Doing Random Things For The Wrong Reasons

Speaking of elections, I'm always amazed at how many people have really weird ideas about what the candidates stand for. People who vote for the left-wing candidate because they want lower taxes, or the right-wing candidate because they are concerned about the environment.

Looking at the ads, I guess you can understand why. Aside from the lack of honesty, there's the fact that parties often work hardest to dispel preconceptions of their best-known qualities. It's the same way you might get the misconception that diet cola tastes better, because the ads work so hard convincing you it doesn't taste like a chemistry experiment.

But what's odd is how sure these people are about their mistaken beliefs. I mean, you'd think a person would naturally have some self-doubt whenever they are discussing a topic they don't know well. And you would think that doubt would increase when it's a topic that is well-known to have a lot of misleading information floating around. But still, people voluntarily tell me about how they're voting Green for their pro-business stance.

But now it's getting more complicated as many people are withdrawing from the process out of frustration. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether that withdrawal is justified (I’m talking about withdrawal in disgust, not the boycotting to make a point that I complained about earlier) but I wonder how much elections are swung by the number of people on each side who give up. I don't know if either side is more prone to dropping out of the process. I don't even think there's a consistency in how much cynicism and frustration causes a person to throw up their hands.

It's depressing because you start to believe the election could become a crap-shoot of misinformation and the foibles of personality. Which side is most likely to have voters who interpret frustration as a no-win situation? Which type of person is more likely to misunderstand politics?

A Little Too Much Off The Top

China is now planning to bulldoze 700 mountains to make more room for cities.  What's really shocking is the quote that this is the "largest mountain-moving project in Chinese history."  So, this isn't even the first mountain-moving project in China.

It reminded me of the developers in the book Snowcrash who have designed the optimal suburban neighbourhood, and just keep building copies of it all over the world, even if they have to remodel the landscape to make it the same.  China seems to have achieved the same combination of boldness in construction and timidity in design.

It's nice to see China building the maglevs and exotic architecture we thought were in our future. But more often they just shovel their money into building facsimiles of western cities.  And that's disappointing when you think about the more creative things they could do with their money (even within the context of housing their people and modernizing their infrastructure.) Rather than brute-force work, try cleverer solutions.  Instead of moving mountains to make conventional cities, couldn't that money go into adapting structures to the sides of mountains.  Or better transportation so the cities can be build on the other side of the mountains.  Or for that much money, build the cities inside the mountains.

Lean On Me, When You're Not In First Class

I once promoted the Golden Suitcase Wheel, an award to be presented to simple inventions that took too long to be invented.  Today I finally saw something new worthy of the award.  Wired has a write up about a two-level armrest for airline seats.  The idea being that it takes up no more space than any other armrest, yet the people sitting on each side of it can each use it at the same time.

I'm sure some medical professionals will soon be complaining that one or both people will have to sit at an improper angle for good posture.  I suppose it would help if the people sharing the armrest are different heights, so the taller person could use the upper rest.  Or they could just make that seat a little higher.

There are plenty of other places it could work.  The article mentions movie theatres, and lots of waiting rooms could use it too.  But it also points out the dubious benefits compared to the cost, which makes the business case doubtful.  That's pretty depressing, and makes me wonder what other good inventions are sitting on the shelf out there because they don't lead to immediate profit. 

I also wonder what not-so-pleasant inventions will get through because they do have a business case.  Like, just how closely could you pack people into an airliner, comfort and claustrophobia be damned?  Instead of two-level armrests, you could have two-level seats.

Dave, I Can See You're Really Upset About This

There are a lot of articles today about how a Japanese company has created a robot that senses people's emotions. But this isn't the first research in this vein. I've seen a lot of talk about machines recognizing the emotions of users. Academically, is an interesting challenge. But I've never understood the practical purpose of it. That may surprise you, given technology's cold and impersonal nature.

Yes, I'm sure that one day it will be very useful for machines to notice or emotions. For instance, consider a machine you can give verbal commands to in plain English. Since human language often has subtleties undertones, it would be quite necessary for it to take notice of your emotional state.

But for today's machines, we're lucky if Siri can make out or words, never mind pick up an emotional subtext. I’ve never been able to think of a time when I would want an electronic device to behave differently depending on my mood. Sure, I’ve wanted it to become easier and more reliable when I’m angry, but that’s not too likely.

For the most part, we’re still at a point where our devices obey specific instructions. As long as that’s true, we want them to be predictable. Introducing some changes based on its perception of our emotions is going to be annoying, even if its perception is accurate. Once we get to software that is somewhat autonomous, it might have to make decisions and judgements based on circumstances, including the mood of the user. But such software is still a challenge in itself, so there’s no immediate need to sensing emotions.

Things the Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #15

Brazilians will take to the streets to protest their country hosting the world cup.

Seriously though, good on Brazil.  It seems like every country has some weakness that they give in to.  But Brazil has overcome it to show some pragmatism, asking for bread before circuses  Sure, they occasionally resort to out-of-control tactics to promote that pragmatic ideal, but it's a start.  Americans quickly abandon their minimalist government principles to build stadiums, and I couldn't imagine Canadians protesting against huge spending on hockey.

They Paved Paradise and Put Up Politics

As you might guess from the title, I'm going to compare politics to parking lots: both seem to have a supernatural ability to make people stupid. They lose what sense they already have, and back-up without looking or vote for the candidate with the nicest smile.

Of course, I don't have great confidence in people's common sense. So if political stupidity were just a matter of people failing to successfully work towards their own self-interest, I would not be disappointed. But politics is the only place where you see people actively working against their own interests, then congratulating themselves for a job well done.  A great example is this poster I saw in downtown Kitchener:

Yes, it's another in the long list of people who think that politicians will change as a result of low voter turnout.  I'm assuming that they imagine the politicians changing their ways out of a sense of personal disappointment in how few people vote.  But it's really not likely that political candidates - at a time when they are working hard for their job and their political ideology - will take time out to do something for a group that had already made it clear they will not help elect anyone. If you believe a boycott would work, ask yourself about young people: they mostly don't vote; do politicians for harder for youth concerns in a bid to entice them?  A quick look at modern-day tuition rates would indicate they don't.

I don't know if you can see it in the condensed version of this picture - I didn't see it at first - but someone has written a note on the next sign down expressing disagreement with this boycott campaign, for the same reason.  That remark uses some colourful language, but is still more politically aware than the poster.  Then again, so is the ad for strip-club beer on which it is written.

Of course a real cynic would suggest that this sign was put up by someone cleverly campaigning against pro-working-class politics, to dissuade their opponents from voting. But I doubt that explanation, again on the principle that no one would be that clever in the political arena. It wouldn't occur to them to communicate through photocopies taped to a lamppost. They'd be more likely to create BoycottTheElection.com and then wonder why they aren't reaching any poor people. Or more likely, they're busy organizing their own campaign to boycott the election on the grounds that no parties defend the interests of the rich. In short, I'm embarrassed to admit that the most likely explanation for this poster is that a fellow member of my species is actually trying to encourage their own voting bloc not to vote, thinking that it will advance their cause.

But there is one positive I can take from it: If, like me, you have a concern for the plight of the poor, and worry about the consequences elections have on them, then you can take some solace in knowing that for at least a few of them, they deserve all they get.

Mini Makeover

I thought this shirt and pants combination seemed strangely familiar, and yet also missing something.

Well I think I've figured out what it needed.

That's better.