravity just like mass. Partly this is because we are

used to speeds very much slower than c, so that in "natural" c=1

units (for example, time in nanoseconds and distance in feet, or

time in seconds and distance in light-seconds — that’s seven times

around the earth, or most of the way to the moon!) all the other T_mn’s

are basically zero for any matter less drastic than the interior of

an atomic nucleus or a neutron star. Anyway, you can think of T_mn

as a complete description of the "stuff" at a given point at a given

moment in time.

G_mn is a complicated thing that describes the curvature of spacetime

at a given point; it turns out that you can completely describe the

curvature of a manifold by taking a vector, carrying it around a

circle, and seeing how it changes when it comes back. I can

calculate G_mn for any set of coordinates you give me, but not every

different set of coordinates gives a different G_mn; for example, the

x-y plane is flat, and it’s still the same plane and just as flat

even if I describe it in polar coordinates as r, theta instead of

x, y. This is a subtle point, because I can take a radial vector,

say pointing in the +r direction at r=1,theta=0 (that’s on the x-axis

in x-y coordinates), and carry it to r=1,theta=90 (on the y-axis)

where it is now pointing in the -theta direction! So if I believed

the coordinates, I’d be tempted to say "this radial vector turned into

a circumferential vector when I moved it; the plane must be curved!"

But notice that if I bring the vector back where I found it, no matter

what path I walk to get there, the vector will once again be radial.

My polar bear hunter in the riddle was sort of a cheat, because he was

relying on the coordinates for his directions; when he walked "east"

a mile, he was going in a circle around the pole and he knew it. But

let him do a 6,000 mile triangle instead of a 1 mile triangle, and

things get more interesting: he walks down to the equator, along a

"straight" meridian — we can see that it’s curved in three-dimensional

space, but considering the two-dimensional surface of the earth as its

own thing, a meridian is straight, bending neither to right nor to

left — then along the "straight" equator, and back along a "straight"

meridian. The existence of a triangle with three right angles proves

that the earth’s surface is curved; the "local" proof that doesn’t

rely on standing out in space and watching from afar is that if our

hunter carried a gyroscope or Foucault pendulum with him, he’d be able

to see that his coordinates turned by 90 degrees as he went around the

big triangle.

There is a thing called the Riemann tensor that completely describes

the curvature of any manifold; it’s written R_abcd, and it means,

roughly, if I carry a vector pointing in the "a" direction around a

small loop in the "c-d" plane, how much will it now point in the "b"

direction instead. Since the two-dimensional surface of the earth

has only one "c-d" plane (longitude and latitude) to walk around on,

the curvature of a 2D manifold can be given by a single number. For

3D manifolds, there are 6 numbers, for 4D, there are 20 — geometry

is complicated! Of the 20 components of the Riemann tensor that gives

the curvature of spacetime, there are six that describe how much

space is "spreading" or "shrinking" over time, and 14 that describe

how much it is "shearing" in various directions without changing volume.

The six volume-changing components are called the Ricci tensor, given

by R_ab = (1/4)(R_a0b0 + R_a1b1 + R_a2b2 + R_a3b3). And there is a

sort of "average" of the Ricci tensor called the Ricci scalar, which

is R = (1/4)(R_00 + R_11 + R_22 + R_33), which is a single number

that describes the curvature of spacetime as well as a single number

possibly could. The Einstein tensor G_mn mentioned above is actually

G_mn = R_mn – (1/2)R. I told you it was complicated, but don’t get

too intimidated by the preceding two paragraphs; really this is all

just bookkeeping. The physics is coming now, so pay attention.

Einstein, after ten years of hard work 1905 to 1915, came up with a way

to generalize his theory of flat spacetime and constant motion into

a theory of curved spacetime, gravity and accelerated motion. (Hence,

the name "general" relativity. Special relativity is high-school

simple from a mathematical standpoint, once you’ve had the incredible

conceptual leap Einstein achieved in spring 1905; general relativity

needs the machinery of Riemann tensors, which wasn’t well understood

by physicists at that point in time, and requires some upper-division

college math even today.) What he was trying to say was, "spacetime

is curved by stuff, wherever there is stuff; elsewhere, it may have

ripples caused by stuff in other places." The final mathematical

formulation of that is T_mn = 8 pi G_mn. The "stress-energy tensor"

T_mn is "stuff", and G_mn is "the part of curvature that actually

changes the volume of things." For a practical example, if I put a

million fireflies in a sphere all around the earth, a mile up, and

suddenly stopped their wings and let them fall, the sphere would get

smaller as they fell, and that’s because there is mass (the earth)

inside the sphere. If I put a million fireflies in a perfect sphere

formation next to the earth, say fifty thousand miles over the north

pole (and not in a moving orbit, just hovering there) and let them

fall, the ones closer to the earth would fall faster so the sphere

would elongate like a football, and the ones out to each side would

converge as they fell so the waist of the football would get narrower.

The volume of the sphere of fireflies wouldn’t change, because there is

no stuff (that is, no gravitating earth) inside the sphere. The

converging sphere is firefly worldlines coming together, described by

the Ricci tensor part of spacetime’s Riemann curvature. The constant

volume elongating sphere is described by the other 14 components of

the Riemann tensor (which also have a name, the Weyl tensor). What

the Einstein equation says is "there is Ricci curvature wherever there

is stuff; to keep the universe from tearing, this means there will be

Weyl ripples, but no Ricci curvature, in empty space where there is

no stuff."

After that long setup, what is dark energy? Well, a few years after

Einstein published general relativity, some smart mathematicians

pointed out that there are no static solutions to the Einstein equation;

that is, a universe made of stars and galaxies that have always been

there and never expand or collapse is not possible. At that time,

there was a mostly unexamined prejudice in favor of an eternal static

universe, and Einstein was concerned that this was evidence against the

whole idea of general relativity. (The observation of gravitational

bending of starlight in 1919, however, convinced many people that he

must be substantially on the right track.) So, in a minor paper,

Einstein asked the question, "what is the minimal change to my

equations that will preserve all the good features, yet allow a static

universe?" Later, he remarked to a biographer that lacking the courage

to stand by his equations and boldly predict the Big Bang here was

"my greatest blunder," but what an interesting blunder it was!

It turns out that about the only thing you can do to the Einstein

equation that doesn’t break everything is to add a term that looks

like this: T_mn = 8 pi G_mn + lambda g_mn. The g_mn here is the

simplest and humblest tensor in differential geometry: it’s what we

use to make dot products, and in flat coordinates it’s just the unit

matrix. We call it the "metric tensor" or just the metric. It

obviously wouldn’t do to say, "spacetime curves where there is stuff,

and empty space curves slightly toward the Willis Tower", nor even

"…and empty space curves uniformly inward in all directions, but only

as seen by observers who are stationary relative to Ken’s Diner." If

you’re going to break the simplicity of "spacetime curves where there

is stuff, you had better at least do it in a way that looks the same

to all observers in empty space, no matter where or when they are and

how they are moving. This is what that lambda term with the metric

tensor does. The revised Einstein equation reads "spacetime curves

where there is stuff, and empty space curves slightly, by an amount

given by lambda, in a symmetric way for all observers." It’s ugly,

but it’s not as ugly as other alternatives. The amount lambda is

called "the cosmological constant", and of course if lambda=0 we are

right back to honest general relativity.

Now it turns out that the effect of a cosmological constant is to give

the universe "an itch it can’t scratch" — because it’s curvature that

is caused by spacetime itself, rather than by "stuff" in spacetime,

any physical effect lambda may cause will continue eternally as long

as there is spacetime. This should be enough to give you a clue what

a cosmological constant will do: it causes an empty universe to expand

or to contract, depending on the sign of lambda, at an exponential pace,

because the growth in spacetime is proportional to how much spacetime

there is. So, you could just about imagine a universe with matter and

energy that acts gravitationally to pull it into a big crunch, balanced

by a cosmological constant that expands spacetime just enough so the

crunch never happens. It’s a delicate balance, and an unsatisfactory

solution to the original, obsolete problem of how to make the universe

endure forever at a static size.

Now that we know the universe is expanding, however, we can still

distinguish between matter and energy (which slow the expansion) and

a cosmological constant (which speeds it up). Looking back at old

supernovae, we can see how fast the universe was expanding at various

times in its early history, and if we graph this carefully we can find

out whether the universe is slowing or accelerating in its expansion.

This was successfully done in the late 1990s, and the surprise result

is that the universe has been accelerating for at least the last eight

billion years of its 13.7 billion year history. So the cosmological

constant wasn’t such a useless idea after all!

Now, notice that there are two ways to think about the cosmological

constant. The one I presented went with the equation

T_mn = 8 pi G_mn + lambda g_mn,

which I read informally as "stuff (on the left) equals curvature plus

a constant, so the constant is the curvature of empty spacetime."

But consider moving the constant to the other side:

T_mn – lambda g_mn = G_mn

and now it reads "stuff minus a constant equals curvature, so the

constant is a funny kind of stuff that empty spacetime is full of."

It’s really semantics whether lambda is a kind of stuff that lives in

empty space, or a kind of curvature that happens in the absence of

stuff. As a particle physicist, I’d rather think of it as a kind of

stuff, because then I can try to come up with a particle theory that

includes it and explains why spacetime is full of it! Also, once I

think of it as "stuff that is proportional to the metric and seems

to be everywhere," I can entertain the possibility that it really

isn’t all-pervasive and eternal and everywhere; maybe the universe

has lambda a function of temperature, or of the age of the universe,

or something, instead of a constant. It’s a cosmological *constant*

only in the sense that it’s proportional to the metric, so it doesn’t

vary asymmetrically from place to place or from a stationary

observer to a moving one. It still might be a real substance that

obeys those laws and that only exists when the conditions are right.

Dark energy, to finally answer your question, is the stuff we infer

from the fact that the universe is accelerating, which behaves enough

like a cosmological constant in the Einstein equations to give that

behavior, but which might or might not be a true constant property

of the vacuum. By contrast, dark matter is ordinary stuff that is

located some places and not others, that behaves just like atoms or

photons or neutrinos or any other kind of matter, except that it isn’t

made of stars because it doesn’t glow, and it isn’t even made of

atoms because we’d see it glow in star nurseries (and because we know

how various isotopes formed just after the Big Bang, and the numbers

come out wrong if most of the atoms are unaccounted for).

You asked what my guess was about what dark matter and dark energy

actually are. For dark matter, I have lots of good candidates;

I think the obvious answer is that if supersymmetry is right, there

are some heavy exotic particles predicted that would have been

formed in the early universe, that interact very weakly with atoms,

and that have about the right properties to be the dark matter.

For dark energy, I truly have no guess — it could be a fundamental

property of spacetime (in which case the geometric picture with the

cosmological constant on the right side of the equation makes more

sense than the particle physics picture with lambda on the left),

or it could be something more dynamic. To understand it, I would

sort of have to understand "what empty space is," which effectively

means I need to understand everything about all the particles in

not-empty space, whereas to understand dark matter I just have to

understand one kind of particle among who knows how many.

Does that help?

Joshua

##
No Title Can Ever Do It Justice
*February 11, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Uncategorized.*

add a comment

add a comment

##
The Power of Habit
*February 9, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Applications, Books, Brilliant words.*

add a comment

add a comment

The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business certainly does provide insight to the unthinking actions which make up much of daily life. Cue, response, reward: that seems to be it. There’s a LOT of detail about how these three things create a lot of the unconscious activities of people, institutions and nation This kind of thinking leads me into interesting ideas, like building an app to create or correct habits by providing frequent cues and rewards to match. Food for thought, and my brain is currently satisfied—but usually that just means more is needed Real Soon Now.

##
Babbage and Lovelace in Paperback!
*February 9, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Books, Brilliant words, Geek Stuff, Mutants, Uncategorizable.*

add a comment

add a comment

It’s ready for pre-order! The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage: The (Mostly) True Story of the First Computer by the hilarious Sidney Padua. A lovely work (also available at 2dgoggles.com for free; pay for it so she can be creative instead of being an illustrator for monster movies, where her genius is wasted) compounded of silliness and erudition, with Lovelace dedicated to eradicating poetry and Babbage absolutely devoted to shutting down street musicians (art mirrors life in this respect; musicians did try to kill him). Gloriously footnoted and furiously researched, this surreal frappe of comedy and alternate history tastes like mental honey.

##
Thorgi
*February 6, 2015*

*Posted by stuffilikenet in Awesome, Mutants.*

add a comment

add a comment

the Dog of Thunder.